#2 Re: LT46 » Smaller empire sizes and city limits for LT46 » 30.06.2018 19:35:01

I agree city limits in LT40 still were to soft to have an impact. It's not a big deal to exceed the limit by 4 cities, so the step should remain 1.

What is disappointing in my opinion was everybody in LT40 -- except fran perhaps smile -- did basically the same.
Everybody played democracy because nothing beats +2T. Only lordp/zoltan and fran were federation for some time.
If govs could be balanced better that would be great, perhaps if you introduce different forms of monarchy etc. the higher ones also could be given more trade to establish a real choice.
Well, I don't have a suggestion to make, just the feeling it would be great to really set apart the govs like
prod/trade/war/upkeep whatever oriented. With super-sized cities +2T gives you so overwhelming sci/gold/lux that everything else other govs grant is not worth mentioning. So perhaps to have a successor of tribal/despo without war unhappiness, military rule and lots of free upkeep. Totalitarianism so to say. The whole gov system should have some systematics and symmetry.

- making the trade based governments less powerful by making markets, banks, stocks and super highways to give 40% bonus instead of 50%

I'm not so sure that helps, because it applies to every gov.

- new production based improvements for most of those govs without trade bonus (communism, federation, monarchy...)

That's an interesting idea, but why not simply grant +1P (or 0.5 or 0.3 P if that is possible)  for certain govs?
+1P for every tile that already produces shields perhaps to much, but a fraction of that should do.
The general problem is that trade with democracy gives you gold and that compensates for production because you can buy. We all know you can end up having more gold than stuff you can buy.
Therefor an easy approach to balance govs simply could be to change max rates of lux/sci/gold. It's nonsense anyway that demo can have 90% tax. Unfortunately it probably won't be possible only to restrict tax and allow 90% sci? That should be restricted, and other govs, like federation, which is no alternative atm, could be boosted by giving greater flexibilty. It would feel more natural if the totalitarian govs have greater freedom than in demo.

- The howitzers would ignore terrain and move like alpines

What nonsense.

#3 Re: LT44 » Tech sharing and leakage » 28.06.2018 21:21:00

cgalik wrote:

Two team games are great where people can share and learn new strategies, not have someone implement their strategy on their nation. smile

It would be kind of a self-contradiction on the one hand to stage a team game,
and on the other hand to start from the premise the team members are not
acting in mutual trust and common volition.
Delegations are a means for the team to act as a team, and not for one over-ambitious
player to win over another one.
And delegations can be great for sharing and learning.
I'm pretty sure we agree on that.

#4 LT44 » Tech sharing and leakage » 28.06.2018 09:36:01

Replies: 7

I said it before game and I say it now:
In my opinion it's plain wrong to combine tech sharing and leakage in a 2 team game.
Tech sharing basically converts it into a 2 player game and you wouldn't enable leakage there.
That might be different with  more than 2 teams, with tech leakage being less strong, or if tech
sharing by diplo dialog would have 100% success chance.
Now a word about delegations. Some player from team red ( allegedly cgalik, but given the
fact the issue isn't raised publicly that looks like arkan :-P ) complained about using delegations
for tech sharing, violating the "idlers delegation rule".
For the record, we didn't violate that rule, because all players delegated by wieder were done
after the player indeed was idle. All delegations we have now are voluntarily and of course can be
removed by the respective player.
What's more, I don't think it to be an abuse of delegation to use it to transfer techs from one
player to another. Switching forth and back is solely done for tech sharing, nothing else.
To do it that way removes a lot of unfairness that is connected with questions like that:
a) some players that play permanent for others and control therefor more than on nation can do it anyway.
b) some players that came in as an replacement can't delegate at all (at least I think so)
c) some players more easily can be online at same time than others
d) some players are online just 2min/turn or so.
e) the need of 3.3 diplo dialogs on average for success isn't there on purpose, it's just a shortcoming.
f) the other team obviously benefits from fast sharing by tech cost dramatically coming down.

I will continue to use delegation for sharing, I hope my team will, and team Red also should if it sees fit their plans. Folks, this is annoying enough, don't let us cripple ourselves more than necessary.

#5 Re: LT44 » LT44 has started » 27.06.2018 14:13:47

cgalik wrote:

Yes, he can't betray his team.

A member of team Blue never would betray his team.
This has to be a redish problem ...

#6 Re: LT44 » LT44 has started » 27.06.2018 14:12:12

Corbeau wrote:
fran wrote:

Red Team? Wait, weren't that the Mao worshippers and mass murder adorers?

Those reports were grossly exaggerated.

First prove you don't have a Mao bible. See? You can't!

#7 Re: LT44 » LT44 has started » 27.06.2018 10:10:52

cgalik wrote:

If it's your nation so you can do what you want. smile
Red Team

Red Team? Wait, weren't that the Mao worshippers and mass murder adorers?
I wouldn't believe them.

Also, "do what you want" has limits according to the rules of this game.

#8 Re: LT44 » LT44 has started » 22.06.2018 18:31:39

Wahazar wrote:

Of course I can step into someone shoes, but not sure which ones. I tough that registering profile and game participation at the main page is sufficient, but I see that I'm not confirmed yet.

wahazar, you logged in. That's great. Try again, and then write
/take jaran
on chatline. If it shouldn't work, ask in game.

#9 Re: LT44 » The winning conditions and the ruleset for LT44 » 18.06.2018 13:49:45

wieder wrote:

One player should only control one nation + one delegated nation at once.
One player can have two pre-defined delegations set up. Having the delegations set up is not the same as using them.

I guess you mean "every player", not "one player".

#10 Re: LT44 » LT44 starting soon, check this forum for more info » 17.06.2018 09:52:07

Haken wrote:

Oh, can I join.
I missed the start.

Well, i would love to see you and others join, the problem is how to change the teams.
In my opinion wieder should adjust the teams without discussion.

#12 Re: LT44 » The ruleset for LT44 » 14.06.2018 18:08:53

wieder wrote:

You only need to give the techs to 2 players and if they do the same then everyone should have it soon enough.

Hmm, the bittorrent approach. Yes, it reduces the burden, but doesn't change the amount of dialogs necessary.

wieder wrote:

It also makes sense not to give techs to players who do not need them. The tech leakage makes it 50% less expensive so giving the techs to everyone (even if not needed) in your team would make the techs less expensive to everyone.

That is what I was about to say. That makes it really complicated. It's easy if you don't question a request of a team member, but if you do, that will lead to some oppressiveness.
I doubt tech leakage fits into the picture. If all techs are proliferated in the team, there are in fact only 2 players
(the teams), and so no leakage is needed.

I suggest switching it off.

#13 Re: LT44 » The ruleset for LT44 » 14.06.2018 17:25:00

That's my first team game, so I might get that wrong:
To share a tech you researched with your team you're supposed to open a diplo dialog with all teammates and that on average more than 3 times, because transfer probablity is 30%.
That are 48 diplo dialogs in total per tech.
I'm not sure I want to do that. It's worse enough if the probability would be 100%.
And I guess it should be 100%.
Downside is that tech stealing with diplos also would be 100%, because, as wieder points out,
it's the same setting. And yes, I think if you have tech stealing 100% is not unreasonable.
But even better would be to switch tech stealing off if that's not wanted.
So if I'm right about that dialog opening thing: In my opinion success probability should
be 100%. It's annoying enough with that.

#14 Re: LT44 » The first test for LT44 has been started » 14.06.2018 15:21:27

xandr wrote:

Just a reminder - test game is a test game, no need to annihilate enemy's units even before they can do anything

Indeed a terrible genocide has been committed and 8 innocent aboriginal tribes were ripped.
The Ainu have nothing to do with that!
As the leading power of that test game world I took immediate action to punish the presumptive
evildoers, the Grenadines, and was able to reduce them to one city. I wasn't able to destroy that
last city because their fiercly fighting offspring, the Vincentines, are preparing to take
over the world. That's the classic "man looses against machine" scenario, at least if you have only
2 minutes for moving, what, as it turns out, is not enough to cope with even an easy AI player.
The Vincentines produced another AI by now, so things get really interesting.
The Vincentines ripped the Belarussians and the Grenadians.
They slaughtered the Indonesians and the Greeks.
I really have to prepare my defence now.
As a last measure, I could launch my spaceship to save the honor of mankind  against the horrible machine.
Now there fusion armors are killing innocent idlers!  A cruelsome massacre which I watch from my helicopters.

#15 Re: LT44 » Selecting the team for LT44 » 13.06.2018 18:52:56

wieder wrote:

Chill didn't say that he would be picking the players for his team so maybe I could pick the players with cgalik. I could pick one, cgalik one, I pick one... could do that reasonably fast in discord.

If wieder picks players but does not play himself he should start with picking two players.
One player because at the start the team wieder picks for is one player behind  and the second
player because the team wieder picks for should be that one that starts picking.
That is because the only real top player is in the other team.

#16 Re: LT44 » Pollution and Global Warming » 11.06.2018 18:22:48

cgalik wrote:

Is there any settings to turn down Global Warming? It seems too drastic when it happens. When it gets to around 50% it affects every single possible tile in the game.

I don't know if there are any settings for it, but I'd say turn it down by 50%.

It's there to be drastic. There is no point about having GW if it can't influence the game, e.g. give a drawback to the leading player(s).
That said, state of the discussion after LT40 was, that GW as is now only affects land tiles, so experienced players can evade the consequences if they can build coastal cities. As long as pollution is not on ocean tiles, or GW is not destructing harbors and other improvements that work on ocean tiles, IMO it's broken and could be turned off.
That said, this is not the right point in time to discuss the ruleset of LT44. ATM, there is not even a new directory for an LT44 ruleset on github.
LT44 should be started with LT43 ruleset, and should be started soon. Not keeping the announced date is a probable way of creating idlers from the start.

#17 Re: LT42 » And now for something completely different » 29.05.2018 18:41:20

Corbeau wrote:

Are you looking for...

Sure I'm looking forward to see your ruleset in action.
So what is currently in https://github.com/longturn/games/tree/master/LT42
can be played?

#18 Re: LT42 » And now for something completely different » 29.05.2018 14:23:57

Corbeau wrote:

The LT42 game is roughly planned to start at the beginning of April

Great. So who is responsible for LT42 not happening:
The ruleset designer, the administrator, or the community (due to lack of interest) ?

BTW, I understand there is a freeciv-web longturn game, which ruleset does it use?

#19 Re: How to play the game » How to create a super city » 19.05.2018 19:31:09

kamBLR wrote:

Is there any sense to build mines/irrigation/road under the city (on the sector of city)? Does it give something?

city center tile

IIRC, mines yes
             irrigation sometimes (depends on terrain)
             roads never (are built automatically)

#20 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.

#21 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.

#22 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.

#23 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.

#24 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.

#25 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.

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB