#1 06.08.2014 11:46:07

edrim
Ganoes Paran
Posts: 478

LW2

Here is a topic for LW2 comments. It will be sticked to the end of a game. End of a game in a meaning of LadderWars.

Start of LW2 games is at 17.09.2014.

Here are changes:

-killstack off
-no techtrade at all (trade, conquering, stealing) techlost_recv=100, techlost_donor=0.
-tech_leakage = 2
-restrictinfra off - already in LW1
-walls upkeep 1 gold (1 gold+prod?)
-tiredattack off - already in LW1
-25 hours timeout
-dispersion=0


3 boards with 12 players each, it means that max winning ally is 3, remember that if you have 4 players ally and last enemy die it will end a game suddenly.

LW2a game is on port 5121
LW2b game is on port 5122
LW2c game is on port 5123

Offline

#2 06.08.2014 15:48:07

Temmikael
Player
Posts: 14

Re: LW2

I like when LT games start simultaneosly.. If you have luck you still play other game when new one start.
THX Akfaew and Edrim.

Offline

#3 06.08.2014 18:21:48

edrim
Ganoes Paran
Posts: 478

Re: LW2

Temmikael wrote:

I like when LT games start simultaneosly.. If you have luck you still play other game when new one start.
THX Akfaew and Edrim.

This one will be short one, and after 40 days of end LW2 there will be LW3.

Offline

#4 08.08.2014 07:00:32

edrim
Ganoes Paran
Posts: 478

Re: LW2

Ok, after LW1 we have some thoughts.

first of all it is mrsynical idea before LW1:

mrsynical wrote:

"increase cost of walls (or require upkeep).

Second is to move terian changeing units down in the research tree as it was in the past, but i dont think it is good idea while some payer can make a tinyisles are not be able to kill fast in the end.

We should decide if in Ladder Wars we will decrease attack or defense, i think we should decrease defence and make fast attack much more possible then now. So maybe:

stackkill off? It is hardcore, I know, but with foretress off it can be fun.

Offline

#5 08.08.2014 09:55:48

Lord_P
Player
Posts: 116

Re: LW2

Agree with wall maintenance. Now I just build walls because they are a good way to save resources to sell when you need it. With maintenance players will only build them if needed.

For faster game I think reducing unit build cost would be better than changing attack/defend (which will totally change effectiveness of some units). More units = more action.

Stackkill of?? Not without some limit. Otherwise it will just be about how many cheap units you can build. A stack of 20 phalanx and 5 cannons would be unstoppable,  even if you can kill the phalanx easily!
An idea I have suggested before is to make a UNIT that works like a fortress. I dont know if it is possible but that would be like the great leader unit in some civ games. Then it could be restricted to one per player,  so everyone has a single national army that is very powerful but the rest of thier defence is normal.

Offline

#6 08.08.2014 10:01:09

Lord_P
Player
Posts: 116

Re: LW2

This would also make war on more than one front a very bad idea... which is realistic.

Offline

#7 08.08.2014 10:46:20

edrim
Ganoes Paran
Posts: 478

Re: LW2

Lord_P wrote:

Stackkill of?? Not without some limit. Otherwise it will just be about how many cheap units you can build. A stack of 20 phalanx and 5 cannons would be unstoppable,  even if you can kill the phalanx easily!

Sure, but now, we have a situation that if player can be on TC ingame he can build fortress that is similar to stackkilloff but with more def, only 2 turns delay of every fortress. Once we will set off stackkill TC moves will be decrese a little, not much but a average.

Offline

#8 08.08.2014 20:26:32

Lord_P
Player
Posts: 116

Re: LW2

thats true. Is the auto move after winning combat going to be on? at least that would move attacking units out of the stack.

Offline

#9 14.08.2014 09:13:47

edrim
Ganoes Paran
Posts: 478

Re: LW2

Ok as nobody care about discussion how about:

-disable Fortress
-stackkill off
-no techtrade at all (trade, conquering, stealing) Techloss 0, techrecive 0.
-faster science speed to keep game fast
-restrictinfra off (i am not 100% sure about it)
-walls upkeep 1 gold (1 gold+prod?)

This is my proposal of ruleset changes for next LW. If nobody (signed on) disagree i will try to put it into ruleset and we can start soon.

Offline

#10 14.08.2014 09:59:48

akfaew
Administrator
Posts: 619

Re: LW2

I don't like wall upkeep, stackkill off and disabled fortresses. This will make the game more flat - just spam units and push them forward without thinking. If speeding up the game is the priority, how about decreasing unit price instead. Alternatively, decrease unit defence strenght by 1, so that the only logical move is to attack.

Reduced tech cost is worth trying. How about 75% tech price, and let's see what happens.

Offline

#11 14.08.2014 11:29:26

edrim
Ganoes Paran
Posts: 478

Re: LW2

akfaew wrote:

I don't like wall upkeep, stackkill off and disabled fortresses. This will make the game more flat - just spam units and push them forward without thinking. If speeding up the game is the priority, how about decreasing unit price instead. Alternatively, decrease unit defence strenght by 1, so that the only logical move is to attack.

Remember that this is LW, so no big deal to flat it because it will be still about 10 players boards. For those very active players are regular LongTurn games like LT33.

Offline

#12 14.08.2014 11:38:37

StratThinker
Player
Posts: 57

Re: LW2

Here are my desired features
- make all small wonders into normal wonders (this will increase competition slightly, but not too much as there are so few players in the game)
- turn off tired attack (almost the only thing that tired attack adds to the game is mind numbing counting, this slows down the game and adds no strategy)
- make the turns last 25 hours instead of 23 hours

Last edited by StratThinker (14.08.2014 11:49:44)

Offline

#13 14.08.2014 11:55:05

edrim
Ganoes Paran
Posts: 478

Re: LW2

akfaew wrote:

I don't like wall upkeep, stackkill off and disabled fortresses.

Remember that we want to reduce TC moves, with this TC moves may be a little less popular. If it will not change it we can still shift it back for next LW.

Offline

#14 14.08.2014 12:26:31

akfaew
Administrator
Posts: 619

Re: LW2

StratThinker wrote:

- make the turns last 25 hours instead of 23 hours

Wow, why?

Offline

#15 14.08.2014 12:47:52

ifaesfu
Player
From: Huelva - Spain
Posts: 93
Website

Re: LW2

edrim wrote:

-no techtrade at all (trade, conquering, stealing) Techloss 0, techrecive 0.

Isn't it impossible to get in 2.3 or 2.4?  no techtrade without using techlost? how then?

Last edited by ifaesfu (14.08.2014 12:49:07)

Offline

#16 14.08.2014 13:40:24

edrim
Ganoes Paran
Posts: 478

Re: LW2

ifaesfu wrote:
edrim wrote:

-no techtrade at all (trade, conquering, stealing) Techloss 0, techrecive 0.

Isn't it impossible to get in 2.3 or 2.4?  no techtrade without using techlost? how then?

Maybe I wrote bad typing, I mean player who gets tech lost it in 100% and player who give tech or being conquer is not loosing tech for 100%

Offline

#17 14.08.2014 13:43:26

edrim
Ganoes Paran
Posts: 478

Re: LW2

akfaew wrote:
StratThinker wrote:

- make the turns last 25 hours instead of 23 hours

Wow, why?

I understand this idea.
If you are able to login to a game only between 10:15-10:30 PM everyday you may lost a turn every 24 turns. Once we will extend timeout it will let everybody to play every turn in this circumstance.

But 23 hours turn has such long history here that I dont know if it is possible to change.

Offline

#18 14.08.2014 13:53:08

StratThinker
Player
Posts: 57

Re: LW2

Also is it possible to make it that if a player does not log on by turn 2, that there nation is given an AI?  I do not like AI's but they are better than vacant land which makes the game unbalanced.

Edit: Edrim is correct, that is the reason that I wanted 25 hours.

Last edited by StratThinker (14.08.2014 13:53:57)

Offline

#19 17.08.2014 18:55:37

edrim
Ganoes Paran
Posts: 478

Re: LW2

Once there is not much discussion about new settings, there is no poll need.
There is some change of settings in first post, if you want to add or remove something from this list try to convince me that it will reduce TC moves and i will add it.

For me, playing one pase of a day with some success it is a goal. If you dont need to sit ingame on TC and have same chance of success as one who is checking every TC it is quite nice. We have some nolife players here but much more with life as a first reality:)

If this changes will not provide cutting TC moves a more then little i will think how to do it more and more.

We have 21 players already, I think it is quite nice number for LW2. With no negative talking about settings I think I will try to put this changes into ruleset and ask akfaew to start test games.

Offline

#20 18.08.2014 13:55:01

edrim
Ganoes Paran
Posts: 478

Re: LW2

With no trade tech at all I am adding tech_leakage = 2.


; Technology leak from other civilizations
; 0 - No reduction of the technology cost.
; 1 - Technology cost is reduced depending on the number of players
;     which already know the tech and you have an embassy with.
; 2 - Technology cost is reduced depending on the number of all players
;     (human, AI and barbarians) which already know the tech.
; 3 - Technology cost is reduced depending on the number of normal
;     players (human and AI) which already know the tech.
tech_leakage = 1

Everybody on a board will get a boost to inviting tech once somebody or more players will have this tech.
Math is here http://freeciv.wikia.com/wiki/Math_of_Freeciv
especialy:
http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb1407 … a98aa6.png

Offline

#21 21.08.2014 12:29:21

edrim
Ganoes Paran
Posts: 478

Re: LW2

Ok, because there wasnt any discussion about changeing settings, I have changed them like it is in first post.
This changes where made from LW1a settings, not from LT33.


1 - killstack off

mean that if you go anywhere with 5 units enemy need to destroy all of them one by one, I hope this setting will reduce adventage of TC moves.

2 - no techtrade at all (trade, conquering, stealing) techlost_recv=100, techlost_donor=0.

Some of us say that they can give a chance to this type of game. You will use only techs you have invited by yourself, not tech exchanging at all, not conquer techs, no stealing.

3 - tech_leakage = 2

But, all techs will be cheaper and cheaper once more players will research them, it means thats every player who will invent a tech will reduce price of tech by his % of all players (if i understand well Math of Freeciv)

4 - walls upkeep 1 gold (1 gold+prod?)

Walls are cheap, and without upkeep every player building it in every city as must have improvement, so keep in mind there is upkeep=1

5 - done-25 hours timeout

For all you are able to play only one part of a day I am introducing 25 hours turn.

Some of this settings are very experimental and I am sure they will reverted in future games (like techlost_recv=100, tech_leakage=2), so it is only one chance to try it in real Longturn.org™ game.
If you have any questions just ask. If you have any idea to reduce adventage of TC please report it.

Offline

#22 21.08.2014 20:47:57

mmm2
Player
Posts: 565

Re: LW2

hello edrim,
these are great ideas!..

also how about to reevaluate unit strengths?
ie, battleship costs 160 shields, but howitzer only 70 and cannon 50).....

We should try to give these obscure units better strengths so they are worthwhile to build.. right now it is only a howitzer fest at the "end game" phase of game....

Offline

#23 21.08.2014 20:49:28

mmm2
Player
Posts: 565

Re: LW2

how about to make the values of howitzer more expensive? Once this unit is built players have factories and 30+ production.. It is too cheap to build...

Offline

#24 21.08.2014 23:06:04

wieder
Administrator
Posts: 743

Re: LW2

How about changing advantage you get from markets, banks etc. from +25% to +50%? It's used now on LT33 and the reason for that was to encourage building up the economy. In a short game there is no point in building markets or banks if you get only a small advantage from those. The same of course applies to factories. In LW1a I had the opportunity of building one factory (one in one city might have made sense) but since in the best case the calculated profit for the entire game would have been only about 80-100 gold for that factory, there was no point since the disadvantage would have been delaying the units to be built from the city building that factory.

What about gold trade? Will that be allowed and will there be a penalty for that?

If gold trade is not allowed or it's very limited (Over -50% penalty), it might make sense to give everyone an embassy with everyone from the start. Playing with open cards as far as the embassy information is concerned might be interesting. It won't take long for everyone to have embassies with almost everyone anyway. Unless someone is killed in the very beginning and then it doesn't matter.

Offline

#25 22.08.2014 06:19:31

edrim
Ganoes Paran
Posts: 478

Re: LW2

How about set +50 for markets and libraries and "rapturedelay = 10"?
Talking here about howitzers and battleships is usefull once we will not get them in game.
If any board will head to howiz I will consider to change their prices for next game.

Remember that it is fast games strategy, and if you focus on sci you could be in danger of 37 days limit to end a game.

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB