#1 other » Bug at the front page » 12.02.2018 13:56:21

Corbeau
Replies: 0

Turn change time listing on the front page is really useful, but maybe fix it so that it doesn't look like all games are at T0 wink

#2 Re: ScenarioGame 2 » The base ruleset for the WW1 scenario? » 09.02.2018 15:29:23

When you say "test game", do you mean 3 minute timeout or...?

As for replayability, it depends. A straight WWI scenario could be replayed many times if done right. Or even with different rulesets. Unification of Germany maybe not so much because that is really a story, and repeating stories doesn't have much entertainmnet value, but WWI is straight-out slaughter competition that can be repeated many times.

But seroiusly, if we are doing historic scenarios, the techs need to be historically accurate. I still think the main problem with SG1 was the wrong tech setup.

#3 Re: LT41 » The map for LT41 + a problem with it » 08.02.2018 18:13:41

Mate, seriously, call it "Longboat".

#4 Re: LT41 » The map for LT41 + a problem with it » 08.02.2018 12:53:30

There is no need, but it's fun smile

Also, for defence, you don't need a massive army because the invader can bring in only a few units at a time.

#6 Re: LT41 » LT41 postponed a day » 07.02.2018 23:01:44

Don't you just love dyslexia? I just looked at the forum and read "LT41 postponed a day by weather" big_smile

Coincidentally, we are having a snow shower at the moment smile

#7 Re: LT41 » The map for LT41 + a problem with it » 07.02.2018 21:49:44

Vision? Movement? How about vision only 1, but a lot of movement?

#8 Re: LT41 » The Atlantic Telegraph Company » 07.02.2018 16:11:14

If you want this discussion and this topic for future games, I suggest pulling it out of the LT41 subforum.

#9 Re: LT41 » The Atlantic Telegraph Company » 06.02.2018 22:53:48

Well, this has a function with no-ally-victory games where score is important.

On the other hand, what's wrong with people generally being able to see what's going on? I don't understand the need for full secrecy. Why would you want to play in the dark?

#10 Re: LT41 » The Atlantic Telegraph Company » 06.02.2018 14:07:35

Getting embassies with tech is something I had in mind, too. I'd go with Radio, for obvious reasons. And no, I'd prefer if everyone has to research it for himself.

But a cheap Small Wonder would be ok, too, but only for the nation that builds it, not globally. People not interested in global issues? It's their problem. They don't have to build it.

#11 Re: LT42 » Adding more "extreme" tiles » 03.02.2018 19:24:54

That's because maps are ironed out in order to have a more fair game. If we had a realistic Earth-like map, then there would be climatic belts with jungle and ice.

#12 Re: LT41 » LT41 to start February 7th. Teamless, islands and more traditional » 29.01.2018 20:25:58

Just a thought... If there is a suboptimal number of players for LT41 for the next week, maybe consider making *this* game "experimental".

Because, to be honest, having started two games at the same time two months ago was a bit of a gamble and it's quite to be expected  that less people are interested in starting another one right now. The April one may see a return to the old numbers, but I'd say that this one will probably be a bit more scarce than usual.

#13 Re: LT33 » A Huge Fan of Civilization-like games » 29.01.2018 11:40:42

That said, I am really hoping that this was typed by a real person. If this is a spambot, the level of mimicing is... frightening.

BTW, Wieder, you're the admin, why not move this thread to Other.

#14 Re: LT33 » A Huge Fan of Civilization-like games » 29.01.2018 11:38:00

This is outright spam and one warning for such types is one too many. Burn the witch, I say! Burn her!

#15 Re: LT41 » LT41 to start February 7th. Teamless, islands and more traditional » 24.01.2018 21:37:57

No, no, no, you can't not make triremes obsolete. But, like I said, corvettes and DESTROYers can take the role of DESTROYing ships. Corvette paralel to frigate and Destroyer parallel to Cruisers and Battleships.

#16 Re: LT42 » The ruleset for LT42 » 24.01.2018 18:52:16

Features are listed (or, more accurately, jumbled up) here:

http://forum.freeciv.org/f/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=75385

#17 Re: LT41 » LT41 to start February 7th. Teamless, islands and more traditional » 24.01.2018 14:47:58

Now replying to Wieder: the second solution is way better. However, Frigates completely killing of city units is very unrealistic. I was toying with the idea of "shore bombardment", giving most naval units "Bombarder" flag, but that would make purely naval battles a bit odd. But I still haven't discarded the idea.

Now, I wrote a lot more in this post, but I will start another topic because the... topic... is way more general.

Here:
http://forum.freeciv.org/f/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=89866

#18 Re: LT41 » LT41 to start February 7th. Teamless, islands and more traditional » 24.01.2018 14:31:13

I'm not sure if there is a game mechanic to make the attack impossible by building an improvement.

As for river/coastal, the chains usually protected also sea ports, not only rivers. Build two well protected piers and stretch a chain between them. That's how it was usually done.

As for river cities, I don't think the thing applies to them because, effectively, a unit attacking from a trireme standing on a neighbouring river tile is actually attacking from land. City Walls apply.

#19 Re: LT41 » LT41 to start February 7th. Teamless, islands and more traditional » 24.01.2018 13:41:26

Sketlux wrote:

If you think about the Viking raids on villages, monasteries and cities I believe there were many raids where the attackers could park right in or next to the city. I got nothing against countermeasures like reducing the attack of a swordman to 3, walls or a primitive city structure against naval attacks. But taking away the naval component would not only be less realistic it would reduce much fun of the game -at least for me.

Fair enough. In that case, I'd go with "port protection" or something, a cheap (20 shields max) and early improvement that becomes obsolete with, say, Ironclad. Because Vikings could only raid smaller cities, while attacking big ones it took considerable military preparation, and they definitely didn't sail directly into the port. Besides, it would be enough to have a large chain at the entrance to the port to prevent it.

#20 Re: other » So... » 23.01.2018 23:55:45

PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE REPLYING

So, in order to get more ideas, more opinions and more experts, I coped some aspects of this thread to Freciv forum. You can find it here.

http://forum.freeciv.org/f/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=89865

Wieder, it would be extremely helpful if you would close this topic (if that is technically possible) because it is better if a discussion is lead in one place. Besides, this is a matter of relation of LT with the "outside world", so it would be good if the outside world gets a good glimpse of the ideas and their rationalisation.

#21 Re: LT41 » LT41 to start February 7th. Teamless, islands and more traditional » 23.01.2018 23:36:26

Remember the discussion about restrictinfra and why it is good for the game? I believe every argument from that discussion applies here, too. If there have been any landings directly into the city, I'm pretty sure there were less than five in 5000 years of history. I mean, successful ones. I actually think that there should be a setting that gives additional bonus if a city is attacked from the sea by land units. Would that be possible?

#22 Re: LT41 » LT41 to start February 7th. Teamless, islands and more traditional » 23.01.2018 19:02:39

Are we talking about the landing or directly attacking the enemy army *while* landing?

#23 Re: other » So... » 22.01.2018 20:47:22

Caedo, could you be more specific if you believe some of the things said by Lexxie cold be true.

My criticism may be that, regarding accepting other people's ideas about rulesets, Wieder *may* be a bit thick on the ears sometimes and there were - and will be - a number of occasions when I disagreed with him about some game aspect. But then again, when he creates the ruleset and admins a game, everything good and bad that comes out of it is his responsibiilty: if the game flops, it will be "Wieder's game" that flopped, so I completely understand why he is reluctant to let in other ideas that may mess up his concept. I would probably do the same.

However, having seen that my ideas were not met with undivided cheer, I took up the effort of creating my ruleset and offered my vision to the community and, unless there is wide dissent, the game that starts in 3 months will be "mine". Everybody is free to do the same. If someone doesn't have the knowledge, I will gladly assist. If someone doesn't have the time or is unwilling to make the effort, well, tough luck.

#24 Re: other » So... » 22.01.2018 20:32:45

Oh, just in case it isn't clear, I definitely disagree both with the direction of the comment I copied and with most of the statements made there.

The purpose was informing the community about how it is being mentioned on another semi-public channel where a related community is gathering. Not really significant, but when someone mentions me, I gladly receive all information about the mention, regardless if the mention is favourable, infavourable, true, flase, honest or dishonest. Just... it's fair to be informed.

So, not really important. Consider this the "gossip section". Basically, the same urge that made the blonde walk into a bar holding a piece of shit in her hand, showing it to everybody and saying "Look what I almost stepped into!" tongue

And this was DEFINITELY not about Wieder. I just realised that passing this comment on may have actually caused some discomfort on him and if this is the case, I genuinely apologise. The possibility didn't even occur to me. I consider that comments like these say much, much more about the person who makes them than about the person, or the community, that is addressed by it.

.
.
.
That said...
.
.
.

I *would* like the community to become a bit bigger. This is why I started the Facebook page, been pulling sleeves for months to make some sense of the front page, been asking about the minor reorganization of the forum... To no avail. Some ten LTs ago the game had 70 players. The last two have less than 30. Isn't anyone bothered by this?

#25 Re: LT42 » And now for something completely different » 22.01.2018 16:27:32

I'd go with all-out embassy once Radio is discovered. Or at least that all players who discover Radio get embassies with everyone.

As for the winning conditions, of course, not admin-monitored, but something everyone can check for themselves: wonders, best player's stats in certain demographics area (Population, Land Area etc.) Also, I believe that with embassies, the game reports which player discovered what so techs can also be monitored by everyone.

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB