#1 Re: New Games » The follow up to LT40...? » 11.03.2018 22:43:55

Kryon wrote:

I think the best way to make turns shorter is to limit each turn to X minutes.

Perhaps the top players should stop for a fraction of a second thinking about what would strengthen their own competitive stance and instead consider what is fair, interesting, and makes new and weak players stronger.
It's a contradiction in itself having 23h turns and limiting the time you actually can look at the map for a few minutes. Training and experience is more important than the size of the nation to manage. Such a setting strongly favours experienced and trained players both regarding gameplay and technically, because with enough effort you will be able to catch the data from the screen and look at it as long as you want. Also  those players would be favoured that can rule out they will be disturbed during the X minutes they have. And that is clearly not the clientele wieder wants to help.

Another question is if the freeciv implementation as-is is well suited for the longturn format.
IMO it would be better to be able to stage all moves in advance and then commit them, like in git, and a "conflict resolution" aka battle or whatever happens later. That would rule out any RTS. Some game engines have it that way. But not this one, and that is what we have.

#2 Re: New Games » Making the bigger empires harder to get/maintain? » 07.03.2018 19:52:23

Corbeau wrote:

Unhappy-due-to-number-of-cities, but a sane step, between 5 and 10, not 20 like the default, or 1 like in LT40. This would make the unhappiness noticeable and force the ruler to do something about it, while at the same time not cripple him and make him decide that he doesn't really need to expand at all, which is the case in LT40.

In other words, exactly what I've been proposing for a while, but was ignored.

I'm tired of this "Player  A wants this, player B wants that, player C wants to win as he always did".

But I'll tell you one thing:
Who is the player that is testing empire size restriction in LT40?
Did /you/ exceed your city limit? Do /you/ know what happens? Please, make a post and explain to us how happiness works.

You're talking like the virgin of childbearing. Nothing crippled your expansion. /You/ just decided to stop.
And you weren't ignored. Your weren't followed. That's a difference.

So perhaps better wait how LT40 will end before prematurely reiterating always the same brabble.

I'm exceeding my limit for a looooong time now and all cities are celebrating. I'm not crippled in any way.

#3 Re: LT43 » Post here suggestions about what to change for LT43 » 05.03.2018 23:21:19

Corbeau wrote:

Suggestion: introduce tech upkeep. That will increase late-tech delay. Also, slightly offset tech-sharing frenzy.

That just will help the strong players. They have the means to pay tech upkeep, the stealing folks have not.

I could live without the stealing stuff, but it's hard to go without the city limit.

Oh, and besides that, this "let us grow our cities to size 150" stuff together with "city will grow every turn
if larger than size 25" is plain ridiculous in my opinion.

#4 Re: New Games » Dispersion sucks » 03.03.2018 23:38:54

wieder wrote:

If I remember correctly dispersion 0 might lead to situations where the players starts on a very narrow or small starting position.

That's actually a good point. If the placement/dispersion algorithm doesn't check for isolated/coastal/edge positions a higher dispersion is better.

#5 Re: New Games » Dispersion sucks » 03.03.2018 21:40:23

Corbeau wrote:

Actually, it's all a matter of probability and smaller dispersion means bigger deviation from the average. With all units on the same tile, it is absolutely crucial how that one tile is placed. With units scattered around, it is much less probable that ALL will be in a shitty position and it is also much less probable that all will be in a great position.

That's the usual answer to my proposition, and I didn't expect sth different, though I still think your argument doesn't hold, because the map generator creates clusters of certain types of terrain that are usually larger than

And I'm not against dispersion in general, but against the current implementation. Dispersion could be the same
for everybody, but as I explained in my original post the current implementation will randomly set the units, which results in good dispersion for one player and bad dispersion for another. There is no need to introduce this additional chance that -- for some players -- cumulates with all the other chances to very good luck vs very bad luck.

My starting point is that the /starting position/ should offer the same chances in the game for all players, as much as possible. The more chances you stack onto each other by creating the starting position the more you increase the absolute spread between the luckiest and the unluckiest player.
For the sake of simplicity let us assume that every chance will give you "bad" or "good" (it's not like that, but that doesn't matter for the argument). So with one chance half of the players will have bad and the other half will have  good. Now introduce a second chance, that gives 4 results: good/good, good/bad, bad/good, bad/bad. That's fair for 50% of the players (namely good/bad and bad/good), but not for the other 50% (namely good/good and bad/bad). Even if you introduce a 3rd or 4th chance, there will be players that have good/good/good/good or bad/bad/bad/bad. I don't understand why one wants to do that while creating /starting positions/.

Be that as it may.

What about setting the IgTer flag for settlers? That would ensure that terrain doesn't matter.
(Except rivers, that is. But it would mitigate the problem.)
The settler unit could be cloned to one that has IgTer added, but this type of settlers could not
produced in-game but only reached out as start  units.
With the IgTer flag set dispersion could be switched off and it should be as fair as it gets with the
current implementation.

I started LT40 with 5 settlers on 3 tiles, all close together. No big chance to evade forest, hills, mountains.
That means your settler will move 1 tile per turn. You know how long it takes to spread them?
My neighbour travelled gently on long long rivers.

#6 New Games » Dispersion sucks » 03.03.2018 12:26:44

Replies: 5

The map generator is unfair enough by creating different land and settlement locations.
Dispersion=6 as is now means that one player might have more than one settler on one tile, all tiles with settlers close together. Another player might have all settlers scattered far apart. The last variant is clearly a big advantage if you happen to find yourself beween mountains, hills and forest. All unequality summed up you can be really screwed and somebody else can be quite happy.

Therefor I suggest to disable dispersion, meaning all units start on same tile. That's probably dispersion=0.
I understand that doesn't compensate for being between mountains, hills and forest while somebody else
is on long river with plains, wheat and oxen. While dispersion doesn't solve that unequality it could make it worse.
Of course it also could mitigate it slightly. But in my opinion that's to much chance for the beginning where we have to much chance anyway.

#7 Re: New Games » A more modern ship travelling on rivers » 27.02.2018 18:06:38

Corbeau wrote:

I'd call it a "barge".

If you give it zero attack you can call it a barge. Otherwise it's a gunboat. :-P

#8 Re: New Games » A more modern ship travelling on rivers » 25.02.2018 15:57:34

Call it gunboat or gunship. Should be available with ironclad or later.

- moving only on rivers and ocean tiles but not on deep ocean

it should move on deep ocean but be slow in general

- can carry 2 or 3 units

1 unit if any

- moves 9 or 12

the less the better. even triremes on river should be slowed down.

#9 Re: LT41 » The Atlantic Telegraph Company » 06.02.2018 11:23:19

wieder wrote:

What about if it would cost 300 but the effect would apply to everyone just like with Marco Polo?

First, the current ATC is sensible. It's cheap so more players can afford it.

Second, it's bad to make it more expensive and apply to everybody. It could turn out that the strongest
players won't build it, because they least depend on it and won't provide the others with intel.
So the weaker players would need to take the cost burden, and that is not what we want.

Third, we can do better, though. Embassy with everybody should be no wonder but connected
with researching a certain tech. I don't mind which one.
It's possible that everybody gets an embassy with everybody if the first player researches that tech.
The strong players can't really evade that one, so the will do it. If it would be possible to connect
the effect with several techs of a certain level even tactical evasion can be ruled out.
So if currently it's electricity it could be the electricity level.
It also provides the other players with intel as soon as one player reaches a critical knowledge.
Because the problem is that most players just live behind their limited horizon and are not even
interested in global issues.
It's also possible that the player that researches a certain tech gets the embassies with everybody
just for himself.

I prefer the first variant, but I have no idea what tech to choose.

#10 Re: LT41 » LT41 to start February 7th. Teamless, islands and more traditional » 24.01.2018 20:38:35

Corbeau wrote:

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.


I like the idea of making all ships from frigate upwards bombarding, preferably only against land units,
but even without that restriction. Why should a ship on open sea shooting to land die? In exchange for
bombarder flag the attack strength could be drastically reduced. The only ships that would be able to kill would
be triremes, caravels and subs. triremes and caravels would never be obsoleted, and their attack strength could be increased. they can gain further power by veterancy.

#11 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.

#12 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.

#13 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.

#14 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.

#15 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.

#16 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.

#17 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.

#18 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.

#19 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.

#20 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 ...

#21 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.

#22 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.

#23 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.

#24 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.

#25 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.

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB