#1 Re: ScenarioGame 1 » Suggestions for the next Ruleset. » 14.10.2017 12:58:42

I agree with 1) and 2) and 4). 3) doesnt border me, those 2 mp are annoyingly slow! So veterancy helps!

Big problem of this scenario is tech trading. Since I havent traded one single tech in LT38 I thought it woudnt happen here. But its simply catapultating the game forward to my discontent and we are moving too fast towards steel. At this rate I would suggest not building all those wonders and just end it the conventional way.
Also, you can unrestrictedly form alliances. Not a good thing. Before someone says Im a hippocrat, I took advantage of all those things but it doesnt mean I like it.

#2 Re: LT39 » Shall we postpone LT39? » 14.10.2017 12:49:07

I agree. Maybe by 2 weeks at least?

#3 Re: ScenarioGame 2 » Plans for the second scenario game » 01.10.2017 22:02:39

It was meant technologically. The East Coast of North America is already included in this scenario. This scenario is already big. It even goes to the Kaspian Sea! It was meant more as an alternative history where the war doesnt simply stop after 4 years but goes on...

#4 Re: ScenarioGame 2 » Plans for the second scenario game » 01.10.2017 19:44:47

How many turns would sciencebox 500 equal if the country isnt severely damaged? I personally have no problem to go from WWI to WWII after 30-60 turns.

#5 Re: ScenarioGame 2 » Plans for the second scenario game » 01.10.2017 12:36:31

Well, when I think of WWI  a lot of things come into my mind:

-Zeppelin bombing;  no grafics (although I tried a little http://forum.freeciv.org/f/viewtopic.ph … 0&start=10)
-Tanks, though no Mark I ...
-submarines, we already have them

Here it gets maybe interesting

-Shock troops like the Arditi or the Sturmtruppen
-Poison Gas
-Flamethrowers
-Unrestricted submarine warfare
-Haber–Bosch process
-synchronization gear

I don't know the capabilities and restrictions of longturn but could be included as inventions?

Giving:

-shock troop tactics: bonus for infantry (and maybe artillery) when attacking fortresses? (same with flamethrowers)
-Poison gas: make artillery stronger
-Flamethrower: make infantry stronger when attacking fortified positions
-Unrestricted submarine warfare: make sub stronger
-Haber–Bosch process: reducing the cost of artillery
-synchronization gear: make figthers stronger

These are small inventions but they could be cheap an optional tech that end in dead lock in the tech tree.

In terms of units, what are the restrictions of my imagination?

#6 Re: ScenarioGame 2 » Plans for the second scenario game » 30.09.2017 12:19:29

For a scenario game like this I would like science to be turned off entirely.

Disagree. For game reasons and for realism reasons. You need more options other than military tactics or productivity increase. But it has to be a very costly and long research process. Something that after 20-50 rounds brings some swing into the battle or deadlock, something you can work on your backyard.
Also, WWI made huge technical improvements between cavalry attacks in 1914 and tank appearances to then end to the end of the war. It would be historically incorrect not to depict the development.

I would also like city growth and settlers to be removed.

The big players will have enough cities, so why forbid something only small nations would use. Not dogmatic on that matter but here I would like to hear more opinions. In the East the map gets depopulated, here the nations would benefit without hurting the main game.

Each of these 6 countries should have a king unit, that cannot move.

Paris is too close to the front! Meanwhile Berlin is too far away. Also, imagine France being kicked out of the game after a couple of turns although it retained most of its cities. Its not a good idea.

Start with a phony war - 16 turns of cease fire - no fighting allowed. Time to position your troops and plan.
Revolution length is set to the maximum. Break the ceasefire and your government falls. Then 20 turns of anarchy.

Sorry, but Im not waiting two weeks to attack someone. The default governments are for most nations Republic or Monarchy. Not very efficient governments, specially since you have many cities. I think with the deficit you start and the bad government you are punished enough. Then everybody can switch and depending on their empire size it will take longer or shorter but not that long...

Sorry for not giving more positive opinions about your suggestions but I see more dangers than benefits but Im still open for ideas.

#7 Re: ScenarioGame 2 » Plans for the second scenario game » 30.09.2017 10:57:45

Would it be possible to introduce destruction of city improvements? Enabling by that strategic bombardment by bombers.

#8 Re: ScenarioGame 2 » Plans for the second scenario game » 30.09.2017 10:50:01

Yeah, WWI sounds great! Best thing I dont have much to do about it :-) I updated the version in 2016 massively.

You can find the version here with a list of changes:

http://forum.freeciv.org/f/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=1994

For others scenarios you can check out this list:

http://forum.freeciv.org/f/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=809

There WWI has 665 downloads!

A team game sounds great. The political/miliatry constellation I set would be the one of 1900. Triple Alliance against the Entente cordiale wich is a little bit different to the constellation we have in 1915... But it would leave a few countries that can choose their side for players who are undecided what to opt for. Also I think the consellation of 1900 is much more balanced. (Italy is part of the Triple Alliance/Central powers, Turkey is not in)
.
But I have to warn every player that expects a fair and balanced game. It wont be! It will be a role game with weaker and stronger nations. The neutrals can choose what is better for them, joining one of the big blocks or form the moribund third party!

A feature is also that people with little time can also choose middle/small size nations although I strongly recommend to give the main nations to better players for balance reasons...

There are also some micro nations that can probably be played by only one player.

But I can already promise a geografically complex game with many fronts and theaters, submarine warfare and so on...

Is it possible to limit the selectable nations?

#9 Re: ScenarioGame 1 » The test for SG1 has been restarted » 26.09.2017 16:24:41

I agree but dont know if it is still possible or if wieder has already enough of this buggy scenario. :-) Its been a lot of work for him,  probably we just have to swallow the pill but remember it for the next time.

#10 Re: ScenarioGame 1 » The test for SG1 has been restarted » 26.09.2017 14:30:15

2) Back then I just took the default Britain scenario. Didnt know it would influence it...

#11 Re: ScenarioGame 1 » The test for SG1 has been restarted » 25.09.2017 20:15:26

Ive asked wieder to just rotate the players. I just hope nobody took a screenshot and that everybody has the same bad memory as I do.  Otherwise just take Google maps, its a rough guide, no secret where things should be.

I made the scenario but I still prefer to explore.

#12 Re: ScenarioGame 1 » The test for SG1 has been restarted » 24.09.2017 14:13:20

Nice! Maybe we can extend the first turn and synchronize it with LT38?

#13 Re: ScenarioGame 1 » SG1 test game restarted » 24.09.2017 09:44:03

Yeah, this game is already different, if its over after 2 months its ok. It is faster paced since you already have the first column of tech and a city with a library. Thats what scenarios are for. Fast beginning, quick ending no long building up but lets see how this developes. Its also an experiment. Thanks for testing and thank you wieder for all the trouble you've been through to make this possible.

#15 Re: ScenarioGame 1 » SG1 to start later this week » 21.09.2017 16:21:34

I just turned on the game to run a simulation. It is not my intention to have an ai in this game.

#16 Re: ScenarioGame 1 » Confused » 21.09.2017 07:23:52

Hi,

are you talking about freeciv in general or longturn?

If you mean longturn the thing is, the process to build up a game here at longturn in general is rather complicated and demands therefore commitment to play, specially since an idler can disbalance the game heavily.

Now in this scenario-game (SG1) the situation is even more complicated since we "animated" the scenario and coudnt know until the end of the registrations how many people would join thus the delay by a week. It was mentioned in the forum.

Adding a player simply to the map is not possible but if after a few turns a player doesnt show up you can possibly replace him.

I hope I could help.

#17 Re: ScenarioGame 1 » The citymindist for SG1? » 20.09.2017 13:40:31

Hm, I dont like the idea of revealing the map. Can I not put unreachable tiles around everyone location for testing reasons and then use the the map without unreach...? So everyone would be able to see his locations test around his city but not be able to explore and we could still see if something is missing/not working?

#18 Re: ScenarioGame 1 » Winning or ending the first Scenario Game? » 10.09.2017 09:28:38

http://forum.freeciv.org/f/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=809

Chose your winner!

At first glance many nations dont look balanced but if you take geografy and alliances into account things look more balanced. Take a look at my WWI scenario! Maybe you will like. I made also a spin-off scenario about the Russian Revolution. In any case it could work as a could template.

#19 Re: ScenarioGame 1 » Winning or ending the first Scenario Game? » 06.09.2017 14:38:46

Yeah, I proposed many scenarios but almost nobody replied so we went with this one...

#20 Re: LT39 » Any changes you would like to see for a more traditional game? » 05.09.2017 14:13:26

Is the Amplio and trident grafic for the steamer enough? (http://forum.freeciv.org/f/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=84630)

If I ask for something similar for Zeppelins, is that enough? Worste case, could we simply download a unit and add it manually?

#21 Re: ScenarioGame 1 » Winning or ending the first Scenario Game? » 05.09.2017 13:30:19

Well, what techs are available? Are we using only the 19th century techs? If yes, science should be slowed down tenfold and end with, I don't know, electricity?

Sorry about that, but I had never configured the cities since it appeared to me too unbalanced between the states (some are huge with big cities, some are small with only big cities and some a small with only tiny cities. So before I created something ahistorical or completely unbalanced I left it simply balanced. This is an experiment so tried to have less variables as possible. Its therefore only half a scenario: the map, the nations and some infrastructure I artificially added...

If this works out well we try the big gun and go for the WWI scenario! I improved the map massively since it was played on greatturn.

#22 Re: LT39 » Any changes you would like to see for a more traditional game? » 04.09.2017 09:35:53

If I could get those Zeppelin grafics, could we get one??? Is grafic in Amplio enough?

#24 Re: ScenarioGame 1 » A new concept to Longturn games, scenario game » 19.08.2017 16:48:57

No need for. You will recognize the map but since I changed so much of the map (moved rivers, altered pathways, added/deleted nations and changed a lot of tiles that it is unnecessary and would take away a fun thing to do: Explore! It can be useful to look at an older map for rough orientation but I think you will pretty fast know where you are even without looking at the map.
As for me, I wont take a look at the map, I will only have the memory of a map of an editors perspective wich is a lot different. Players will anyhow be randomly assigned. But most importantly I'm not a good player... :-)

#25 Re: ScenarioGame 1 » A new concept to Longturn games, scenario game » 19.08.2017 13:49:31

I dont think much more people will join. Almost all were veteran players and most joined in the first days. Also, scenarios are very sensitive to idlers and newcomers are often idlers so I prefer quality over cuantity. We could start soon if you ask me! Anyhow we have to test how well this runs.

Yeah, I will position players once confirmations are through.

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB