Hi - sorry for delay have been busy the last two weeks.
Have just tested my ruleset - it works.
The game will be fast. - 75 turns to complete the tech tree and 8 turns for the spaceship to travel.
If we start soon then the game will be finished before the summer holidays.
Will fully discuss the ruleset tomorrow.
According to freeciv-dev the release of 2.5 will be in a few weeks. I would like to start this game a week or two after that.
Attempt to release 2.5.0-RC1 next weekend (21/22 Feb).
Earliest possible 2.5.0 is 28 Feb. (So technically we could hit
advertised February release, but March is more likely.)
I would love to play such game. However - I'm afraid that 7 cities is too small economy to build advanced army ....
Those 7 cities would have to provide an economy to build both a spaceship and an advanced army. Assuming we set rapturedelay to 1 and increase the city radius then it should easily be possible to get size 60+ cities with all improvements. Each city like this should have the capacity to build 3 good units each turn.
It is not intended to be an intense game which takes hours each turn to micromanage. Having 100s of units to fight with each turn takes way too long. Similarly micromanaging dozens of cities in the end game is overly time consuming. I think spies should only be available at the very end of the game because defending against the threat of city poisoning or sabotage is also too time consuming.
I am still burnt out from the intensity of LT32 and am looking forward to a game where you only need to play for 5 minutes each day but can still look forward to being in the thick of the action at the end.
From an earlier thread -
Instead of the usual experimental game, perhaps we can have a quick and rapid scenario game, where each player gets 7 settlers and cannot build more. Science would be cut short accordingly. Note that having 7 and not 4 settlers will greatly increase game speed. City radius can be increased further, to make cities even more valuable. Defences of cities of size greater than 16 can be increased.
I am happy to put together such a ruleset and admin a small scenario game like this. I intend this to be fast ~ 3 or 4 months, and to have a spaceship win condition, no teams or big alliances. No cities can be captured / incited . just destroyed. Every player get 1 free tech each turn regardless of science. No other method of getting tech.
The aim is to quickly go through the entire tech tree and test the latter stage military units. Everyone gets to the end of the tech tree at the same turn, everyone launches a spaceship and then all hell breaks loose as everyone tries to destroy each others cities before any spaceship lands.
Is anyone interested?
I love massive warriors battles.
Me too! I really hate the idea that warriors might become noveteran.
The biggest reason LT32 lasted 230 turns is restrictinfra was ON.
Not really. restrictinfra really only effects the early and middle part of the game.
In LT32 science was really slow, so we never finished the tech tree.
LT32 lasted over 230 turns and I personally think that was way too many turns.
I liked LT32. It had the best settings I have played. I wouldn't play another like it for a long time though.
Instead I think most games should be deliberately made shorter than this.
I suggest 120 turns could be an aimed for length.
I think shorter, more frequent, more varied games are something longturn should aim for.
Nice map - I browsed it briefly looking for 'star' units. I spotted 3 'star' engineers but no others.
Can someone confirm if this is correct.
If true I would lower the chance to promote workers/engineers once more to reflect how hard it is to get 'stars' of other unit types.
But still members of the team are placed together?
Depends on what you mean by together? The server places team mates close to each other, yes. But sometimes not on the same island.
In LT15 a team game using freeciv 2.1 Kryon playing his first game was separated from his team.
My team was together as a group of five on an island. Kryon was there too, a short distance from his teammates who were all on the main continent a few tiles away.
Not surprisingly Kryon didn't win his first game.
Random placement is definitely not fair but it is occasionally amusing.
Mmm2 - I am leaning towards your idea of completely random small teams for this game. (random unknown map, random placement, random teams)
- its easier to set up,
- this game is potentially a test game for 2.5 so may run into problems,
- I don't see many experienced players wanting to be captains,
- random games are probably much quicker
- and its fun to try something new.
I offer to admin LT36 as a non-random team game. (known map, chosen placement, selected teams)
I really like the idea of teams so that I have someone to learn from, but idlers made LT32 not so nice; some team suffered from idlers, while others benefited by delegating for their idlers. I cannot think of a way around this which is not more complicated than one of the point system for limiting allaince size, hence I vote for a teamless game.
I agree this is an important issue that needs fixing, but I can think of an easy (temporary!) fix. Allow a person who is not playing complete control to remove idlers and rearrange teams if they become unbalanced. The issue of idlers really only effects team games that have balanced teams, (the games I prefer). It doesn't really matter about idlers with random teams or self-chosen teams.
As I will not play a team game, i think i can make quite nice pregame for team leaders to pick their locations.
For eg. it will not be map reveal but i will only make a screen with locations without terian and ocean.
Leaders will know where are the picking spots are but they will not know what resources and terian is there.
And it will be not known for everyone where is everyone else except team leaders will know where they put his teammates.
I know this is less understadable but i will write whole system in best easy way to get it.
Thanks Edrim. I am interested in trying this.
... picking the locations is another game and a good player doing the picking can really get some serious advantage.
True, but why is that a bad thing. Isn't this supposed to be a strategy game.
Example - In LT32 Kryon's team had a terrible time because they had a bad starting position. It was not random.
Afterwards Kryon had this to say
Our team had the worst starting locations. We were split into 4 separate locations and that made it really hard for us to survive. And as the team leader, I blame mostly myself for this
Is it really a better game if the losing team has a terrible time because they randomly had a bad starting position.
Example after LT34 finishes the losing team states
Our team had the worst starting locations. We were split into 4 separate locations and that made it really hard for us to survive. And as the team leader, I blame Wieder for choosing random starting locations
I just playtested the setting Not_Tech_Source. It does not work as stated. You can transfer tech by diplomacy. It just prevents tech being stolen, or taken when a city is conquered. This is a nice setting if we play with teams without pooled research and diplomacy only within the team. In a normal game tech trading must be turned off as well if this setting is to work.
The bad news is Freeciv2.5-beta2 gtk is still very buggy and that the qt client still isn't finished. So the February 2015 deadline for release of 2.5 may be hopeful.
But lets be optimistic and assume we will play with 2.5.
I will put up a patch for the maglev option. This option gives x3 moves to road, x9 to rail and infinite to maglev (with superconductor).
Big Land units and Merchant units cannot travel on maglev, they use the rails underneath.
The graphics for maglev exist in amplio2 but not in trident as yet. Should be soon though because the graphic is trivial.
Maglev graphic is just rails painted blue.
Another simple patch for 2,5 that disallows any tech exchange is to set each player as Not_Tech_Source
I think a better solution to the Leonardo wonder trick - (building lots of vet warriors to be upgraded later to musketeers)
; Number of veteran levels lost when auto-upgrading a unit
autoupgrade_veteran_loss = 1
It means all upgrades by the wonder will lose 1 veteran level. But this is a good thing because it creates a difference - pay for the upgrade in a city and keep the promotion or - get a free upgrade anywhere but lose the promotion.
As I said just above - Forum is for discussion. Github is for code.
I fixed the noveteran status for warriors on github because it was broken.
I didn't add this change and having just tested it I really don't like it.
It was added to prevent an exploit (building lots of vet warriors to be upgraded later to musketeers) but this solution removes the option of using vet warriors to fight in the early game. This is a much more serious negative than the trivial upgrade exploit.
And also if they are able to test out 2.5x in LTex and then use it in LT34, it's going to be massively different game.
In fact the ltex25 ruleset is intended to be the same as the recent longturn games. The one new feature which I want to include is finite moves on rails. I think this will help rather than hinder the novice players.
Here's a hint for beginners. Longturn games are slightly different each time mostly because there is a different set of players and starting conditions.
What works best in one game is not necessarily the best for the next.
In LT31 people thought communism was the best and that democracy was too hard.
In LT32 the defensive use of diplomats/spies was more important than the offensive.
Changing the balance of the game because of one example eg LT33 is risky.
In Lt32 the two naval units extensively used by the winning team were transports and submarines. I did not consider them overpriced. I do not think extending their range is a good idea.
The use of aircraft was far less but was not zero.
I think creating a greater variety of games is a good thing. I prefer the single big land continent but if others want a big ocean then go for it.