#1 Re: New Games » The next more experimental game » 17.06.2018 20:47:44

We could test with new sprites in the future.

What? Thought everybody has to have the sprites on his computer in order to be displayed? Anyhow, Im not an expert but I can make you sprites...

#3 Re: New Games » Long-longturn » 16.06.2018 00:12:48

Ok. Doesnt sound too enthusiastic... Well, I guess a samurai or an arbalest could close the "musketeer gap". Arbalest is a late medieval crossbow wich would make sence in my opinion to fill the gap.

My ideas behind the new units is are following:

1. Separate military research and civilian. Making military advancement a matter of choice but for economic reasons depandant on civilian.

2. Similar units that can be researched suitable to the players needs without the need of having to research them both.(Dromedarii vs. Horseman for example)

3. Maybe give a player random unit from a pool of similar units to emulate different approaches of developement to tech around the world.

4. Introducing unit transport. I dont like the invisible sending of units via airports. I like the idea of physically transporting units via the map (Chinook, Airbus Beluga..). But also counteracting that process via antiaircraft like
the 8,8 gun, SAM, Romb and the Flakpanzer. Here the Flakpanzer could also defend himself relatively good against ground units but the romb is more effective against aircraft. SAMs could be planted like (invisible) mines around the map and prevent intrusion into your airspace.

#4 Re: New Games » Long-longturn » 15.06.2018 16:38:33

Talking of the trebuchet. In my "siege unit" list are also a battering ram and siege tower. My thought behind is the following:

Battering ram:

-Kind of a medieval cruise missile that opens the wall (for a turn only? Or destroys them completely?) but in any case its a single-serving unit that can only succeed with a probability.

Siege tower:

-infantry units can attack as if the city has no walls (also single-serving? Only for one unit?)

Trebuchet:

-Stronger attack than catapult but needs to fortify before it can attack?

Just some thoughts...

#5 Re: New Games » Long-longturn » 15.06.2018 15:58:43

Well, as for new units: I've been working on many, many new units. I provided primarily sprites in cimpletoon for units that have been in the pipe line for years but were lacking the art. In theory we could have 14 new units. The list hasnt been updated the past weeks but you can find it here:

http://freeciv.wikia.com/wiki/User:JTN/ … aringhouse

Rows complete in all 3 grafics are:

-Quinquireme
-Cog
-Junk
-Steamship
-Locomotive
-Dredger
-Icebreaker
-Container ship
-Ancient diplomat (emissary)
-Sam (Romb)
-Abrams tank (modern tank)
-Technical pick up
-Missile sub
-Dromedarii (not in the list but completed today)

Im currently working on more and have offered to provide if you ask... You can see the current status here:

http://forum.freeciv.org/f/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=90253

So if you wanna see new units with proper sprites help bringing them to the next Freeciv version. Art isnt the hold-up anymore... As always feedback is very much appreciated... (I merely get some feedback so I dont know if what Im producing is good enough or even technical correct...)

Designing a trebuchet is high on my list and will be completed in a not too distant future. As for different ships, you will find plenty of new ones in the list I just mentioned! Instead of an upgraded Swordsman a Samurai could do the trick and is also high on my list

#6 Re: LT44 » More defense to the capital city? » 08.06.2018 14:01:07

And your view is problematic. "Put enough defenders..." What exactly is "enough"?

Either the enemy is at the gates, then depending on the stage of the game, its quite easy to calculate (the defender to attacker ratio is quite on the side of the defender).

If you have an interior capital just calculate the possibility of a commando attack. Usually they dont include siege weapons since you cant carry them on triremes, thus reducing the defence cost. Secondly, its always clever to build your cap on a hill...

I just can tell from my experience that I never had a problem with defending my cap. On the other hand when I attacked with a coup de main I avoided targetting capitals since they are usually are better defended and other cities are easier targets.

#7 Re: LT44 » More defense to the capital city? » 08.06.2018 12:56:54

Maybe some disruption of government - MAYBE, because most of the time in history it was more a matter of the enemy approaching the big city than the fact that some services have been dislocated

It hasnt to end in civil war. 5 rounds of Anarchy as substitute would suffice maybe?

if he is strong enough, to knock down his enemy in one single blow and make it impossible for the enemy to recover, ever. Basically, the feature is a player-killer.

Put enough defenders in your capital and it wont happen. I dont have compassion with greedy people.

In WWII not a single surrender was triggered by the conquest of the capital. Quite the opposite: Norway kept fighting long after Oslo was taken and Soviet Union had plans to continue fighting even if Moscow was conquered. Same goes for WWI: Serbia never capitulated and its army continued fighting even though it was completely conquered. Same as Belgium and Romania.

Sure. Civil war should be limited to governments with high discontent or land that is far away. The extent to the civil war is in my opinion too big. But if you have a far flung colony with a corrupt government, chances should exist.

#8 Re: LT44 » More defense to the capital city? » 08.06.2018 11:00:25

Since Im not playing dont mind my opinion but there are some points to consider:

1. The possibility to take the capital from an almighty enemy gives David a chance against Goliath. Otherwise its just a matter of time and numbers. On the other hand if Goliath is too stupid to defend his capital against a weak enemy he deserves civil war.

2. It emulates a feature of war, if the enemy comes closer to your capital you have to evacuate your government. The punishment for not doing so is civil war.

3. When the French invaded Spain (and the capital) it sparked a civil war and most of the Latin American states declared independence. So it is perfectly realistic if parts of your territory use the chaos to declare independence from you.

#10 Re: LT44 » Post here suggestions about the new game » 19.04.2018 10:01:11

Not sure if I can play so my opinion doenst really count here but in my opinion tech trading is less important here. Team games are usually world wars with multiple fronts forcing everyone on the team to help out each other. Hence the balance of the game is less compromised by weak players.

#11 Re: ScenarioGame 2 » The base ruleset for the WW1 scenario? » 14.03.2018 17:07:07

If you open the registrations, count me in! Since its only the Spanish Cvil War places are limited.

#13 Re: ScenarioGame 2 » The base ruleset for the WW1 scenario? » 14.03.2018 13:54:04

Hadnt seen your post! Since LT39 ended Im all on board. Sure! We can put a break at T20 or 30.

#14 Re: LT43 » Post here suggestions about what to change for LT43 » 13.03.2018 10:02:15

Like the idea with required city structures to build certain units. It would make it more realistic, since you can dump technology on an underdevoloped state but he will have big difficulties implementing it if the necessary infrastructure (humans, transport etc.) is missing. As far as I heard, capturing tech could lead to easy exploitation through "hub cities".

#15 Re: LT43 » Post here suggestions about what to change for LT43 » 13.03.2018 08:27:28

There are patents and fees. But techleackage represents that. The more widespread a tech is, the cheaper it is. That is btw what we did, we tried to leave at least an enemy unit/city alive therefore keeping the prices for tech up. If you want cheap tech kill weak enemies.

#16 Re: LT43 » Post here suggestions about what to change for LT43 » 12.03.2018 14:26:46

Also, the famous tech "trading" ist not a trading, it is mutiplicating. You create a good simply for making a transaction. If you were to loose another tech for trading another it would make sense, otherwise an intermediary simply trades with enough trading partners and without doing something that requieres physical hardship of your beloved workers you multiple techs. What is the value behind it? It is a bogus economy that gives the biggest market crier the benefit.

#17 Re: LT43 » Post here suggestions about what to change for LT43 » 12.03.2018 14:20:48

Actually I was saying that you and Kocurek put up a fight and were left alone.

Maho didnt idle completely until I crushed his last forces. Not many idling cities I took there. You had as much access to idlers as I did...

If you enable trading you enable free rider behaviour. Who researches doesnt put his money in armies. So why research at all if you can just "trade" it and conquer with all the money you put in your military?

In LT39 you stopped researching because you could simply buy the enemy. Not my fault if you rely on a unreliable strategy... Same for the 16 chariot attack. You gambled and lost.

Anyhow, I still think you performed  better than most and understood the overall strategic constellation, wich was the root of the problem and not the tech!

#18 Re: LT43 » Post here suggestions about what to change for LT43 » 12.03.2018 13:35:39

Im not angry if this is what you mean? :-) I apologize if I do.  By no means I want to change the decision to play with tech trading this time. But it is a dangerous narrative if we let wrong conclusions jeopardize the game in the future.

#19 Re: LT43 » Post here suggestions about what to change for LT43 » 12.03.2018 11:59:56

Im posting this because Im getting tired that people who made severe errors in LT39 blame the missing tech trading for their own faults.

1. Tech is not the only way to win.
2. If you cant win alone, gang up with others
3. If your neighbour is threatened by an enemy force and you will be the next one, it is deeply recommended to help him while he still can put up a fight, otherwise its too late and you are the next.
4. Secure free land before the enemy gets it, not taking it, makes the enemy take it and ultimately make him stronger
5. If you cant win conventionally, find the backdoor and kill the enemy where he is weak! Wich in fact is always recommended...
6. Use the soil! Build on hills. They can be mined and give good protection.
7. Build early on workers, they improve your land, help in war by providing roads and get promoted from the beginning and can do probably twice the work if you build them early.
8. Units can be decisive factors: tiremes give multiple options, veterans give your attack the decisive edge

Im not denying that a starting position or an idling player can influence massively the game but all those points I just mentioned were all or in part ignored by the loosing faction. One player had even his workers on autosettler...
In the whole game nobody even closely tried to attack me or change the overall course of the winning faction. Only a few tried to do something meanwhile our other opponents where closing their eyes and ears and hoping that the storm would spare them. Is that the behaviour this game wants to reward?

Besides, would I have been able to trade techs I would by now have howitzers, tanks and so on and the victory would be more swiftly. And believe me, I would have prevented the loosing faction from getting the new acquired techs.  The reason I have one of the leading positions is, that I took risks, risks that only 2 of the loosing players were willing to take and who werent supported by their peers and thus failed. 

Short: Play better by learning and applying new strategies and dont blame others for your mistakes. Im sure everybody is willing to help in giving advices. I myself have learned a lot from my team mates!

#20 New Games » Longturn vs. Longturn-web » 07.03.2018 10:11:13

Sketlux
Replies: 8

Cgali had the idea of playing a (team) game between traditional longturn.org players and the new longturn-web gamers. "Normal" longturn.org rules, no numerical balance between teams i.e. web-players can be much more players.

#21 Re: New Games » Making the bigger empires harder to get/maintain? » 07.03.2018 10:05:54

Since I have a ton of towns in LT39... Its not like I really wanted them and they are not as easy to mantain since I need many happiness buildings. Besides, with that big number of cities you start missing things. I feel like a japanese electronic devise producer who has lost sight over what his key product is and quality suffers.
I agree, its quite easy to hide behind walls.

#22 Re: LT43 » How big alliances? » 06.03.2018 16:51:48

Im rather for a fixed number like 3 to discourage free-riders. But if its gonna be a web-community game I wont stay in the way...

#23 Re: LT43 » Post here suggestions about what to change for LT43 » 06.03.2018 11:50:45

About tech trading. I think its the most toxic thing that exists. SG1 was totally trashed by it, instead of fighting we mostly saw a competition of Old MacDonald who grows the biggest crop in the game. I can step aside this game but I deeply recommend disabling tech trading.

#24 Re: LT43 » Post here suggestions about what to change for LT43 » 05.03.2018 21:31:51

What abou the map? Can we have a mix of continents and big islands? Some people on the big continents, some on islands?

#25 Re: LT43 » Post here suggestions about what to change for LT43 » 05.03.2018 19:58:06

No 2x movement pls. The last two games I played were slowly enough. You get used to 3x movement pretty fast.

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB