#1 Re: ScenarioGame 2 » The base ruleset for the WW1 scenario? » 14.02.2018 12:20:18

Looking again at the map maybe 2x should be enough.

#2 Re: ScenarioGame 2 » The base ruleset for the WW1 scenario? » 09.02.2018 16:08:32

In theory 10. Practically only 6 active players. Its not much commitment since a few turns would be enough to test the eventualities but I guess everybody wants some fun so maybe test for 7,10 or max 14 days.
I mean the regular timeout, of 23h but would be open to a 15h timeout. Maybe call it "Fastturn" :-)

The techs are already in place. Sceanrio can be downloaded here: http://forum.freeciv.org/f/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=809

#3 Re: ScenarioGame 2 » The base ruleset for the WW1 scenario? » 09.02.2018 14:32:27

What about testing the ruleset in the Spanish Civil War Scenario? Just as a small scale test game. Im more of a fan of 3x moves. Maybe we could add the wonder "Fortification" to emulate the importance of fort cities like Verdun or Przemysl. Just one special fortification per player with a special defense bonus. Besides that Im still advocating the tech suggestions made here:  http://forum.longturn.org/viewtopic.php?id=800
We could do a few test games since a rematch in scenarios is always a big problem and the problem of tech trading made SG1 weak and probably lowered the enthusiams for future scenarios.
That should give us a solid testing experience to go for SG2 WWI.

#4 LT39 » Clock synch » 05.02.2018 18:15:35

Replies: 0

Could someone synchronize the clocks? Thanks!

#5 Re: LT42 » Adding more "extreme" tiles » 03.02.2018 21:53:02

Understandable. But shoudnt be jungle unlike desert more easily be convertable? So maybe just less desert more jungle? Maybe some extreme small islands if that is technical even possible.

#6 LT42 » Adding more "extreme" tiles » 03.02.2018 17:04:27

Replies: 2

I know jungle and ice arent very popular but Im missing from an aestheticall point of view their appearance. Of course when global warming is coming jungle appears wich is somehow contradictory...

#7 LT42 » Federation » 03.02.2018 16:59:57

Replies: 0

What about making federation more interesting by adding regional capitals giving some sort of bonus but also making them vulnerable to secession if the regional capital is conquered but limited to the radius of the regional capital.

#8 Re: LT41 » LT41 to start February 7th. Teamless, islands and more traditional » 24.01.2018 14:05:05

Yeah, I had the chain in mind! But that only works for non-coastal river cities. Make the chain cheaper for river cities than the "port protection" for coastal cities.  Would the chain make an attack impossible or give bonus to the defender?

#9 Re: LT41 » LT41 to start February 7th. Teamless, islands and more traditional » 24.01.2018 12:08:34

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.

#10 Re: LT41 » LT41 to start February 7th. Teamless, islands and more traditional » 23.01.2018 16:53:50

Corbeau, you should check the Wiki article on anphibious landings... "Recorded amphibious warfare goes back to ancient times..."

#12 Re: ScenarioGame 1 » Feedback » 11.12.2017 09:18:03

Though I agree that the mode of transport ship was something strange, I reject being locked into a position from wich I cant escape or only have one enemy.

#13 Re: ScenarioGame 1 » Feedback » 10.12.2017 19:47:27

I didn't understand what you meant by "long distance roads"

I added the roads Via Regia from Aachen to Breslau and the Via Emperii from Stettin to Augsburg to the map.

Also, I was appalled to see everything except Germany turned into ocean.

When I made the map I had only Germany in scope since I already had done a Europe scenario and it would have been much more work. It was already quite some work adding Austria shortly before this scenario begins. Also, Austria is another case than say the Netherlands. And as previously mentioned, I will add some neighbouring nations with time.

#14 ScenarioGame 1 » Feedback » 10.12.2017 16:15:53

Replies: 5

In order to improve the scenario I would appreciate some feedback!

Here are some things I missed on the map:

-No or very few hills in today Poland
-Some rivers didnt end smoothly into the ocean
-The island of Rügen was missing specials

To the game itself:

-tech was too fast!
-alliances shoudnt have been allowed or somehow restricted

Ideas for a renewal:

-Add new nations like Danmark, Flanders, Bohemia... (becoming more of a 30years war)
-Maybe add some abandoned Limes

Were the longdistance roads a good thing?

Let me know what you liked/disliked or what you think about my ideas!

#15 LT39 » Delegations » 03.12.2017 07:47:49

Replies: 1

Im delegating to the best player I know of: cgalik

Back in 4 days...

#18 Re: ScenarioGame 1 » Suggestions for the next Ruleset. » 21.11.2017 14:44:48

Starting technology should be favouring defense. Techdevelopment should lean towards offensive weapons (fighter, bomber, tanks). They should probably get higher attack values. Can techs alter the strenght of units? If I develop for example "poison gas" as a tech with dead end , can I get stronger artillery?

#19 Re: LT40 » Bribing air units? » 15.11.2017 20:56:48

Thought the same about helicopters but I tend to unrealistic side. Prefer if it is removed. Besides I don't mind if modern era units get much stronger than the gradual increase in strength you have before. Its just how history was and hence more realistic.

#20 Re: LT39 » City growth too fast? » 14.11.2017 14:13:29

Could we still introduce 1+1 for LT39? What coastal cities lack in production they have to in food.

#21 Re: ScenarioGame 2 » Ruleset changes for WW1 scenario? » 12.11.2017 19:40:54

The start techs? Probably WW1 level techs are needed but what are thos exactly?

I implemented all the techs already. Havent taken a look recently but they should be anno 1900 or WWI like.

Also, is there need to adjust some specific WW1 techs or create some WW1 specific buildings? How to deal with unhappiness?

"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
-Unrestricted submarine warfare
-Haber–Bosch process
-synchronization gear
I don't know the capabilities and restrictions of longturn but could be included as inventions?
-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? "



What about strikes? Can we program to happen puting prodcution to an halt? How often could depend on various factors, depending on governments, luxury, troops abroad etc...

#22 Re: LT38 » red team surrenders ? » 06.11.2017 09:24:26

Can someone just employ nukes...

#23 Re: LT38 » red team surrenders ? » 06.11.2017 07:45:45

haha, after that turn I stopped all hostile activities, in fact I stopped all activities. So can this game now finally be called over?

#24 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.

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

I agree. Maybe by 2 weeks at least?

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB