#1 Re: LT45 » Here are the teams (not that east to read, yet) » 21.09.2018 12:40:00

kevin551 wrote:

I also think Corbeau is perfectly within his right to reject any swap if it imbalances his team.

That even is true without Corbeau being "Captain"? :-P

#2 Re: LT45 » Here are the teams (not that east to read, yet) » 21.09.2018 05:09:20

cgalik wrote:

How about we move Shoter to team 1 and Zoe to team 0?

Or move Wahazar to team 0 and move someone to team 1?

If so exchange shoter with orisson.
Kunki and orisson are friends.

#3 Re: LT45 » Tech stealing, let's hear opinions » 17.09.2018 13:56:43

wieder wrote:

But it should be possible for the failing teams to try something so that the game wouldn't be decided for sure.

That is not working, because the "winning" party can produce more diplos as defenders than the "failing" one.

But there are more important things to abolish, for example "Darwin's Voyage" and other stuff that gives the winning party a bonus for being the winning party, which is pointless, obviously.

#4 Re: LT45 » LT45 is postponed until September 20th » 07.09.2018 14:45:24

Hmm, maybe because of large number of players take the opportunity and reduce tiles/player? Otherwise could get to much of work.

#5 Re: LT44 » Quitting game » 27.08.2018 15:11:15

Corbeau wrote:


Pardon me?

#6 Re: LT45 » LT45 is supposed to be a more traditional game » 26.08.2018 18:29:26

Corbeau wrote:

Most people probably missed this, but a few days ago I upgraded my ruleset to have granary sizes like this (comments welcome):

City    Food    Max
size    after   food
  1	         10
  2	  2*	 12
  3	  4*	 15
  4	  6*	 18
  5	  8	 22
  6	 10	 26
  7	 12	 30
  8	 15	 35
  9	 20	 40
 10	 25	 50
 +1	 +5	+10

* free Granary

Huh, this can be done?
Does +1/5/10 indicate it continues forever? That would mean you can provide a function as input.
I also didn't know "food after growth" can be specified for every size.
Does that mean, a city shrinking from size 3 to 2 will have 2 in granary, shrinking from 2 to 1 will have 0?
This is really interesting, because you don't want to shrink small cities with that setting.

#7 Re: LT45 » Team Selection » 22.08.2018 14:04:30

Hans_Lemurson wrote:
fran wrote:
wieder wrote:

players replacing

I'm not going to play any team game where late drop in replacements are not ruled out.

What problems do late drop-in replacement cause?

The tedious process of team making by captain's picking is debased by later replacements.
Even more so if top players make it a habit to drop in later.

#8 Re: LT45 » Team Selection » 22.08.2018 10:28:47

wieder wrote:

players replacing

I'm not going to play any team game where late drop in replacements are not ruled out.
I also think it is a bad habit for every game.

#9 Re: LT45 » LT45 is supposed to be a more traditional game » 21.08.2018 14:19:06

arkan wrote:

learning and teaching tricks

It's a bug, and it was fixed. Instead of bug you also can call it arcane knowledge (pun intended).
It's the first time I hear from that. I guess it's save to assume that at least 95% of all players of LT44ff would
not know. And you taught it? Tell me whom ...

So either take the old thing or the new one, but make no stinking compromise.
If I hear the old thing slows down growth I start liking it ...

But no, I'm in favor of growing granary size forever. Privileging megacities is unjust. (Yes, Corbeau, I know your ruleset ...). Currently in LT44 red is stuck at size 16 because they lack sanitation. Without that the game would be already over.

#10 Re: LT45 » Team Selection » 16.08.2018 15:42:05

Hans_Lemurson wrote:

As for Chill and Cgalik being on the same team, I believe this can be "balanced around".

I'd regard chill, cgalik and kunki and wahazar as fair.

#11 Re: LT45 » The cost for the full tech tree? » 13.08.2018 19:56:55

I researched the whole tech tree in test game for LT44, and I liked it.
It's important the tech cost accelerates faster than civ growth to make some space for actual gameplay.

#12 Re: LT45 » The cost for the full tech tree? » 11.08.2018 15:34:01

wieder wrote:

In LT44 with experimental tech costs and sci box 60 the full tech tree cost about 750 000 bulbs. [...] This was told be be a bit too cheap.

Due to the nature of experimental tech cost it's not possible in T50 to judge it to be "too cheap".
Also you need to keep other parameters stable in future games if you argue that way, for example tiles/player.

In general, a lot of quite new players have a lot of opinion. In general, that's great. But this is longturn. So take your time.

Same goes for archers, btw. It's plain wrong to maintain they would  be "too weak". Depends on the number you use ...

#13 Re: LT45 » Team Selection » 10.08.2018 19:49:22

wieder wrote:

You can see the status for  the team captain selection from this thread. That's all I know smile

More popcorn please.

#14 Re: LT44 » By Vectron's beard, Fundamentalism is amazing! » 09.08.2018 12:55:02

Strangely, if everybody is getting abundant gold from demo nobody thinks about how to weaken it.

#15 Re: LT44 » By Vectron's beard, Fundamentalism is amazing! » 08.08.2018 18:57:40

Hans_Lemurson wrote:

I am receiving +6 content citizens from various buildings and wonders.
I know I'm getting +1 from the courthouse, but I'm less certain about some other values.  Hanging Gardens and Temple of Artemis should give +2 contents each, but that would push the total to 7, so I'm not sure how it's calculated.

Ok, you're right. The Gardens give 1 content (4 lux for capital is another thing), so it's 6 as it should be.

#16 Re: LT44 » By Vectron's beard, Fundamentalism is amazing! » 08.08.2018 17:22:47

Hans_Lemurson wrote:

It is said that buildings like Temples give no happiness to cities?  By Vectron's wrath, this is heresy!  All happiness buildings have full effect.

I doubt this, but you can check it easily. In your city's dialog there is the happiness tab. If you open it there is the buildings section. If you click on it it shows you what buildings do.


In this example you can see that buildings reduce  unhappiness by 4,
courthouse, temple, mysticism and hanging gardens.

What does it say in your case?

#17 Re: LT46 » Coastal Transport replacing the trireme » 06.08.2018 16:13:06

wieder wrote:

Feel free to suggest better names for this ship.

Trireme or triere always was a bad name, because historically
a trireme is a pure, lightweight warship designed for high speed attack by
ramming that can't transport anything except hoplites standing on a plank.
It was introduced approx. 500 BC.
Unfortunately there is not really a general name for the generalist vessels
that preceded it. Given the fact your proposal can't attack it's probably
something like a freighter, freight ship, cargo boat, cargo vessel.
An native english speaker would need to decide which of those is
best for an ancient vessel. Maybe cargo boat.
Freighter is shortest obviously.

#18 Re: LT45 » elephants » 06.08.2018 15:47:13

Lord_P wrote:

So I would suggest.. Make them full price (30) A3 D2 but make them into Elephant Archers with bombard attack.

Aargh. Et tu, Brute?

#19 Re: LT45 » elephants » 06.08.2018 15:45:23

*Sigh* Elephants were around for so long for 22. Did that change the way people need to play in order to win? No, it didn't. So make them cheaper. Say 20, better 18.

#20 Re: LT45 » elephants » 03.08.2018 13:50:09

Wahazar wrote:

In my opinion, 22 shields for elephants make this unit overpowered, if compared to other units such horsemen, swordsmen, chariot etc.

In order to get elephants you have to research polytheism, which is a esoteric research path for early game, where you need to long for better government or better units via legion feudalism etc.
So the relative cheapness of elephants and their power compensates for the research you need to put into it.
I admit this is not as obvious in a team game like LT44, but it is exactly as it should be, and it shouldn't be changed at all.
What you're actually suggesting is to remove all choice at all if it comes to research paths, and the opposite is needed.

#21 Re: LT46 » New techs for LT46 (4th draft) » 01.08.2018 10:03:37

wieder wrote:

Cargo planes might make sense if it would be possible to prevent unloading outside the cities.

Depends on the unit. Parachutes can unload outside, there are also parachute tanks.
I also suggest a new unit, the large range reconnaissance trooper (german: Fernspäher).
It's a unit that looks like a rifle, can be airdropped, is visible only to adjacent tiles and has a decent vision,
only 1 MP and 0 or very low DP. It also can unload from submarines and warships to coast.
The purpose of the unit is to provide an early reconnaissance unit. The only one so far are explorer and awacs.
The classic cold war scenario for Fernspäher was to provide intel from behind enemy line as long as enemy needs to triangulate the radio waves. After that, game over. Today it's  not only a suicidal stationary but a movement mission, but for invisibility reasons, movement is very very slow.

Fusion power is no apt technology for head of tech tree. It's in every hydrogen bomb. So, if airports would be restricted to use with cargo planes, another top technology, "beaming", could be introduced that enables building of beamports, which essentially are as airports are now. But personally I think beaming is way to powerful.

BTW, ports don't allow land units to magically swim to another port without transport vessel. Why should airports?

#22 Re: LT46 » New techs for LT46 (4th draft) » 31.07.2018 20:58:29

Sketlux wrote:

It always bugged me that you can move units for free and invisible through airports without acitvely and physically moving them like with transport vessels. So what about introducing them?

Right, that's really unrealistic. I second introducing cargo planes. The small alternative would be to rename the airports beamports.

#23 Re: LT42 » Proposal for "winning conditions" for LT42 » 28.07.2018 10:51:36

Corbeau wrote:

We know total land area from server settings.

We know best player's land area if we have embassy with him because then it shows in Demographics.

In case it wasn't clear, the game doesn't end automatically. Players have to react and admin has to end it.

Hm, this could privilege coastal players if sea territory is also advertised as "owned" by demographics.
I assume it just counts the "owned" tiles independently if it's land or not.

#24 Re: LT46 » Bombardment with siege units, from discord » 28.07.2018 10:18:16

Caedo answered on discord so I copy this here:

"All defense bonuses gained from city improvements etc. are done via effects and found in the specific ruleset's effects.ruleset file. Since different effects of the same type (in this case Defend_Bonus) are added, this kind of defense bonuses is additive
So instead of e.g. a x1.5 defense multiplier, something would be a +50% defense bonus, i.e. "plus fifty percent of the base defense""

Back to the beginning,

         Green Phalanx in a city on hill with walls

base 2
hills x 1.5 = 3
fortified x 1.5 = 4.5
city/walls x 2.5 =11.25

#25 Re: LT42 » Proposal for "winning conditions" for LT42 » 28.07.2018 04:31:27

Corbeau wrote:

- best player controls 1/sqrt(N)* of overall land area on the map and holds it for 10 turns
A few examples. LT40 started with 25 players.
- one player conquering 20% of the map (swallowing 4 other players)

How do you implement this?

It's the condition that is likely to be met first.

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB