#1 New Games » Long-longturn » Today 22:30:18

Replies: 0

With the progress of LT43 I have a feeling that the long-discussed long-longturn game is starting to emerge beyond the horizon. It's slower than standard LT and some conclusions can be made already. (For those who don't know, LLT would be a game that would be played through at least a year, probably more, even a few years have been mentioned.)

So, for now, my comments on LT43 that may be relevant for LLT.

1. This may sound strange, but I have a feeling Gunpowder actually came on too fast. It's not yet fully on, there are rumours that "a few" nations have it or may have it very soon. And as this go on, more an more will join in and things will accelerate. I'll make a wild guess that by T75 a significant number of people will have it. I think usually Gunpowder is discovered by T50 in normal LT games so this is a bit slower, but not much of a paradigm shift.

2. I think that full tech sharing compensates pretty much for bigger sci-box and that, generally, science progress is at a similar level with standard LT games. This may change as time progresses due to more expensive later techs, we'll see. Keep in mind that a more expensive tech means a bigger discount due to techleak wink

3. The room seems to be a bit too tight. This isn't necessarily bad, I've had (and am still having) fun suppressing our local Ghengis Khan with my allies, but it did throw us back a little bit (although, actually, not as much as I feared).

So, how does this experience serve ideas for LLT.

Tech definitely needs to be even slower than in LT43 (with caveat that we are yet to enter the Age of Expensive Tech; as it is now, the game will probably end by T200, but let's wait and see).

Also, I would be VERY MUCH in favour of "tech exchange by diplomats", so no sharing through diplomacy, but instead "stealing/transferring" it by envoys. It worked in LT40, although sometimes it depended on luck too much and all the parameters weren't completely clear. But I'd definitely go with trying to lift the "one steal per city" limitation.

The main issue may be that people won't have much to do in the first stages of the game. Also, long periods between scientific discoveries may be a bit anticlimactic. So, a few ideas regarding those.

I'd introduce some more techs and buildings. Maybe decrease the effect of the current ones so that Marketplace doesn't give you 50%, but you separate it into two improvements that give 25% each, or even better, separate the Luxury and Gold effect, each one having its building.

Of course, increasing the number of improvements shouldn't go too far because, once all impovements are built, we are left with building military units with not much else to do but go forth and use them, fun for all and no huge fallback if you get entangled in a war.

(A minor detail, but for a LLT game I'd definitely introduce another tech so that with Gunpowder you get "Hand Cannoneers" (Att: 2, Def: 2, HP: 20) and only after that a tech for Musketeers)

And now for the most important part.

With a very long game, people are going to get very bored if there isn't stuff to do. This is especially true for the first few dozen turns, while there is the primary expansion, cities are small, production is low, neighbours are very scarce and there is almost no conflict. And this will get only worse in a long and slow game.

So, my first thought about fixing it was: fill the land up with AIs so that everybody has something to bash without feeling guilty, creating bad blood or throwing other people out of the game. BUT, then I got a better idea: at the beginning, every player controls MORE nations that are actually delegated to him (or something). One is his primary, while all others have a dual purpose: for their neighbours they are cannon fodder so that there is more fun, while for the player controlling them, they are the means of annoyance and slowing down his opponent without actually destroying them.

Furthermore, this would add to the historical accuracy because the land through which ancient tribes and civilizations expanded were not empty: conquest and assimilation was a regular occurrence and I feel that there is far too little of that in LT. And, again, having people control more nations in the beginning would fix this.

Eventually, of course, a number of these auxiliary nations would vanish, Primary nations would expand their territory and things would become more compact.

But maybe this approach requires a test game? How about it? Four nations per player, 150 land tiles per nation, see where it gets us?

#2 Re: How to play the game » Question about units » 21.05.2018 22:40:42

1. When you move a caravan into a city that is far enough (depending on the ruleset), a "trade route" is established and from that moment on, both cities receive an amount of trade every turn. It is automatic, you just need to get a caravan to a suitable city. However, in most or almost all LT games this is disabled so caravans are ONLY used to help build wonders.

2. Leonardo works automatically. Every turn, at the beginning, you will get a notification that units have been upgraded.

#3 Re: LT44 » The start date of LT44 postponed 2 weeks and is now Jun 12th (2018 : ) » 21.05.2018 12:19:53

Wait, confirmations were possible and are now again not possible?

#4 Re: How to play the game » How to create a super city » 20.05.2018 20:01:18

I'm not sure irrigating an irriga(ta?)ble tile gets any benefit, as tiles are irrigated automaticly on a city centre ile, just as with roads. However, if you build a city on forest, then the tile gives you only one food and if you clear the forest, then it acts like an irrigated plains.

#5 Re: LT44 » Ruleset » 20.05.2018 19:59:32

Lord_P wrote:

I think it might be interesting to have higher building upkeep costs (Maybe compensate with more free unit upkeep, so its better to create units and do stuff with them than just develop cities) and even buildings that you have to have before a city can build certain things. Currently it never seems to be a problem for upkeep costs to just build all the buildings available, theres no need to choose between affording building A or B. Having to specialise and keep cities lean, or afford huge costs, would add to the strategy and be an increasing drain on players with loads of cities.

Actually, I think quite the opposite: keep building costs as they are, but drastically increase unit upkeep costs. After all, it makes absolutely no sense that upkeep for an Armour unit costs exactly the same as upkeep for the Warriors unit.

...which is why I did exactly that in my ruleset...

#6 Re: LT44 » Ruleset » 17.05.2018 09:57:49

Hm, yes, I'm afraid this argument cancels everything. We want the game to be playable and competitive and the players who are ahead to be catchable.

I'm still trying to figure out to make larger empires a bit more unstable, but manageable if you do the right thing and spend resources.

#7 Re: LT44 » Ruleset » 11.05.2018 13:30:02

Leonardo as it is now is valuable. Leonardo that increases this particular effect for 50, not so much. It only gets thing working somewhat faster, but you don't *need* it. Yes, if your goal is to become a military superpower, it may come in handy, but it's not crucial.

On the other hand, maybe that's it. Not crucial, but handy, giving you a choice to not build it and not cripple yourself because of it.

As for production on ocean tiles, I'd go with buoys and somewhere after electricity. Not a wonder, wonders are nation-wide projects, and if you tie a wonder to sea production, it's too binary, either "yes" or "no". With buoys, it's "you get what you pay for".

Additional idea: is it possible to build an improvement that upgrades X (or all) units in that city? So you have to drag them there and then back? Not a wonder so that there can be more of them, but make it fairly expensive, as "training centres".

Maybe make a series of them, like Barracks, and do what I did with Manufaktur + Factory: if there is an old version present, build the new version with a discount.

#8 Re: LT44 » Ruleset » 10.05.2018 21:16:56

Two upgrades for free and +1 with a wonder is a too small difference. I wouldn't be interested in building it even if it costs 100 shields.

#9 Re: LT44 » Ruleset » 07.05.2018 21:13:33

wieder wrote:

If the players wouldn't have Magellan's, he or she could build some other similar wonder. One that would give 2 extra moves and maybe cost the same as the Magellan's costs now. This new small wonder would become available maybe with steam. That wouldn't make one player too powerful but would still give a nice advantage. One extra move can really be handy if you calculate how far away someone can attack. I can remember many times when it has been one tile short... smile

I'd go with a smaller bonus for the Small Wonder. At most 1/2 of the bonus of the Great Wonder, probably less.

Also, another change, not completely related to this. Yes, it is annoying to have Warriors and Phalanx in the modern age. Let's have one unit per turn upgrade automatically, no prerequisite (or a standard prerequisite such as Invention), and have Leonardo (unique) upgrade two per turn, forever, no cutoff tech.

#10 Re: LT44 » Ruleset » 07.05.2018 21:00:54

Still, need to make sure that the loss of the race isn't devastating for someone if he can't switch to another useful wonder. Losing 300 shields early in the game can mean a disaster.

Basically, could do it in a non-mechanical way; experienced players will know this already, but when you see someone new starting to build a wonder, it is everybody's duty to scream "don't build it directly, ALWAYS use caravans!"

#11 Re: LT44 » Ruleset » 05.05.2018 12:45:28

Because the classic Civ was a single-player game where you played against computer and basically had one opponent consisting of many parts (nations). The goal was to reach the end and succeed, there were only two possible outcomes, you win or you lose. World Wonders were only the steps on the path, you raced against the computer in building them and you had a fair chance of getting some built.

In an all-human multiplayer environment, unique World Wonders are an exception,if you're lucky you manage to build one, maybe two, three if you're VERY lucky (or have crappy opponents). Their role is reduced to mere candy that, if you don't manage to build (very likely), you have to manage without (most of the time). So, to give more importance to them, and also to speed up the game a bit, most of them were made available to all players.

Also, keeping all of them unique is detrimental to players who have invested huge amount of resources and then someone built them just before you. Such a blow can be crippling and could basically throw the player out of the game.

That said...

...while writing this, I see a problem. They are expensive, but also give very significant bonuses which makes not building them automatically losing strategy (at least if you're playing against people who are roughly equal to you). In other words, you are practically forced to build them. Which is always bad. Not sure how to solve this problem.

#12 Re: LT44 » Techs for LT44 » 04.05.2018 22:58:13

Then set it to 1%. The price of moving the national bank treasury was always a negligible portion of the treasury itself.

#13 Re: LT44 » Techs for LT44 » 03.05.2018 13:22:33

Switching production is a material action. After you are halfway done constructing a bridge, you can't just change your mind and make it an airport. Production is work in a certain direction. So is science.

Transferring funds or knowledge isn't. It's just moving information from one place to another. Nothing is lost.

Imposing tax - apart from being unrealistic - also decreases flexibility making it difficult or costly to change your path, making things more monotonous.

#14 Re: LT44 » Techs for LT44 » 02.05.2018 20:49:21

Of course 9 players giving the 10th player all their money is a winning strategy. As is 7 players giving 3 players all their money. Or is it 6:4? Or maybe 8:2? Or maybe each team has to find its balance depending on the players and their experience and skills. Adding tax doesn't contribute to that, it actually creates friction that makes movement difficult.

And, again, why is this a bad thing?

#15 Re: LT44 » Techs for LT44 » 02.05.2018 17:54:26

About "Vassal states", it can be done by delegation. The vassal player delegates to his "lord" so that the "lord" can enter his nation and do whatever he pleases "just in case" and also has full information about the vassal state, but the vassal player keeps playing.

About "giving all excess money", I wouldn't want my vassals to be left without money. I'd want them to develop and contribute their material and intellectual wealth to my empire, and for this they need money.

#16 Re: LT44 » Techs for LT44 » 02.05.2018 05:57:53

wieder wrote:

The gold penalty has been there to avoid situations where one player can be boosted for getting some crucial techs before the other team.

Why should this be avoided?

And also to avoid situations where gold is moved to safety while not used.

So, to sum up: sending money away in order to prevent loss when your city is captured is bad and should be artificially penalised, but also hoarding more money in order to make your cities more expensive to bribe is also bad and should be artificially penalised.

Why? Both are valid strategies, both have inherent strong penalties and if you choose the wrong one for the wrong situation, you will suffer. So, decision making which is what this game - or, basically, any game - should be about. And you want to prevent this. Why?

LT43 has a 40% tech cost and the full tech tree costs about 500 000 bulbs compared to 66 000 bulbs in LT41 with 100% tech cost.

That's 40% research speed and 250% tech cost.

Anyway, I agree about pooled research. That vs. shared tech is basically has the same effect, and the difference is only a matter of convenience with "shit happens" events possible in both cases: in team pooled research you can have one player screwing up the whole team, while in shared techs you can have miscommunication and two players discovering the same tech in the same turn, and only requires coordination to avoid.

As for experiences from LT43, I agree with what JW said.

#17 Re: LT44 » Techs for LT44 » 29.04.2018 20:18:21

I'm fine with this, but I hear there are others who dislike it.

#18 Re: LT44 » Techs for LT44 » 26.04.2018 23:42:34

I'm not sure it's possible to add polling for techs without digging DEEP into the code.

Yes, it would be great to have pooled research with only a few people - or one, the "tech officer" - have control over techs, but this is simply not the case.

#19 Re: LT43 » 3 nations for new players on LT43 » 26.04.2018 23:40:13

There are 6 nations idle between 5 and 30 turns, but it's questionable how much use you'll be able to get from them, land being cramped and idlers usualy being first to be wiped off. But if you just want to have a look and prepare for the next game, then by all means do drop in.

Wieder, your move smile

#20 Re: How to play the game » Some general advice for Longturn (and otherwise) beginners » 25.04.2018 11:00:40

Newbie tip: When city grows, all excess food is wasted. You may want to micromanage a bit to prevent that and get other stuff on that one or two turns.

The same does *not* happen with production, gold and bulbs. They accumulate and are passed on to the next turn.

At the start of the game, always check units (in Help). Most of the time in LT, there is the Big Land class (Catapults and successors, often Chariots) that can't enter and/or attack mountains, board Triremes etc.

What to check:
- can a Catapult enter all terrain
- can a Catapult attack non-native terrain (the one it can't enter; note: maybe Catapult can attack ships at sea)
- which exact units can board Triremes and Caravels
- which units can attack directly from boats (Swordsmen, Musketeers...)
- can Triremes sail on rivers

#21 Re: New Games » Terrain limiting the moves for some units » 25.04.2018 10:15:33

Oh... I was sure that ZOC flag does exactly that... So, in short, it turns out that all units exert Zones of Control - even the non-military ones - and that it's hard-coded... Weird.

#22 Re: LT44 » Post here suggestions about the new game » 25.04.2018 10:08:02

wieder wrote:

For games without tech trade or pooled research the gold tax is also there to prevent player boosting. It's a complex thing and there are lots of reason why it has been there.

if you mean the strategy where one player takes over and plays for the whole team, then yes, that is an utterly stupid thing to do and this is why I think team games should enable tech trade.

For having lots of gold there is a reason for that too. It will make inciting cities much more expensive.

So now it's good to have more gold and bad to send it away? So make up your mind, are people going to send their money away to prevent it being robbed if their cities are conquered or keep it with themselves in order to prevent their cities being incited?

#23 LT44 » Team selection » 25.04.2018 09:17:36

Replies: 1

So far there are 12 players signed up, hopefully there will be more, but even if not, this is a nice number for a team game.

I propose that teams are assembled by two best players who will be playing the game: each player chooses players for his team one by one alternately.

At the moment the only existing ranking is LT table and the best two players there signed up for LT44 are Wieder and Cgalik.

The selection would happen immediately after signups are closed. If both selectors find themselves online at the same time, it would probably take less than ten minutes.

#24 Re: LT44 » Post here suggestions about the new game » 25.04.2018 09:04:20

About tech switch, I'm leaning towards 50%, but less is fine, too. But I'd say 20% is a minimum.

My policy: when in doubt, check reality. In reality you need some serious resource reshuffle to switch research goals mid-term. If you see Civilization as a game of chess, I guess anything goes and in that case, pretty please, set up polls. I see it as a simulation of reality. But others may disagree. However, until someone else joins the discussion, I guess this is all pretty academic.

As for tax, this is a pattern. in order to stop one specific behaviour, you put a penalty that affects a whole set of other behaviours. Money transfers are useful for helping weaker players, rush-building something, division of labour where some players specialise for money and so on. And you penalise all this because of one very mild abuse. I don't think many people keep large sums of money, it's actually a better strategy to invest it in buildings and keep a reasonable reserve. So you are preventing potential "abuse" for only one type of players. Others are not really affected. Also, if I'm not online the whole time, I won't really rely on immediate transfers, I'll keep a reasonable reserve, but if someone is willing to camp online the whole day only to avoid a few dozen coins from being lost, let him have it.

Bottom line: cities aren't conquered all the time, and when they are, only in a portion of cases is the money loss significant, and only in a portion of those cases there is possible "abuse". And for this, you are putting a penalty of absolutely all transactions, ever, anywhere? Not a good game design.

#25 Re: New Games » Terrain limiting the moves for some units » 25.04.2018 08:51:52

I don't understand. I thought chariot is unable to attack no-road mountain regardless of ZoC.

As for ZoC, non-military units (Explorers, Settlers, Workers, Engineers, Diplomats, Spies... maybe I missed some) should not impose it. It was like that in some versions, maybe even previous LTs. I'm surprised that this is now on.

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB