#1 04.12.2014 19:54:16

wieder
Administrator
Posts: 744

A rough draft of LT34 - EDIT 1

LT34 will be most likely a team game but not 100% decided yet

EDIT 1: Since this is a draft, please comment if you think something is either wrong, would break the game or if there is a reason why it shouldn't be like this.

In a team game there will be no pooled research. This will make it easier for everyone if someone in the team is not playing a team game but just playing the game and not caring too much about the team. This will also make it more strategic since not everyone in a team has same tech.

About choosing the teams on another post.


Science

; 2 - Technology cost is reduced depending on the number of all players
; (human, AI and barbarians) which already know the tech.
- If the teams have pooled research, techs will become x/numberOfPlayers/2 cheaper when a tech is invented by some team(s). Example: with 10 teams and one team having invented a 100 bulb tech it will be 100/10/2 = 5 bulbs cheaper for the rest of the teams.
- if LT34 wouldn't be a team game for some reason it will be x/numberOfPlayers and for a 100 bulb tech it will become 2 bulbs cheaper (assuming 50 players) for each player researching the tech.
- stealing techs always fails = no stealing techs
- trading techs always fails = no tech trading
- techs can't be acquired through conquest


Moving

- no changes to the ZoC
- restrictinfra ON
- if LT34 is a 2.3 game we will have roads and rails working as previously
- if LT34 is a 2.5 game rails will take 1/9 moves and infinite moves are available only with more advanced techs
- workerparalysis 5 minutes if a team game or 5 hours if it's not a team game. Opinios please.
- can't claim ownership of a tile with a pre-fort. Can be done with a fort


Trading
- trading with vision will be available meaning that you can give your vision to another player
- city trading OFF because city trading makes things too comfortable for advanced players (who takes a conquered city, moving the capital etc)
- 25% penalty for trading gold to discourage large alliances giving one player huge piles of gold in order to fight a smaller enemy.
- no autoattack


Wonders
- in short, most of the early ones will be cheaper, changes are on trello but since there will be more discussion about this subject, I'm not listing here all the changes the wonders
- no Statue of Liberty allowing the players to immediatelly switch government
- Marco Polo costing 800 instead of 1000

Unit costs & units
- No big changes but some tuning, more about that later
- maybe some changes to the naval units but nothing like making them 50% cheaper


Misc

- base chance for diplomats and spies to succeed 40% instead of 50%
- no changes to inciting citie in addition to changing the chances of diplomats and spies to succeed
- no changes to civil wars. Seriously, this can be dealt with by placing some good units in the capital.
- City distance will remain as 5
- The game will have 3x moves
- Still no trade routes
- no turn limit meaning that the game won't end at a predefined turn. It will end once only one team/alliance remain and everyone has been conquered or the enemies have given up on the forum. It can also end when the spaceship arrives.
- EDIT 1: Cities with walls don't lose population if a defending unit dies. A city without walls does. This should make attacking more rewarding.
- EDIT 1: When a city is conquered, there is a 10% chance that a building will be lost instead of the current 20% chance. This will make attacking more rewarding.
- EDIT 1: Making the Manhattan Project cheaper. Not yet decided how much. It's currently 6000 shields but could be 3000-5000 shields.
- EDIT 1: Making the nukes more expensive

Winning

- if not a team game, there will be 1 winner for every 10 human players starting the game. For example with 30 players there can be 3 winners and 51 players there can be 6 winners.
- no limit for survivors. This however is something I would like to hear comments about.
- Spaceship is available and you can win with a space race. Probably 10x or more cost for the ship parts.



May be added (probably:) if possible

- EDIT 1: modified version of Bamskamp's idea about a second palace.  Having the effect of a second palace would make it profitable to attack overseas and it would make naval units more viable.

Offline

#2 04.12.2014 22:41:08

Corbeau
Player
Posts: 241

Re: A rough draft of LT34 - EDIT 1

I'm opposed to a team game. I could give some argumentation, but basically it amounts to a personal preference.

If a team game, I'd prefer if the teams are not fixed (don't know if that makes any sense, not sure how you determine that...)

No exchange/steal/conquer techs - aye.

Still don't like x3 movement. This means that an Alpine can warp in from way beyond your vision range.

- trading with vision will be available

What does this mean?

- city trading OFF

I don't like it. Restrictive, unrealistic, causes gameplay-related problems. Abuses can be fixed.

- 25% penalty for trading gold

Why? Seriously, why? If tech trade is disabled, you are seriously hindering cooperation with this. If someone is making shitloads of money, why is it a problem if he shares it to his allies without unnecessary losses? If spomeone is actually playing well, you are drawing him back.

- no Statue of Liberty allowing the players to immediatelly switch government

Why not have it after all governments have been discovered?


- base chance for diplomats and spies to succeed 40% instead of 50%

As far as I'm concerned, feel free to go even lower.

- no changes to civil wars. Seriously, this can be dealt with by placing some good units in the capital.

Seriously, this is not a card game. This is a card which, no matter how hard it is to get, wins the game for you. Actually, not even that. It is a get-out-of-the game card for the losing player. It's a step back from Civilization as a complex multi-choice game.

- Still no trade routes

Good.

- no turn limit

What does this mean?

Winning

Don't care, really wink Perfectly satisfied with being the uninvolved inn-keeper at a busy location, watching everybody bash each other's brains out, steal the occasional loot if possible, making money by selling drinks to everybody and wondering where this world is going to smile Hm, I think I'll drop the revolutionary agenda this game and take the Swiss...



I'd like to propose another thing; since tech trade is off, the main win card is out of the game so may as well permit negotiations without having to spend a diplomat to create an embassy, if you are neighbours or have recently had contact. I don't know the option name, but you know what I mean.

Offline

#3 05.12.2014 09:12:28

wieder
Administrator
Posts: 744

Re: A rough draft of LT34 - EDIT 1

There seems to be lots of interest for a team game and while I would also prefer a non team game, it's better to go with the majority since it's also a tradition to have a team game.

I made a proposition for making the teams.

Trading with vision means that you can give your vision to another player.

The civil wars. Once again, seriously, defend your capital and don't ever leave it empty.

Not needing diplos for trading gold or vision sounds somehow too easy to me. More opinions?

Offline

#4 05.12.2014 11:27:41

Corbeau
Player
Posts: 241

Re: A rough draft of LT34 - EDIT 1

wieder wrote:

There seems to be lots of interest for a team game and while I would also prefer a non team game, it's better to go with the majority since it's also a tradition to have a team game.

Well, even if it's not a majority but only a significant minority it would be fair to have team games occasionally.

The civil wars. Once again, seriously, defend your capital and don't ever leave it empty.

You don't have to leave it empty. You can put as many defending units in there, but you have to defend other cities, too. The attacker can choose his target. If he can wiggle his way to your capital through skill or luck, game over. If you are half-beaten and he reaches your capital, game over. No comeback. No turning the tide. Game over.

I don't like absolutes and irreversible things, I think we should avoid them as much as possible and this is one of them.

Not needing diplos for trading gold or vision sounds somehow too easy to me. More opinions?

Those things aren't such a bonus. Trading gold: whatever you got somebody else lost. Vision is just information that can be shared even without, well, vision.

Also, it's not like you are making diplomats useless. It is a unit that has other uses beside establishing embassy.

Offline

#5 06.12.2014 12:55:25

Kryon
Player
Posts: 327

Re: A rough draft of LT34 - EDIT 1

"No exchange/steal/conquer techs"

I really like that! It will force all players to grow and improve their cities and conquer more land in order not to fall behind in techs.

Offline

#6 06.12.2014 14:30:17

mmm2
Player
Posts: 565

Re: A rough draft of LT34 - EDIT 1

Kryon wrote:

"No exchange/steal/conquer techs"

this will be a noob killer setting... no tech exchange is optimal for games where players are sorted by rating in ladderlongturn. if we play this setting, i would suggest to give gunpowder for free to all first time players smile

Last edited by mmm2 (06.12.2014 14:58:17)

Offline

#7 06.12.2014 16:43:45

Kryon
Player
Posts: 327

Re: A rough draft of LT34 - EDIT 1

Btw with restrictinfra ON, no need to worry much about losing capital. This setting will really slow down conquering enemy cities. I like that.

Offline

#8 07.12.2014 14:13:21

evan
Player
Posts: 70

Re: A rough draft of LT34 - EDIT 1

Wieder Action Man!
I think you make quite a good admin,
and i accept that mine is still a limited perspective.
But when do you think you will start to finalise your ruleset?
I for one will trust your judgement, even though i disagree with many things.
The more i read through the old forum, the more it's clear that the slowly evolved state of the rules is superior in many ways...
...and the changes to no-tech-trading is very welcome - for this is also for the better...
...and I am glad that the presented rules will have restrictinfra on.
But, even though it's clear you see changing ZOC rules best served in an experimental game, for it is a radical change, why is there no voting? I would like the opportunity to vote.
I really do not understand.
As for team vs teamless, I vote, VOTE, for team, because i like to try something new.
As i said, in the end i will trust your judgement.
But i would rather see a vote.

Last edited by evan (07.12.2014 14:47:16)

Offline

#9 07.12.2014 15:41:37

wieder
Administrator
Posts: 744

Re: A rough draft of LT34 - EDIT 1

It's great to have comments also when something is not like you or someone else would like to have it smile

It's currently not possible to have votes because of technical reasons. I don't know the exact reason but this is what I was told. There are few questions I would like to hear more opinions about and perhaps even a vote but we can't have votes just now.

"Would you like to have a team game or a teamless game" (No final decision about that)
"Would you like to have islands game or continent like we had in LT33?" (islands with unlimited flights to the destination airport(s) might be it)

I'm planning to have the ruleset ready in about 2-3 weeks. Assuming that there are no issues delaying that.

I already got a comment about too many changes between the games. You can also suggest dropping some changes.

What I try to do for LT34 is to have a reasonable amount of simcitying if that's how some people want it, some great wars for those who like that and also less importance for diplomacy with the tech settings.

Offline

#10 07.12.2014 17:01:57

Corbeau
Player
Posts: 241

Re: A rough draft of LT34 - EDIT 1

I prefer teamless game.

This applies to temless game: Single continent but, if possible, more diversified than LT33. Maybe 2-3 large(r) continents. Asymmetric.

Please no N-S wrap. For variation, maybe not even E-W wrap, but I am being quirky now.

About changes, I have no problem as long as they are good. Just make sure everyone is aware what's new. If people don+t get it, their problem. Shout about it often.

Offline

#11 07.12.2014 17:02:44

mmm2
Player
Posts: 565

Re: A rough draft of LT34 - EDIT 1

I forgot who it was, but someone in the game chat suggested 3 players per team, I think it's great idea! because it seems like 80% want to have teamless game, but we wanted also to keep tradition of switching between team and teamless game. 3 players is enough so that some noob first time players can get chance to be on team with long time players. I like idea of having it randomly generated too. I really don't mind if I am on team with experienced or noobs. Plus, I like this too, because it forces wolf packs of experienced players into teaming by random with noobs.. If you ask me, this is perhaps best idea so far for Lt34!

Corebeau, do you agree with this?

Offline

#12 07.12.2014 17:07:51

Kryon
Player
Posts: 327

Re: A rough draft of LT34 - EDIT 1

wieder wrote:

"Would you like to have a team game or a teamless game" (No final decision about that)

I personally would prefer teamless (alliance) game. In fact, I will play team game only if teams can be freely formed.

wieder wrote:

"Would you like to have islands game or continent like we had in LT33?" (islands with unlimited flights to the destination airport(s) might be it)

I prefer continents for alliance game and islands for team game.

Offline

#13 07.12.2014 17:16:07

mmm2
Player
Posts: 565

Re: A rough draft of LT34 - EDIT 1

Kryon wrote:

I will play team game only if teams can be freely formed.

freely=prearranged?

why do you insist on pre-arranging teams? what's wrong with having a hybrid setup where the teams are small enough (size 3) to make for a mix of "team" and "alliance" game. Assuming it's 3 player per alliance and you have 2 noobs, you can still form alliances with other teams. If you are patient enough you can be leader for team and give them tips and have chance to do well even though it's "young" team.. size 3 seems to be great compromise in satisfying those that want team game and teamless, or you disagree?

Last edited by mmm2 (07.12.2014 17:39:26)

Offline

#14 07.12.2014 18:12:13

wieder
Administrator
Posts: 744

Re: A rough draft of LT34 - EDIT 1

Having those 3 player teams might be interesting but it becomes really complicated if some team gets even just 2 very experienced players. The new settings for the idlers (idling units will eventually die!) would also make that complicated if there are 2 idlers for some team. You can only have one delegation.

Why no N-S wrap?

Offline

#15 08.12.2014 18:23:21

maho
Player
Posts: 155

Re: A rough draft of LT34 - EDIT 1

Corbeau wrote:

Please no N-S wrap. For variation, maybe not even E-W wrap, but I am being quirky now.

+1 from me. Please don't wrap at all if it's possible. Yeah - I know that it will give advantage to corner players. From other side - it's disadvantage.

Offline

#16 08.12.2014 18:25:57

maho
Player
Posts: 155

Re: A rough draft of LT34 - EDIT 1

- workerparalysis 5 minutes if a team game or 5 hours if it's not a team game. Opinios please.

What is "workerparalysis". Google returnrs 0 results for this word (except this post), so such term doesn't exist tongue

Offline

#17 09.12.2014 07:19:47

edrim
Ganoes Paran
Posts: 478

Re: A rough draft of LT34 - EDIT 1

maho wrote:

- workerparalysis 5 minutes if a team game or 5 hours if it's not a team game. Opinios please.

What is "workerparalysis". Google returnrs 0 results for this word (except this post), so such term doesn't exist tongue

It means that you will not be able to move your workers anytime you want. For eg. 10(20, 30, 40, ...) minutes to TC. They will be paralized and not able to move. This is not my idea, I don't like it. This is a try to cut TC moves, but it will just boost night players.

Offline

#18 09.12.2014 09:49:56

maho
Player
Posts: 155

Re: A rough draft of LT34 - EDIT 1

edrim wrote:
maho wrote:

- workerparalysis 5 minutes if a team game or 5 hours if it's not a team game. Opinios please.

What is "workerparalysis". Google returnrs 0 results for this word (except this post), so such term doesn't exist tongue

It means that you will not be able to move your workers anytime you want. For eg. 10(20, 30, 40, ...) minutes to TC. They will be paralized and not able to move. This is not my idea, I don't like it. This is a try to cut TC moves, but it will just boost night players.

Ah, so in fact turn for them is moved by X minutes down.

Offline

#19 09.12.2014 15:04:31

maho
Player
Posts: 155

Re: A rough draft of LT34 - EDIT 1

vidlius wrote:

N-S wrap is what causes the torus? World? Where the poles are like nw and se of each other?

Why NW and SE? They usually are N and S of each other, no matter what wrap is used.

Offline

#20 09.12.2014 15:07:31

Corbeau
Player
Posts: 241

Re: A rough draft of LT34 - EDIT 1

Depends on the tileset.

And torus more realistic? Mhm...

Offline

#21 09.12.2014 20:33:42

bamskamp
Player
Posts: 28

Re: A rough draft of LT34 - EDIT 1

Wieder, I support what you have put together thus far - My preference is a team game (maybe because I'm still a noob tongue ), but I look forward to playing regardless.

I think it is important to have everyone equally disadvantaged by map position, thus I voice my support for N-S and E-W wrap.  The torus is just a topological construct - surely cylinders or planes are equally absurd?  At least the two-way wrap simulates the ability to circumnavigate the globe.

In the same interest of equality, I support the (scientifically implausible) elimination of poles.  A tundra start has significant challenges compared to a temperate globe position, although in a team game, this variation can lend itself to strategic diversification.  I think we should eliminate poles if we have an alliance (teamless) game.

If we choose a team-game, I like edrim's suggestion for leaders picking initial positions. 

For picking teams, could there be a way for an impartial game administrator to anonymize player names during the picking process, by instead categorizing players into percentile ranks based upon their ranking?  Flags could also be added for potential idlers based upon precedent or to distinguish brand new players from non-ranked sophmore players (those with 1 LT game under their belts). 

Of course, this won't stop veteran players from joining with new accounts, which could tip a team into an advantage by chance (not that THAT has ever happened, right?).

Offline

#22 09.12.2014 21:56:39

maho
Player
Posts: 155

Re: A rough draft of LT34 - EDIT 1

I vote for no wrap at all. I know, we all know that world is a sphere, we fly to Moon, but deep in the soul we stick in faith that world is flat disk on top of 4 elephants. And human's mind works better with nonwrap map than with map where you don't exactly know if Japan is West or East smile.

(I have feeling that I wrote it today already)

Offline

#23 10.12.2014 08:37:03

edrim
Ganoes Paran
Posts: 478

Re: A rough draft of LT34 - EDIT 1

Why don't play on a square without coneting from N to S and from E to W.
Sides can be out of terian, we will have hudge isle in a center of map and couple of islands close to sides.

Or map could look like this: one big island in a center of a square and couple less land or none outside. Every team are getting position close to side of a square and start growing by going to center, or to any other direction. a Map like this link to a map

When you fortify on your terian you can be sure nobody will destroy your cap in a dirty trick.

Offline

#24 10.12.2014 10:55:14

paavo
Player
From: Finland
Posts: 18

Re: A rough draft of LT34 - EDIT 1

If resrict infra is enabled (i really would like see something different like enemies could not use railroad but rails would counted as normal road or something like that  but i understood that 2.5 series could offer for it) building prefortress will cause change ownership of tile? somehow i have feeling that it could cause building lot of tc preforts... 

And spies are definitely too cheap compared to diplos, both are 30 shields.

Offline

#25 10.12.2014 12:46:02

edrim
Ganoes Paran
Posts: 478

Re: A rough draft of LT34 - EDIT 1

paavo wrote:

And spies are definitely too cheap compared to diplos, both are 30 shields.

Same like Musks (30 shields) compared to Swordsmans (40 shields), how it is possible to build better units cheaper then worse one.

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB