#1 LT39 » City growth too fast? » Today 11:59:40

wieder
Replies: 0

Some people have commented that the cities grow too fast while some say that the growth is too slow in the early game.

How about making the foodbox bigger for the big cities? They are now 40 from the size 8 but they could be 50 from size 8.

Or we could leave LT39 as it is and try that on LT40.

#2 LT39 » More changes to make the game more traditional? » 16.10.2017 15:48:04

wieder
Replies: 0

Siege units to get v levels with barracks?

Restoring Mausoleum of Mausolos and Zeus? This however should be considered carefully since those wonders really change the governments. Any ideas? In my view they make for example republic and tribalism too powerful.

Don't hesitate to make suggestions. You can also suggest more general changes. What was changed too much and what kind of strategies no longer work that well but should work on a traditional game?

#3 LT39 » LT39 has been postponed few weeks » 16.10.2017 15:43:45

wieder
Replies: 0

The new start date is in 28 days - November 14h 2017.

More players is needed.

#4 Re: ScenarioGame 1 » SG1 has started » 16.10.2017 15:41:04

Sorry about this. Port has been updated to the game page.

#5 Re: ScenarioGame 1 » Suggestions for the next Ruleset. » 14.10.2017 13:16:28

How to restrict growth? One way to do it might be changing the sizes of the boodbox. For example keeping the current sizes for city sizes 1-8 but switching from 40 to 50 after that. One of the reasons why the cities grow so fast is that the settings are tuned to make early growth happen much faster. Currently there were comments about the early cities growing too slowly. Also, there have been attempts to make it easier and more reasonable to grow the cities beyond 8.

The 2x moves indeed make the green units to move really slowly. This wasn't thought about when the ruleset was changed from 3x to 2x. Maybe not that big issue with 3x? Cannons and catapults have 2 moves. Artilleries have 3 and howizers 4.

Tech trading... Yes, that wasn't checked. Apparently the server settings are saved o the save file and no longer can be changed by just changing the .serv file. Next time we will know better.

I'm not sure how to prevent allying without restrictions. Unless making this a team game.

#6 LT39 » Shall we postpone LT39? » 14.10.2017 11:27:25

wieder
Replies: 1

LT38 is still running and taking more time than expected. Also not that many people signed up for LT39.

#7 Re: ScenarioGame 1 » Suggestions for the next Ruleset. » 14.10.2017 11:26:33

Thanks for the feedback.

SG1 effectively has pretty much the same ruleset as LT38 has.

1) How fast should it be? would you prefer the old setting where the cities always get 10 food with granary or is there something else that should be changed? The harbours were reverted back to the old values in LT39 and split into 2 different buildings for LT40.

2) The idea with warriors costing the same while the other units had  the costs cut was to balance the number of the units built. Back in the days almost everyone was building pretty much only warriors and the better units were not used that much. This of course comes to the old topic about encouraging the players to do something. Some consider it bad to make for example the phalanx unit less expensive because that kind of encourages the players to build something else than warriors. However we could switch back to the old(ish?) values for LT39 if the players want it?

The catapults and cannons now have the citybuxter flag meaning that they get double firepower when attacking cities. Back in the days they were built as v (with barracks) but no double firepower. We can of course switch back to the old values if that works better for the gameplay. The old catapult had attack of 6 and the new one has 5. The new ones are crappy against units outside cities but quite good against units in cities.

What about movement restrictions? The catas should be able to go on some terrains and also attack non native terrains (with keyboard commands at least) and move elsewhere with roads. Not sure but I think this is the way it has been for ages?

LT32: veteran_work_raise_chance = 12, 9, 9, 9, 7, 7, 7, 5, 5, 5
LT38: veteran_work_raise_chance = 9, 6, 6, 6, 5, 5, 4, 4, 3, 0

I suppose this is right?

About the move/work ratio, I'm not sure how it's exactly defined on the ruleset but I think it's veteran_power_fact and veteran_move_bonus and they should match to each other. Not sure but changing that might also change the power factors for other units too?

The revolution length was planned to be 1 because this was supposed to be a short game. Will be 2 for LT39 but 1 for LT40. It was a surprise that the revo len was 0 (random) for SG1. We need to check that from the save game next time. Could be 2 for SG2, yeah.

#8 Re: LT40 » The city vision / work area » 09.10.2017 11:45:20

Looks like this can't be implemented in any case. The required features ("MaxUnitsOnTile") is a 2.6 feature and we are using 2.5.

#9 Re: LT40 » Added flagship units to LT40 » 09.10.2017 11:42:52

It was said that they made the game too much focused on military units. Or something like that. Can't remember the exact stuff just now. The flagship frigate was left there to let us to test the idea on a smaller scale.

However if the players want it, the flagship units can be restored. Opinions are more than welcome.

#10 Re: LT40 » Added flagship units to LT40 » 08.10.2017 12:56:07

All the flagship units except the flagship frigate are now removed from the game. The flagship frigate is an unique ship and the player can have only one of the type at a time.

#11 Re: ScenarioGame 1 » Help for how to play with native client and with LT rulesets? » 08.10.2017 10:53:08

I really like offtopic since that's usually something where the new fresh ideas are:)

I have now changed the city vision to 18 on LT39.

The trade bonus could also be used for rewarding and making it easier to grow beyond size 8. The size 8 has been a problem in the past games since the cities need several buildings if a gov without martial law is used. Rewarding the players for that seems quite nice.

#12 LT39 » The city vision radius is now 18 (was 5) and +10 with electricity » 08.10.2017 10:30:03

wieder
Replies: 0

This was changed due to the feedback from this thread:

http://forum.longturn.org/viewtopic.php?id=803

This will apply to LT39. For LT40 we may take a different approach.

#13 Re: ScenarioGame 1 » Help for how to play with native client and with LT rulesets? » 07.10.2017 17:35:59

I think MaxUnitsOnTile is available with 2.6 but not yet on 2.5.

The incite cost is not quite what does the trick here. Some govs do not allow this to happen in the first place and it's kind of same as with conquering the cities. No penalty before someone actually attacks there.

Having a trade bonus might work. Then again someone might say that not having a unit inside would mean that there is a penalty for not having unit and some trade is lost.

Maybe the units could give one extra shield to the city center? Trade might also do the trick but it could also give bigger bonus for those govs with +1 trade bonus for each tile already producing trade.

#14 LT40 » The city vision / work area » 07.10.2017 17:00:44

wieder
Replies: 1

How about this?

- an empty city would have vision and work area 2 tiles away.
- if the city has at least one unit inside, the work area would be extended to the level it's today on LT games -> 3 tiles away. Also the city vision radius would be extended to the same number.

This would be handled as a bonus for the city work/vision radius.

LT40 might be the best game for testing new stuff like that.

#15 Re: ScenarioGame 1 » Help for how to play with native client and with LT rulesets? » 07.10.2017 16:55:15

What I tried to say it would be effectively the same thing. Not exactly the same thing. With this bug/feature the game will allow the players to work on those tiles and that gives more options. It's true that the devs, when they heard about this stuff, told me they never thought anyone would use it like that. In the future Freeciv may actually have official support for a setting like that.

The "how about this" approach would "do it right way" but it would also limit the possibilities the players have. No problem in switching to that but I wonder why it would be better tongue

Yes, I understand it's kind of more clean way to implement it but it also limits what you can do.

#16 Re: ScenarioGame 1 » Help for how to play with native client and with LT rulesets? » 07.10.2017 12:32:46

The city working area / city vision relates to to keeping the cities occupied. Maybe there could be another way for encouraging that? This has worked in the past because there is an actual penalty for not keeping any units around.

There are at least two ways into looking at this.

1) the cities should be able to access any tiles they can work on and the units should not make the visible area any smaller that the working area is. A city is independent of units and could be considered as a fully self sustaining entity.

2) the cities alone do not have the resources for controlling all the tiles they could work on in the normal situations. The cities need some help from the units for the workers to go for the far away tiles.

I can see how this could be understood as a bug since it was originally an unintended bug that later proved to be useful.

How about this? We set the city working area to the same value the city has. However you get a working area + vision bonus if you have a unit inside the city. Effectively this would be the same as it's today but without the working tiles in the dark.

#17 Re: ScenarioGame 1 » Help for how to play with native client and with LT rulesets? » 07.10.2017 10:20:03

Pretty much all the rules are somehow limiting possibilities. We only need to decide what kind of limitations make sense and what makes the game less interesting. Kind of similar limitation is the citymindist that is also limiting options from the players. There has been long discussions about that too. Another one is the restrictinfra. Some arguments point out the it limits the possibilities for attacking the enemy and it should also be a choice if the players have virtually no defenses with restrictinfra off.

SG1 might be a bit different but in a normal LT game there is plenty of start units the players can use for maintaining the vision.

set startunits=ccccwwwwwwx

With 6 workers and an explorer it's really easy to keep the vision for the cities even if they are empty. The workers also can provide some kind of defense if taken inside the cities. From this point of view it might make more sense to increase the number of start units instead of increasing the city vision.

Anyway, this is not something that's carved on stone. On LT games stuff can be changed if there is a good reason to it and if enough players want the change. In the past there were polls but those didn't work out too well. Poll A affecting stuff XYZ and poll B affecting stuff ABZ and possibly conflicting on Z. Today this stuff is decided by game admins and any competent player can become a game admin. As far as I know, the admins have been asking about the changes on the forum or on the game chat.

#18 Re: ScenarioGame 1 » Help for how to play with native client and with LT rulesets? » 06.10.2017 17:04:25

We had some lists for ruleset changes but it got complicated after some games. Comparing the current game to the previous one, to the one before that and to civ2civ3... The current LT rulesets are quite different from civ2civ3 and not too many people ever played that. Some kind of list should be done at some point, yeah.

The city vision was indeed a bug in the first place but like few other bugs, it ended up being a feature because it was offering something that was found useful. The cities actually can work on the tiles that can't be seen but they can not be changed without actual vision.

In the past too many games have ended when people kept cities empty and open for anyone to conquer. With restrictinfra off it was even worse. Very easy to kill entire nations in a turn or two. The players can actually still keep the cities empty but at least something should be moved close to them to allow the worked tiles to be changed. Usually workers will do the trick.

We can of course change this setting if people really want it to be changed. Personally I would encourage the players to build better defenses since that's something too many players neglect smile

Other bug originated features are low ranges for nukes and no v siege units with barracks. Those proved to be useful once the units were reconfigured.

#19 ScenarioGame 1 » Help for how to play with native client and with LT rulesets? » 05.10.2017 08:53:57

wieder
Replies: 14

If there are issues with playing, especially for those people coming from web-multiplayer, I could list some help here.

The client is quite different from the web version, but it's also very flexible. There are lots of settings you can use to make it suit your needs and preferences. If there are issues, please post them here and we can figure out how to deal with them.

Also, the ruleset it different from the multiplayer ruleset. If there are some areas that need explaining, we can also do that here. You can ask about how to do something or how to deal with some stuff and get answers here.

There are no stupid questions. Just incomplete answers smile

#20 LT40 » We may have a test game for LT40 next week » 04.10.2017 12:23:06

wieder
Replies: 0

I'll add the players of LT38, LT39, LT40 and SG1 to it. You can also reply here if you want to be included in the test game.

The test is about new ruleset and possibly a server mod (commenting out one line of code) to prevent techs to be stolen when conquering cities.

#21 ScenarioGame 1 » Idler positions » 04.10.2017 07:46:23

wieder
Replies: 1

The players of SG1 can tell here about who is idling in the game.

Those who want to take an idler position can also reply here.

#22 Re: LT39 » The speed of the science? » 03.10.2017 15:02:29

Sciencebox is currently at 100% for LT38. How much more expensive it should be? 120% sounds reasonable but 200% could be a bit much even while interesting smile

#23 Re: ScenarioGame 2 » Plans for the second scenario game » 01.10.2017 16:18:21

Changing the cost of the techs on the ruleset is not a problem even while it looks like lots of work. We have done that before for some games. We only need to decide the correct values and make the unwanted techs too expensive. Probably easiest way would be setting sciencebox to 1000 and then lowering the costs of the wanted techs. That way there is no need to actually remove anything. Removing is kind of risky.

I agree that listing the changes would be needed for the future games. The LT rulesets are heavily modified civ2civ3 branches and lots of stuff have been changed. The idea with the changes is that the games could be played in about 150 turns and everything could be done in that time. Buildings are cheaper and there have been efforts in trying to balance stuff for a multiplayer game. This is why not too many Great Wonders actually exists on the rulesets. Instead there are small wonders everyone can build. Also stuff like inspiring partisans are removed because they can be *really* exploited.

One could say that the LT ruleset is almost a new one. On LT39 the ruleset will take back few steps and will be slightly more traditional. LT40 on the other hand is an experimental game - or kind of - with tons of features many people have wished in the past. SG2 might use a modified version of the LT39 ruleset when it's launched. Hard to say.

One reason for changing the rulesets is keeping the game fresh. You need to figure new ways to win the game. The old strategies may not work with new features. There is of course a downside to this since people need to learn new stuff in almost every game. The core idea however should be the same. It's a game about civilizations.

#24 Re: ScenarioGame 2 » Plans for the second scenario game » 01.10.2017 11:27:57

Lots of maybes.... Just some ideas, feel free to shoot them down if you feel they would not work  smile


Maybe we could set the science to allow the nations to research few techs during the war. Reasearching those would be optional. The other techs, stuff that was not invented during WW1, would be made too expensove to research.

Maybe building settlers could cost something like 8 population. I usually prefer not to turn off stuff but instead make them really expensive.

Maybe there could be 5-7 days of not figting in the beginning. I'm not 100% sure how it was in real WW1 but the fighting could start at different times In T4 on front X and on T7 on front Y.

Since people know how WW1 proceeded the earl setup should be be similar to that but the later phases should allow the war to prceed as it really happened or the players to try something else.

Some units need to be adjusted to WW1 level. There were fighters but those should be made less powerful for this scenario. And tons of riflemen... tongue

#25 Re: ScenarioGame 2 » Plans for the second scenario game » 30.09.2017 11:16:20

Ok, cool! Having the map almost ready sounds very good!

It's probably not possible to destroy city improvements by bombers. Spies can do that, however.

The techs should probably be set to very close to WW1 level when the game starts and research should be really slow.

Maybe not possible to limit the selectable nations on the web site but we can deal with that by letting the players to pick the actual nation (or what big block they want to participate) with forum posts. If they don't make a forum post then thy will be givin a nation.

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB