#1 01.02.2015 16:07:28

wieder
Administrator
Posts: 813

The new LT35 ruleset based on LT34, list suggestions here

I'll be doing to edits on 2.3 ruleset and when the time comes, I'll convert that to 2.5.

It's also possible that this ruleset is not going to be used in LT35 but in LT36 if LT35 is a team game requiring different kind of rules.

You can list here all the changes you would like to see for the next game. I'm starting this thread now because this allows us to propose improvements at the same rate we play the game. That's also the reason why this topic is here. As we play LT34 we will see what is working as what's not.

You can also list bugs needing fixes here.

One bug is that a pre-fort changes the ownership of a tile. This needs to be fixed for the next game.

Offline

#2 08.02.2015 19:30:06

mmm2
Player
Posts: 573

Re: The new LT35 ruleset based on LT34, list suggestions here

How about we have each city be able to have production for units and a production for improvements, so players can build units and improvements simultaneously. Now that this ruleset favors sim city more, early units become obsolete too fast and are barely worth building. I'm sure everyone would agree to play game like this, or not? THe question is jsut who would make this modification to the game, as this seems like high level of difficulty to make this enhancement...

Offline

#3 09.02.2015 08:56:04

wieder
Administrator
Posts: 813

Re: The new LT35 ruleset based on LT34, list suggestions here

I'm have no idea about how to do that. Anyway, are you sure this would be really needed since currently the idea is to get the buildings in a turn by buying them (if there is gold available) and waiting for units can already be slow. If you used only half of the resources for building units, you would be waiting for twice as long compared to a situation where you would be using all the resources from that city for building the unit. WOuld that be possible with some future version of Freeciv? With future version I mean a version made after 2.3.

This ruleset is supposed to favor early sim city way of playing, as requested by lots of players. However it's not all of it since the coastal cities can be vulnerable without walls, coastal defense and units protecting them. Even while people seem to know the rules or at least mostly know them, no one has really played a LT game with this ruleset and there will be surprises :SS I hope that no one is 100% sure about how to play and what to do. At least I don't know.

Offline

#4 09.02.2015 19:27:24

HanduMan
Player
Posts: 96

Re: The new LT35 ruleset based on LT34, list suggestions here

Another bug would be the mining time for the swamp terrain type (turns it to forest in no time, literally). You obviously forgot to update the mining_time property for it when you changed the mining_result property from "no" to "terrain_forest". The same goes for the reverse operation, turning forest into swamp.

The city vision radius should always be at least that of the city working radius. I consider the current setting as a bug also because IMO it is not logical that a city can work some tiles that are outside it's vision. The working and vision radiuses are set to 15 in game.ruleset but there is an effect in effects.ruleset setting the base vision radius to 5. Also, there is another effect setting it to 10 after a player has researched electricity but that is still 5 short from the working radius.
If we want to play around with the radiuses I'd like to suggest something totally different. tongue
Set the initial city working radius to 8 giving a 5x5 square.
Add an effect that increases the working radius by 7 from city size 4 and up (or whatever size would feel comfortable).
Set the vision range to follow the working range. (At least do this one, please.)

Another thing that is not logical (IMO) is that we need to gather 20 food to grow a city from size 1 to 2, while the next 3 growths require only 10 food each. This seems not compatible with the "speed tuning" philosophy of the LT ruleset.
There is no perfect solution to this, at least one that I know of. If anyone can figure out how to speed up the growth for a newly created city, but not for one that has recently shrunk to size 1 after building a settler, please share your thoughts.
One possibility could be allowing a size 1 city to go without citizen upkeep by adding 2 food to city center output. But as said, that would speed up the growth after building a settler too, making it maybe too fast. Add just 1 food? Any ideas?

The effect of the small wonder Lighthouse is not consistent with the triple movement points of all units. It gives only one extra movement point to sea units which is practically meaningless since the Trireme already has nine of them. This should be updated to give at least three extra move points for it to be worth building.

Just my thoughts so far (more to follow, I'm sure ;-) ).

mmm2 wrote:

How about we have each city be able to have production for units and a production for improvements...

This can not be done with ruleset modifications. It would require some (lots of!) code changes to both server and client apps. Not likely to happen. Unless it is already implemented in some future version of freeciv as wieder suggested.

Offline

#5 10.02.2015 20:24:00

wieder
Administrator
Posts: 813

Re: The new LT35 ruleset based on LT34, list suggestions here

Yeah, I forgot to update the mining time. StratThinker also reported about that but I forgot to post about it on this thread. Thanks for both of you!

"The city vision radius should always be at least that of the city working radius. I consider the current setting as a bug also because IMO it is not logical that a city can work some tiles that are outside it's vision."

I'm not sure what to say about that because all that stuff with city radiuses has been used on Longturn for years and years before I started playing here. However I do know that some bugs are considered features and have been liked by the long time players. In any case, good comments and I'll investigate that. Too many variables for me to say anything right now smile

Then again I have a feeling that it might be intentional. I find some logic there but maybe it's just me :SS

"Another thing that is not logical (IMO) is that we need to gather 20 food to grow a city from size 1 to 2, while the next 3 growths require only 10 food each. This seems not compatible with the "speed tuning" philosophy of the LT ruleset."

This is another issue, true. While it works discouraging smallpoxing, it also slows down the initial settling phase. If this could be solved, we could also make some of the first units cheaper. We had some changes to the unit costs but we can't make too many changes at a time. The previous games worked and it's easy to break something. LT34 already had a massive amount of changes but once we have played this game, we can make more changes if and when needed. I'm saying this because I had some ideas making the early game faster but applied only some stuff like cheaper triremes. Too many changes at a time and stuff...

The lighthouse.

I remember thinking about making it becoming obsolete at a later time. No idea when that should happen.

Offline

#6 10.02.2015 21:12:36

HanduMan
Player
Posts: 96

Re: The new LT35 ruleset based on LT34, list suggestions here

To fix the radius issue maintaining the current effective values, update the base vision range effect and disable the additional one in the effects.ruleset as follows:

; Base vision range - radius of vision is sqrt(15) = 3,87
[effect_city_vision]
name    = "City_Vision_Radius_Sq"
value   = 15

; 5 + 5 = 10
;[effect_city_vision_1]
;name    = "City_Vision_Radius_Sq"
;value   = 5
;reqs    =
;    { "type", "name", "range"
;      "Tech", "Electricity", "Player"
;    }

That's all!


To do the "something totally different" thingy,
1. Update the vision range effects in the effects.ruleset as follows:

; Base vision range - radius of vision is sqrt(8) = 2,83
[effect_city_vision]
name    = "City_Vision_Radius_Sq"
value   = 8

; 8 + 7 = 15 (sqrt(15) = 3,87)
[effect_city_vision_4]
name    = "City_Vision_Radius_Sq"
value   = 7
reqs    =
    { "type", "name", "range"
      "MinSize", "4", "City"
    }

2. In effects.ruleset, add:

; 8 + 7 = 15 (sqrt(15) = 3,87)
[effect_city_radius_4]
name    = "City_Radius_Sq"
value   = 7
reqs    =
    { "type", "name", "range"
      "MinSize", "4", "City"
    }

3. In game.ruleset, change:

; Square of initially city radius
init_city_radius_sq     = 15

; Square of initially visible radius (true distance).
init_vis_radius_sq      = 15

to:

; Square of initial city radius
init_city_radius_sq     = 8

; Square of initially visible radius (true distance).
init_vis_radius_sq      = 8

(Replace the "4" in 1. and 2. with the "whatever size would feel comfortable".) tongue

Last edited by HanduMan (11.02.2015 20:39:04)

Offline

#7 10.02.2015 22:13:19

wieder
Administrator
Posts: 813

Re: The new LT35 ruleset based on LT34, list suggestions here

Thanks for that!

However I'm not sure about why it has been set like it is now. Some changes have a long history and if I can't figure out some possible exploit, there still may be one.

Does anyone, who has been playing before LT30, remember what was that all about?

Offline

#8 11.02.2015 06:55:04

HanduMan
Player
Posts: 96

Re: The new LT35 ruleset based on LT34, list suggestions here

Looks like a mistake to me. tongue

Talking about mistakes, I seem to have made one with the directions above. Didn't test them properly before posting, sorry for that. Seems that "init_vis_radius_sq" does not affect the same property as "City_Vision_Radius_Sq". If it affects anything at all.

I'll post a fix (or edit the post above) as soon as I have time for it.

Offline

#9 11.02.2015 07:36:02

edrim
Ganoes Paran
Posts: 478

Re: The new LT35 ruleset based on LT34, list suggestions here

Lowering city wvision without unit inside adventage players who are not leaving their cities open, so it is good idea to let it as it is.

Adding city working tiles once city will grow up is best idea I saw here for ages.

But ...

I would like to see it in a way that you need to make something to do it, like make aqueduct (so expanding city working radius on size 9) and after it next step could be on size 17 after Sever System. It could let admins set citymindist >5 because cities could work on all tiles after hudge growth.

This adhere to LW3 settings I am trying to make. Thanks HanduMan.

Offline

#10 11.02.2015 20:08:02

Lord_P
Player
Posts: 125

Re: The new LT35 ruleset based on LT34, list suggestions here

wieder wrote:

"Another thing that is not logical (IMO) is that we need to gather 20 food to grow a city from size 1 to 2, while the next 3 growths require only 10 food each. This seems not compatible with the "speed tuning" philosophy of the LT ruleset." While it works discouraging smallpoxing, it also slows down the initial settling phase.

No, it just requires a different approach. The most efficient way to build settlers is with a size 4 city with two wheat or similar. so long as it can build settlers as fast as it grows the city just oscillates between 3 and 5 without any problems. A couple of cities like that can produce all the settlers you need while the rest focus on production and improvements. Later they can pump out migrants every couple of turns to grow other cities.

Other than my usual complaint about citymindist, I like this ruleset. I dont think it needs many changes because there is already loads of unusual things about it for everyone to discover.

Last edited by Lord_P (11.02.2015 20:13:34)

Offline

#11 11.02.2015 21:02:07

HanduMan
Player
Posts: 96

Re: The new LT35 ruleset based on LT34, list suggestions here

Fixed my vision effects directions above. I still cannot help thinking that it is really stupid (sorry) when you cannot see all the tiles the city can work in the city dialog. Just doesn't make sense. But isn't my "totally different" approach the answer for both problems? With those settings a) all workable tiles are visible in the city dialog and b) an unoccupied city (under size 5) does not provide vision enough to see beyond basic unit moving distance.

In one ruleset that I once helped composing the cities started with really tiny working areas (only the immediately adjacent tiles were included) which grew by one layer of tiles (hex map) at sizes 3, 16 (with Railroad tech/player) and 30 (with Machine Tools/player + Mass Transit/city + Super Highways/city). The city vision range was the same as the working range at all times. We had fun. tongue

The foodbox issue I raised is not about how to build settlers efficiently, but about growing a newborn city from size 1 to 2. The amount of food required is inconsistent with the "free granary" effect.

Offline

#12 12.02.2015 09:25:53

edrim
Ganoes Paran
Posts: 478

Re: The new LT35 ruleset based on LT34, list suggestions here

HanduMan wrote:

The foodbox issue I raised is not about how to build settlers efficiently, but about growing a newborn city from size 1 to 2. The amount of food required is inconsistent with the "free granary" effect.

I liked old style foodbox/granary use, started on 20 and every size up gives 10 more food to collect, granary gives half foodbox after size up.
But then, suddenly, someone said that it is blocking growth and gives rapture growth to much adventage, now we have a problem with to fast growth and do not have rapture, so maybe we can back to oldstyle foodbox/granary working.

Offline

#13 16.02.2015 18:24:57

HanduMan
Player
Posts: 96

Re: The new LT35 ruleset based on LT34, list suggestions here

wieder wrote:

Yeah, I forgot to update the mining time.

Just found another one. Transforming mountains to hills. tongue

Offline

#14 16.02.2015 20:47:58

wieder
Administrator
Posts: 813

Re: The new LT35 ruleset based on LT34, list suggestions here

"Just found another one. Transforming mountains to hills."

Wow big_smile Apparently some stuff can happen really fast on this game smile

I'll need to remember setting those next time.

Offline

#15 03.03.2015 11:30:00

wieder
Administrator
Posts: 813

Re: The new LT35 ruleset based on LT34, list suggestions here

Copied here from the game chat.

<Wieder> How would you feel about few units with extended vision? Like frigate with a vision of 5? I have been thinking about making some few earlier units with an extended vision but can't really say what those should be. If I recall correctly, it was possible to give extra vision for units on mountains. That might also be fun. Limiting the vision for units on swamps might be too much... Even while that could be also be interesting tongue

<HanduMan> this ruleset already gives extra vision to units on mountains but it's so minimal it can barely be noticed tongue

<Wieder> That could be the same as allowing the triremes to travel on rivers. Interesting but probably too much.

<Wieder> How about something like this: A warrior costing 10, a phalanx 15, an elephant 20...? and making the catapult just slightly more powerful?

I was also thinking about some changes to the triremes. How about making them to move just 6 instead of 9, changing them to have +3 additional moves with a lighthouse and obsoleting the lighthouse with navigation? The lighthouse could be relatively cheap. The caravels might be a problem because they have 9 moves and with the lighthouse they would have 12. That would make galleons much less interesting. Unless we change the caravels to have just 7 or 8 moves.

Maybe the moves don't really need to be dividable by 3?

Offline

#16 04.03.2015 21:26:47

HanduMan
Player
Posts: 96

Re: The new LT35 ruleset based on LT34, list suggestions here

I think the waste & corruption settings should be reconsidered when playing on island map. They are a bit harsh when you try to colonise even the nearby islands.

For example, hypotethically, you are running a monarchy, you have not yet discovered Trade, your capital city is located on the southern coast of the main island, you found a colony on an island close to your main island's northern shore, giving a distance of 23 tiles inbetween the capital and the colony, the city (after growing some) produces 11 shield of which 7 goes to drain. Trying to build a courthouse with the leftover 4 shileds take ages. The base waste for monarchy is 20% and each tile between capital and colony adds 2% to it. So in this hypotethical case your colony suffers 66% of waste. That is a lot.

Of course there are ways to bring it down but it takes time. And because of the island map the distances are grater than on larger continents. The base values should be slightly moderated, at least the biggest ones. They don't have to be even 10's, do they?

Offline

#17 04.03.2015 22:28:03

wieder
Administrator
Posts: 813

Re: The new LT35 ruleset based on LT34, list suggestions here

I have been thinking about the waste and corruption but decided not to change those for LT34. There were basically two reasons for that. Or maybe three.

The first is that we already had so many changes and some of the experienced players were already commenting how I was about to change too many things at once. I agree with them. Keeping track with the changes is not that easy and there are risks involved. Besides we always had good rulesets smile

The second is actually about the risks. With lots of changes we face a bigger risk of breaking something and that should be avoided.

The third reason was that it's possible to manage with all that just like you said. Not an easy task for everyone but doable.  This also makes the early game slightly more enjoyable for the new players since it's not possible for the veterans to expand so rapidly. With the monarchy it's also somehow realistic that you really can't do that. For the late game we have democracy and communism (virtually zero waste and zero corruption anywhere on the map!) and those have been very powerful forms of government in the last few games.

Those were the reasons why that stuff remains like it was on the previous game.

However since we do need to enhance the governments, I have some ideas how to do that. Or basically one idea we could use to make the less popular governments more popular. That would mean reducing the waste and corruption from the republic. Just slightly and yeah, the even 10's are not required smile

In addition to that we could also change federation in a similar way and maybe tune fundamentalism to to give really low waste and corruption. Not as low as we have with communism but low. To compensate that fundamentalism should have an unhappiness limit of 8 instead of the current 12. That would make it a great choice for those small nations who want to play hard core defensive game or become true rogue nations who just might be able to challenge nations with communism and democracy. And yeah, it wouldn't be possible to bribe cities. Only units. I haven't really given that much thought to this but at least the new fundamentalism might really spice things up. Of course we need to first see how it will be the current fundamentalism. We have never really played with that. In LT33 building a fanatic would cost population and this is no longer the case.

Yeah, we could change monarchy but there shouldn't be too huge change from despotism/pyramids to monarchy and the change from monarchy to something better should be rewarding enough. I'll check that.

Offline

#18 19.03.2015 00:54:47

mmm2
Player
Posts: 573

Re: The new LT35 ruleset based on LT34, list suggestions here

wieder, it seems you did great job balancing this ruleset. We are still in the ancient units phase, so yet to see if pricing is right for the end game pieces.

New&Previous suggestions:
WONDERS:
Darwin's voyage: It is worthless, should be priced more like 200 instead of 1500
King Richards: way overpriced, and nobody will build it for 150...
Sun Tzu Academy?
Statue of Liberty?

Units:
Carrier Pigeon: move 1 square per turn on any terrain; can be captured; same function as diplomats
Dolphin: would be a friendly unit that explores 2 tiles per turn, and can be captured..
Dirty Bomb: It will put pollution for 3X3 square where it is dropped.
Cargo Plane: It will be same as transporter, except it flies.
Amphibious Transport: same as transporter, except it is invisible like a submarine (unless directly next to).
V3 Rocket Launcher: A unit that carries cruise missiles
Attack dog: 0 upkeep, 1 attack, 0 defense, movement: 4
Mamoth Tank: 24X attack, cost 300 shields

City Improvements:
Radar Tower: would give city vision of 20X20

Last edited by mmm2 (19.03.2015 00:56:58)

Offline

#19 19.03.2015 10:03:25

Corbeau
Player
Posts: 246

Re: The new LT35 ruleset based on LT34, list suggestions here

mmm2 wrote:

Cargo Plane: It will be same as transporter, except it flies.

Good idea, but need to disable airlifting, then.

Some other good ideas. Also, animals are cute but, c'mon...

Offline

#20 19.03.2015 12:04:50

wieder
Administrator
Posts: 813

Re: The new LT35 ruleset based on LT34, list suggestions here

"Darwin's voyage: It is worthless, should be priced more like 200 instead of 1500"

It's only for one player as it's a world wonder but yeah, maybe it could be 200 or even the original 300.

"King Richards: way overpriced, and nobody will build it for 150..."

This could be changed to give extra production. In a similar way to the Pyramids. As a cheap wonders it would work like an ancient factory and you can have just one of those.

"Sun Tzu Academy?"

Yeah, I guess we could add that one. The correct price for it? 400? Maybe 500 if we have it on 2.5 and it allows you to have vv units.

"Statue of Liberty?"

Can't be done because it will allow players to do TC RTS by switching the governments just few seconds before the tc.

Units:
"Carrier Pigeon: move 1 square per turn on any terrain; can be captured; same function as diplomats
Dolphin: would be a friendly unit that explores 2 tiles per turn, and can be captured.."

I somehow like the carrier pigeon idea, but we would need to have some actual historical unit doing the actual moving.

"Dirty Bomb: It will put pollution for 3X3 square where it is dropped"

Not sure if that could be done but yeah, this is an idea worth considering.

"Cargo Plane: It will be same as transporter, except it flies."

The helicopters are not enough for this? What existing graphics could we use?

"Amphibious Transport: same as transporter, except it is invisible like a submarine (unless directly next to)."

I like this idea. It would also make the ocean warfare more relevant.

"V3 Rocket Launcher: A unit that carries cruise missiles"

The original V3 (Vergeltungswaffe 3) was basically a huge stationary cannon shooting incredibly heavy shells and it was never completed. Currently we have submarines able to do the same. Maybe we could have an airplane unit capable of carrying missiles but how would that work and what kind of risks would we have with unbalancing the game?

"Attack dog: 0 upkeep, 1 attack, 0 defense, movement: 4"

On the Finnish board I suggested a saboteur unit invisible like the submarines, having with just few moves and able to pillage roads. Not able to attack or capture anything. Not sure if that would unbalance things.

"Mamoth Tank: 24X attack, cost 300 shields"

Yeah, why not but because of balancing reasons that would need to be extremely expensive. Maybe 300 might be enough. But what graphics to use?

"City Improvements:
Radar Tower: would give city vision of 20X20"

You can have almost the same by building an AWACS plane and placing it on a city. Would someone really need this?

Offline

#21 28.03.2015 12:34:09

wieder
Administrator
Posts: 813

Re: The new LT35 ruleset based on LT34, list suggestions here

<Wieder> How about this for the Summer LT35?
<Wieder> A team game, continents, just two teams, no shared research, no city trading, ruleset quite similar to LT34 but with some slight improvements
<Wieder> and of course random starting locations tongue
<Wieder> map not revealed in advance

I guess the action should start really fast since lots of map is known and everyone outside your own team is an enemy and there would be no point in making a cease-fire between the two teams smile

Offline

#22 16.04.2015 06:46:45

Xanox
Player
Posts: 9

Re: The new LT35 ruleset based on LT34, list suggestions here

What about removing the waste of food? Bardo wrote about it in http://forum.longturn.org/viewtopic.php?pid=2064#p2064 :

"The reason to introduce waste of food was to make it harder to create large empires at solo games, but it might be annoying at such big maps."

I have found that rule already annoying for a city only 6 tiles away from the capital... It is made even more bothersome because there is no easy way in the client to check that waste level contrary to the trade corruption and production waste (as those are displayed both in the city window and in the "cities" tab).

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB