#1 Re: LT45 » Tech stealing, let's hear opinions » Yesterday 19:13:29

wieder wrote:

I should have said that tech trading with units is bad if the plan is to create a game where there is no tech trading. It wouldn't be bad if the idea would be creating a game where tech trading between the teams would be allowed.


#2 Re: LT45 » Tech stealing, let's hear opinions » Yesterday 16:42:30

wieder wrote:

Tech trading is bad since it allows two or more teams to combine the research effort while the others may not be able to do that because of several reasons.

Why would that be?

This is a speculation. You are presuming a very specific game flow and limiting possibilities.

The game is also set up so that it will not end too fast if there is no tech trading.

This is a matter of putting one number into server settings.

#3 Re: LT45 » Tech stealing, let's hear opinions » Yesterday 15:56:00

Yes, I understand that. But why is this bad?

#4 Re: LT45 » Tech stealing, let's hear opinions » Yesterday 13:29:59

cgalik wrote:

That is not the way it should be. 0% is best.


#5 Re: LT45 » Tech stealing, let's hear opinions » 16.09.2018 21:40:18

Actually, I see this as a valid method for tech trading. Not free and much easier with some level of cooperation than if it's hostile. Just the way it should be.

#6 Re: LT45 » Can team-mates trade cities? » 16.09.2018 06:44:48

So, basically, a patch that delays city takeover for, say, 24 hours or 1 or 2 turns, would pretty much solve the problem?

#7 Re: LT45 » Can team-mates trade cities? » 15.09.2018 20:09:18

Why is swapping cities in order to protečt techs bad?

#8 Re: LT42 » Testing the ruleset: Strategy notes » 13.09.2018 15:00:21

A sidenote: after fixing a bug in the ruleset, bulbs jumped to 38. Turn 47. Tech upkeep still 0.

#9 Re: LT45 » Please list players who you think might need a 2nd confirmation mail » 10.09.2018 14:26:12

I thought people were supposed to say "hello" just in case? Last team game with standard confirmations didn't end well...

#10 Re: LT45 » Please list players who you think might need a 2nd confirmation mail » 10.09.2018 13:40:03

shoter wrote:

I need to confirm again hmm?
And I again have no email?

Meh :V

Multiple confirmation is needed because a team game can be seriously crippled if players don't show up.

And... I guess you should know best if you have an email or not...

#11 Re: LT42 » Testing the ruleset: Strategy notes » 09.09.2018 12:01:10

I'll have a look, but I think this would be near impossible because every time the city receives population from smaller cities, its food counter is reset. I don't have a granary there yet so it resets to zero every time, I presume with granary the food will drop to the granary level.  But it seems that it is receiving population as soon as any of its nearby "satellite" cities grows to 2, the population moves immediately. This may even cause problems, but it actually makes much more sense: it could prevent players from considering cities just as military forts that can be built easily for military purposes.

Anyway, here is the progress report for now:

Turn 40

- 16 cities
- Government just switched to Monarchy
- Sci: 70% (15 bulbs), Tax: 30% (income: 7, cost: 4, net: 3)
- techs: Monarchy, Trade, Currency, CoL, full 1st column except Horsemen and Warrior Code.
- Capital size: 10 (at least 4 due to immigration, probably more)
- capital: trade 7/8, production 6/10

Cities and corruption
Size - distance from capital: x+y - trade net/full
4 - 5+2 - 1/5
3 - 8+0 (Temple) - 5/7
5 - 11+1 - 0/5

So, corruption is still large, but it seems even the first building reduces it significantly which doesn't add up. I'll have to check what's happening.

#12 Re: LT42 » Testing the ruleset: Strategy notes » 07.09.2018 21:14:20

Documenting something that probably few people experienced: at one moment (at TC), a message said: "Citizens of X have moved to Y". Y is the capital, was size 7, now size 8, X was 3 tiles away and size 2, now size 1.

Also, a bit later: "Citizens of Z are thinking about migrating to Y for a better life."

Y is the same capital, size 8 and no aquaduct, which presumably stopped the migration.

#13 LT42 » Testing the ruleset: Strategy notes » 07.09.2018 15:07:42

Replies: 4

Since this is a completely new ruleset/paradigm, I'll be writing some notes as I continue testing. You can consider them strategy tips or just thoughts about how gameplay may be different here. The (almost) complete ruleset can always be found here (unless I forgot to update to the latest-latest version).

(Temporary note: I messed up some stuff with irrigating swamps, will be corrected in the final version, but don't want to change it while I'm testing due to savegame sanity checks. The current effect is: when you irrigate swamp, it will give 3 food, and road gives 1 trade. To turn swamp into grassland, use mining. Again, this will be back to usual/normal in the final version. Feel free to remind me lest I forget.)

Tip 1: Keep the empire small in the beginning

- under Despotism corruption is +5% per tile away from capital (base: 25%); officially, it's 100% 15 tiles away; in effect, a bit sooner due to rounding down
- various buildings decrease corruption, starting from Temples

- minimum distance between cities is 1
- no happiness penalty due to number of cities
- extremely small initial city radius (only 4 neighbouring tiles, considering to increase it to 8)
- spontaneous migration is ON, still checking how it actually affects the game

Size-1 city 3+1 tiles away from the capital has 1/2 trade.
Size-2 city 5+2 tiles from the capital has 1/3 trade.
Size-4 city 11+1 tiles away from the city has 0/5 trade.
(BTW, how is the distance calculated? Pythagoras or x+y? I assume Pythagoras but I left it like this just-in-case.)

At first, cities even a bit further from the capital will contribute very little to overall Trade (sci and tax) so their only use will be establish outposts for the purpose of occupying faraway land AND increasing production (waste does not depend on distance from capital). Maybe a good strategy is to do some limited smallpoxing (build "villages" that will later be assimilated into big cities) and, after the sane corruption limit is reached, start building upwards (improvements) to decrease it, and also get into Monarchy (less corruption per distance).

#14 Re: LT45 » LT45 is postponed until September 20th » 07.09.2018 09:01:56

wieder wrote:

We are trying to figure out something that would allow us to avoid similar delays in the future.

Like... giving access to more people, at least one?

How many years have passed since I first suggested this?

#16 Re: LT44 » Archers vanish with Gunpowder. » 02.09.2018 13:37:17

Erm... Yes, unload it first, attack, reload it without moving. Unless I'm wrong, loading is possible even with 0 moves left.

Isn't it?

#17 Re: LT44 » Archers vanish with Gunpowder. » 02.09.2018 10:49:26

Oh, trireme recon is valid. Triremes can move through rivers, so bring an archer on a trireme, attack, load back, move trireme. Still, needs specific terrain - city next to a river tile - and is perfectly realistic and eligible.

#18 Re: LT44 » Archers vanish with Gunpowder. » 02.09.2018 08:24:30

Well, compared to diplomats, partial risk for partial information. Seems legit.

Also, keeping secret the number of units in a city is an illusion and doesn't really make sense. You can choose to think that it does, it's a computer game after all, you can choose anything you want. But there is more reason for not being able to keep it a secret.

Yes, it's a big change from what people got used to over the years, and that's the main problem. It's hard to adapt to a big change. But then, again, it can be argued  that it is a change for the better.

#20 Re: other » Important game engine change needs user input » 01.09.2018 16:18:34

That is effectively a semi-bug. I think the wisest thing to do would be a two-step TC:

1. All resource gain/loss is calculated, possibly resulting in numbers like 12/10
2. Then and only then change happens: city growth/shrinking, production end etc., followed by adjusting numbers, 12/10 becoming 2/10 etc.

With this it would be irrelevant if workers are arranged automatically because the next production happens next turn anyway.

#21 Re: LT44 » Archers vanish with Gunpowder. » 01.09.2018 09:46:58

Well, giving them the Bombarder flag and not giving it to no other unit was a "compromise" that basically broke common sense. For the record, Iw as against it smile

#22 Re: LT44 » Quitting game » 27.08.2018 15:14:15

The post before mine, now deleted.

#24 Re: LT45 » Team Selection » 26.08.2018 21:46:00

... and then there is diplomacy big_smile

#25 Re: LT46 » The code patches for LT46 » 26.08.2018 21:11:19

wieder wrote:

This is actually a list of stuff we have and it's a reminder to me and others who might be interested. It will be translated to less technical English at a later time smile

Understood. Thanks.

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB