#1 Re: New Games » Help needed for the decision making process » 16.01.2018 11:39:10

wieder wrote:

Sometimes in the longturn.org games we have situations where not everything goes that smoothly and without making decisions about how the rules and stuff should be interpreted.

We could definitely use people to help with this decision making.

From a naive stance one could argue that's why there are admins. I've heard there are more then the ones playing a game.

If there is a conflict it's likely to be best accepted if the conflicting parties agree on a referee they both trust.
This is also possible if one of the parties is a admin and a player wants to appeal against his decision.
If there is no conflict there is no need for decision making.

#2 LT40 » 2300 BCE and the game is decided? » 02.01.2018 12:53:53

Replies: 5

Not really, I hope. But if there would be no fog of war, what would we see? Probably the same I see in my little part of the world: Some players are locked in by geographical reasons and other players, which is just bad luck. Other players have abundant space because of geographical reasons and neighbouring idlers, which is just good luck.
Of course there are also the very good players, that could cope with nearly any situation.
The lucky or very good players now just need to build their VLEs (very large empires), and for sure there is one that is very capable and very lucky. If there is the theoretical possibility for the other players to prevent the emergence of a sole superpower by joint action, it is completely ruled out by fog of war. Indeed fog of war is the enemy of strategical thinking, at least at the global and regional scale. So it well could be that the game is decided, and we could stop playing now.
But wait, fortunately LT40 is different: There is the city number limit/empire size restriction. It will hopefully prevent the lucky ones from exploit their luck, and mitigate the misfortune of the unlucky. I really can think of no reasons why somebody would want to waive a restriction that is so apt to compensate for the unfairness of chance that comes into the game with the map generator and the random start positions.

#3 Re: LT41 » Keeping the empire sizes as they are on experimental games? » 29.12.2017 00:23:46

wieder wrote:

I'm not sure why those players would have even greater advantage if the city limit was lower.

The more cities you have, the more likely will the average quality of the land of your city locations converge to the
average quality of all possible locations on the map.
The practical question is, how many cities are needed to make it sufficiently fair. Depends also on the map, and I have no idea.

#4 Re: LT41 » Keeping the empire sizes as they are on experimental games? » 28.12.2017 22:07:21

wieder wrote:

Growing the empire size with techs also prevents the experienced players from grabbing the good land in the start.

If I look at the map of LT40 I have the notion the map generator is quite unfair. If the start area you are located is bad quality and dispersion sucks, it could be a good strategy to go for many small cities instead of few bigger ones.
There could be other reasons to do so. If you restrict city number to 10, those with good land will have a greater advantage than they have now.

#5 Re: LT41 » Keeping the empire sizes as they are on experimental games? » 28.12.2017 20:38:00

wieder wrote:

In a future game reaching that size might not happen instantly in the start. Instead the empire size might grow from maybe 10-17 to 22-29. This could be done with techs. Reaching certain tech would increase the empire size by one. As a result the players would get kind of bonus for researching new techs ...

As you say, it's a bonus for the most advanced, most powerful player. What's needed, and what we do with tech leakage, is the opposite. So if you turn it around and start with 29 cities and reduce that size the more techs are researched, it would be a penalty, and in that case I'm with you.

In freeciv you have exponential growth, he who leads the growth curve will win. So what's needed are contradicting developments that curb that law. Unhappiness is a means for that, but in standard ruleset, it's not strong enough. So now you strengthened unhappiness with empire size restriction. To change it in the suggested way not only would make empire size restriction senseless, it would make it worse.

#6 Re: LT40 » Possible trouble with extending the turn » 23.12.2017 18:42:59

Whatever you do, decide it now, before the next turn starts.
Please no combo.
At least I don't want to play if it will be reverted. I guess nobody wants.

#7 Re: LT40 » Hanging Gardens Mystery » 19.12.2017 16:13:08

wieder wrote:

Maybe the city went happy the turn you went to anarchy and managed to switch to celebration the next turn? In any case it should be happy for one turn before celebrating.

If half of trade in anarchy is made to lux, and city size is 4, I need at least 8 trade to gain 4 lux to get 2 citizens happy. City had either 7 or 10 trade in anarchy, from that we need to subtract waste, if any.
So 8 trade/ 4 lux/ 2 happy in anarchy are theoretically possible.

The surprising thing is, that the city should celebrate next turn after anarchy and this should determine the production of that same turn. I would had expected that celebration is instantely canceled, so never starts at all.

If this is what happened Corbeau is kind of right: It's self propelled and should last if the city does not grow
above size 4. At size 5 celebration should break down and lux again should be 3. I won't test that smile

This is really weird stuff! Having the city at 10 trade in anarchy was unintentional, an accident.

If anarchy was able to jumpstart this the next question is if lux taxing also could do the trick.

#8 Re: How to play the game » Diplomacy: The non-aggression pact (NAP) » 19.12.2017 12:03:18

wieder wrote:

There are several NAP types.

The number of possible treaties is infinite, because everybody has the freedom to agree on whatever he wants.
It's the purpose of this thread to write about treaties that are frequently used or about what  players  think should be used.

#9 Re: LT40 » Hanging Gardens Mystery » 19.12.2017 11:24:20

Corbeau wrote:

Well, if it's celebrating, it means it propelled itself out of the despotism/tribalism 3+ tile restriction and is now able to harvest all four luxuries.

No. It celebrates because it now gets 4 lux instead of 3, making half of the population happy.
Celebration is not a black box from heaven.

#10 Re: LT40 » Hanging Gardens Mystery » 19.12.2017 10:15:55

wieder wrote:

That sounds really really weird. The city is however just happy now, not celebrating?

Another option is that this could be happening because tribalism has less waste.

Sure, it's celebrating right away. The only way it could be waste-related is that in despotism there is some hidden
lux-waste, i.e. waste that is not shown as 4 - 1. As Caedo said, lux source shows up in city dialog as citizens. 3 in despo, 4 in tribal. I should had taken a screenshot, just for the case sb thinks I'm making this up ...

#11 Re: LT40 » Hanging Gardens Mystery » 19.12.2017 07:49:46

After I switched from despotism to tribal the city now has 4 lux. I'm startled.

#12 Re: How to play the game » Diplomacy: The non-aggression pact (NAP) » 18.12.2017 19:24:14

What follows could serve as a framework to establish some basic rules and as starting point for solving problems that are not covered here. It's subject to further editing.
That's just my private opinion. I don't want nor can impose anything on anybody, but
writing this stuff here gives me or others the opportunity to reference it from game.
What looks simple in the beginning, can get quite complicated in the end. And vice versa.
And if you want to disagree with something it needs to be stated before that, right?


1) Forbidden aggression of course is any attack or capturing, also sabotage, poisoning or theft by diplomatic units, if not otherwise stated below.

2) It is not forbidden to attack units inside the city of a 3rd party.

3a) Military units may not enter the other side's territory.

b) If really necessary, a military unit may cross the foreign territory as long as the start and end tile of the move are outside.

c) Naval vessels have the right of free passage on ocean tiles, as long as they adhere to the rules for civil units.
The right of passage cannot be revoked.

4a) Civil units may enter as long as they move in a non blocking way, if not otherwise stated below.

b) If a civil unit blocks production or movement, its destruction is not a breach of the treaty.

c) However, civil units pose a risk of intelligence leakage, if the owner shares vision with a 3rd party or proliferates his knowledge in another way to a 3rd party. Therefor any side may revoke the right to enter with civil units at any time, in which case they have to leave instantly.

d) In any case civil units have to leave if the treaty is nearing its end, be it one side gave notice or there are only
10 turns left until it automatically runs out. Because intelligence gathered from that point on is possibly used for attack preparation.


5a) With a fixed end turn the treaty runs out automatically. That's an easy way to go.

5b) The alternative would be to have some cancellation deadline/abrogation period. In that case the treaty does not run out automatically, but one side needs to notify the other that she abrogates the treaty. The treaty would end after the deadline. I think 15 turns would be a sensible number.

6) In any case the end turn is included in the peace period.

7) If one side allows a 3rd party to use its territory for attacking the other side, the attacked player may terminate the treaty instantly.

8a) If one side wants to reserve the right to instantly terminate the treaty if an ally of hers is attacked by the other side, this is only possible if a) the alliance is older than the NAP, b) she named the ally when she agreed to the treaty and c) she explicitly said she wants to reserve this right. Alliances that are younger than the NAP never can take precedence.

b) If one side attacks a 3rd party and the other side interferes by helping this 3rd party, be it by blocking the way or attacking on that 3rd party's territory, the side that attacks the 3rd party may terminate the treaty instantly. Of course both sides could agree on restricting the war to a certain area. 

9) If one side starts building the spaceship, the other side may terminate the treaty it instantly.

10) If one side breaches the treaty, the other side may terminate it instantly.

11) If one side is idling for more than 3 turns, the other side may terminate the treaty instantly by giving notice.
This is only possible before the other side has logged in again.

12) The treaty is void if one side announced she will stop playing, even if there is a permanent delegation, i.e. the treaty is bound to the player and not to the nation.

#13 How to play the game » Diplomacy: The non-aggression pact (NAP) » 18.12.2017 19:18:21

Replies: 5

Having to prepare for possibly being attacked eats up resources and slows down development.
The consequence of this is lagging behind if others don't have to take the same precautions.
The obvious solution is to try to speak with your likely opponent to propose an agreement.
Longturn tradition calls the most frequently used agreement a NAP, or non-aggression pact.
Traditionally a NAP seems to have a fixed end turn.
If there is, besides the end turn, a common understanding what "non-aggression" exactly means, if no explicit rules are laid down, is a question that needs to be answered by senior players.
Same goes for the question if the end turn is included into the peace period or not.

A tricky question is, what takes precedence for a player, a NAP or alliance.
If you're new to the concept of NAP, it might be surprising that senior players say the NAP takes precedence, but after the first shock is over, I think that is -- at least in general -- sensible.
It's probably wise to check if the parties have the same opinion on that, as well as to check the affiliation of the other side in general. If there is disagreement about some topic it is not covered by the treaty.

In the next post I propose a framework that shall cover the most basic eventualities parties having a NAP could encounter. It doesn't mean in a real situation it has to become relevant. It's just an attempt to think things over.
It also would be great if others write what in their opinion is the ideal treaty.

#14 Re: LT41 » Adding tips and advice to the in-game help? » 17.12.2017 15:14:08

As the forum hierarchy is now, help stuff would have to go under "other".
That is not visible enough. It's so important that a new top level category should be created.
There you could have a threat for each topic, things could be discussed and others could contribute.
From the beginning I thought that I wanted to start a thread about diplomacy, not the hardcoded one.
That would be very important for new players, it also would ease things up if you can refer to a forums post instead writing the same in chat over and over. In fact right now I wanted to start that, not only to explain my stance (also to phrases you frequently hear), but also to encourage the senior players to contribute their experience. For every topic there could be "best practices".

Help is important because if players don't know what to do they go idle, which destroys the current game, and they won't participate in future ones.

#15 Re: LT41 » Allowing the submarines to fortify (= simulating submerged) » 16.12.2017 20:12:20

wieder wrote:

Now I'm not that familiar with the modern ones ...

Here you go:

This type is underwater way faster than on surface:
Speed: 20 knots (37 km/h) submerged, 12 knots surfaced
They say the new type is undetectable. Undetectable in this context means the submarine has the means to evade detection because its long range reconnaisance will know of any vessel long before the vessel has any chance of detecting it. Except it's a comparable submarine, of course.
They say the greatest danger for this type comes from aircraft, especially helicopters with torpedos. OTOH, the helicopter needs to bring a sonar into water, and that, in turn, could be detected by the submarine, so if you give them anti-aircraft-missiles, the helicopter is out.

From wikipedia:
"In 2013, while on the way to participate in naval exercises in U.S. waters, the German Navy's U-32 established a new record for non-nuclear submarines with 18 days in submerged transit without snorkelling.[16] It also got through all the defences of a U.S. carrier strike group, unseen, and shot green simulation torpedos at the carrier.[17]"

hahaha, I didn't know that.

#16 Re: LT41 » Adding tips and advice to the in-game help? » 16.12.2017 19:53:32

The question is what is more work:
The in-game help, that you would need to update for every eventual change of ruleset,
or the forums. I guess the forums will give you more freedom.

#17 Re: LT40 » Hanging Gardens Mystery » 16.12.2017 19:49:10

I tested the solution Caedo provided by adding the 3 lines and of course it works.
I think his patch is the way to go.

Thanks to Caedo for his insightful explanations.

#18 Re: LT40 » Hanging Gardens Mystery » 15.12.2017 22:08:24

I tested this one

type    = "Output_Penalty_Tile"
value   =  9                                                       
reqs    =
    { "type", "name", "range"
      "Gov", "Despotism", "Player"
      "Building", "Hanging Gardens", "City"   

by adding the effect to the end of effects.ruleset, and it just worked(TM).
Wonder city got 4 lux and was freed from penalty, but the other cities kept their penalties.

I propose doing this for despotism and tribalism, have no opinion on anarchy.

#19 Re: LT40 » Hanging Gardens Mystery » 15.12.2017 18:18:26

Corbeau wrote:

Output_bonus deals with percentages.

True indeed.

To implement wieder's proposal we need to prevent or revert the effect of the penalty for the city that has the Hanging Gardens, if the gov is either despotism or tribal (or anarchy) and the player has  neither pyramids nor knows railroad. Or we only go for the city-center tile, or even only for lux on that tile.

For reverting we would need to know if a penalty was applied, I guess that can't be checked via ruleset effects.
So we need to prevent the penalty from being applied from the beginning, and that is only possible if
effect_gov_tile_penalty_* can be locally overriden. I don't know if that is possible, it also should depend on the
order the effects are applied, and if the order of the effects in effects.ruleset matters.

Something like

type    = "Output_Penalty_Tile"
value   =  9                                                            <----- This number never reached, shall override 2
reqs    =
    { "type", "name", "range"
      "Gov", "Despotism", "Player"
      "Building", "Hanging Gardens", "City"    <---- So here we're done if we want to take away penalty from city?
      "CityTile", "Center", "Local"                       <---- If this is would be possible, perhaps even the next line is possible
       "OutputType", "Luxury", "Local"             <---- As opposed to wieder's proposal that would restrict it to lux
nreqs   =                                                               <------ Strictly not necessary
    { "type", "name", "range"
      "Building", "Pyramids", "Player"
      "Tech", "Railroad", "World"

and that also for tribal (and anarchy).

BTW,  what is the difference between Output_Bonus and Output_Bonus2, Output_Add_Tile and Output_Inc_Tile ?

#20 Re: LT40 » Hanging Gardens Mystery » 15.12.2017 13:57:20

wieder wrote:

Maybe an easy fix would be making the hanging gardens to remove the tribalism/despotism penalty from the city where it's located. This might also make it more interesting to go for monarchy instead of pyramids. Not much but a bit more interesting.

Wow, nice. Though I have no idea how to do that. The most easy fix for sure is to switch from
Output_Add_Tile to Output_Bonus, if this would work.

#21 Re: LT40 » Hanging Gardens Mystery » 14.12.2017 21:24:22

Thanks for explaining, I will need some time to grok your post, forgive me a few premature comments.

Caedo wrote:

The Hanging Gardens add Luxury output to a tile.

We need to separate the purpose of the wonder from its implementation.
The Hanging Gardens *promise* to make 2 content citizens happy in the city that owns them, regardless of government. That is what the help text says.
The implementation of the Hanging Gardens *fails* to keep that promise at least under anarchy, despotism or tribalism. So either the purpose of the wonder is not adequately described or the implementation is wrong.
In modern software development you first specify your goal and then you implement it. So the specification takes precedence over the implementation. The current implementation makes 2 content citizens happy in all governments except the aforementioned, were it seems to make 1 content citizen happy.
Given the fact the Hanging Gardens is a tech level 1 wonder and obsoleted by Electricity, in my opinion it's unlikely the implementors deliberately crippled it for the early govs without noting that explicitely in the docs.

Caedo wrote:

A tile can have any of six types of output: Food, Shield, Trade, Science, Gold and Luxury. Typically, tiles won't have the latter three as output.

Ok. If there is lux independent from tiles, why not adding the 4 lux of the wonder to that?

Caedo wrote:

Since the autogenerated help text doesn't expect the latter three (again), ...

... the user doesn't expect them either.

Caedo wrote:

If you open the city dialog and click on the numbers next to "Gold", "Science" and "Luxury", it should detail where they come from.

Thanks for mentioning. I was totally ignorant of this, if I ever knew I forgot.

Caedo wrote:

So essentially the whole process looks like this:
First, the total citizen output is added up. This includes each worked tile's output, which in part depends on Output_*_Tile effects such as Output_Add_Tile; as well as any specialist output (which, in most rulesets, only happens for Science, Gold and Luxury).
Second, some additional stuff might be added, such as revenue from trade routes.

Where is the penalty applied? At the very beginning, I assume?

Caedo wrote:

Next, various output bonuses that are not tile-specific are factored in (such as factories), as well as waste/corruption.

So the following would be a suitable alternative implementation of the Hanging Gardens?

type    = "Output_Bonus"
value   = 4
reqs    =
    { "type", "name", "range"
       "Building", "Hanging Gardens", "City"
      "OutputType", "Luxury", "Local"

Interestingly, all this happiness stuff has
type    = "Make_Content" or
type    = "Make_Content_Mil"
Because there seems to be no "Make_Happy", you have to go for something else.

#22 Re: LT40 » Hanging Gardens Mystery » 14.12.2017 16:41:56

Corbeau wrote:

Is it possible that Despotism reduces all 3+ tiles by 1, including this?

wieder said the same, but I didn't understand it then.

type    = "Output_Penalty_Tile"
value   = 2
reqs    =
    { "type", "name", "range"
      "Gov", "Despotism", "Player"
nreqs   =
    { "type", "name", "range"
      "Building", "Pyramids", "Player"
      "Tech", "Railroad", "World"

compared to 

type    = "Output_Bonus"
value   = 75
reqs    =
    { "type", "name", "range"
      "Gov", "Despotism", "Player"
      "Building", "Palace", "City"
      "OutputType", "Gold", "Local"

I guess either the implementation of the Hanging Gardens is incorrect, because it uses

type    = "Output_Add_Tile"

or it should be documented. Documentation as it is now is wrong because it states:

* Each worked tile that gives more than 2 Food, Shield, or Trade will suffer a -1 penalty, unless the city working it is celebrating. (Cities below size 3 will not celebrate.)

because the luxury points do not stem from trade, but from the wonder. According to the documentation the luxury points from the wonder have nothing to do with trade. So you expect to get luxury, but what you really get is trade?

What's more, the ordinary player does not expect luxury to be implemented via tiles. I expected it to be calculated per city, not per tile. For me tiles had food, production and trade, but no luxury. It should be possible to implement it via some Bonus effect that's not affected by Output_Penalty_Tile.

At least I understand now why I'm screwed. Thanks for hinting.

Next question is how this tax stuff is implemented and the division of trade in sci gold lux. If I have a tile with 6 trade (gold mountain), which is divided into 3 gold and 3 sci, does that mean I get the penalty twice, which would be rather unfortunate.
I would assume the penalty is applied to trade before division into sci gold lux, and this is exactly what the tile says (6 - 1),  but IF this is so, why do the 4 added points explicitly labeled as lux get the penalty?
In my opinion it's just wrong. Would be necessary to know what data structure holds Output_Tile stuff.

In fact, if the implementation is consistent, even the 75% increase in gold by effect_palace_despotism would be reduced afterwards by 1, if above 2. That's clearly not intended.

Let's have a closer look at the affected city:
It has 7 trade, 5 from city center. One tradepoint is wasted, one obviously added to gold by the 75% bonus.
That gives 3 gold and 4 science.
With that, trade is consumed. And then the city has 3 lux from the wonder.
So the penalty in fact is applied twice to the tile.

#23 LT40 » Hanging Gardens Mystery » 14.12.2017 13:55:27

Replies: 23

type    = "Output_Add_Tile"
value   = 4
reqs    =
    { "type", "name", "range"
      "Building", "Hanging Gardens", "City"
      "CityTile", "Center", "Local"
      "OutputType", "Luxury", "Local"

Could anybody tell me, why a city with Hanging Gardens should have only 3 lux?
If lux tax is set to 0%, all other cities have 0 lux, and there is nothing else worth mentioning, the city owning the wonder should have 4 lux, or am I mistaken?

#24 Re: LT39 » There will be a Christmas break » 10.12.2017 15:35:49

wieder wrote:

And unfortunateky not everyone tells that a break is needed.

You can't anticipate everything for everybody. If you ask if it's needed and there is no positive reply, that
is the responsibility of the girl not replying.

#25 Re: LT41 » The pyramids as two separate small wonders? » 10.12.2017 15:32:08

Corbeau wrote:

A side-idea about rapture effects: Communism should have a production bonus instead of whatever it's having right now. This reflects the "ideology of workers".

Do me  a favour, and please elaborate on how Communism production bonus or even the current no production
waste in  Communism is compatible with your beloved paradigm of "realism".

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB