Are there people who may be interested for another, slightly different (more classic approach) game of LT FreeCiv?
I must admit that this kind of scoring is not stimulating beyond a certain point. As the score goes, either you are a part of a winning coalition or you are not. If you are not, it is completely irrelevant if you held out until the bitter end or you were the first to die, around T30. Also, the winning strategy is wiping out everybody who is not a part of your alliance which is a bit... uncivilized.
So I'd like to play a slightly different game. If it catches on, it could be part of a different scoring system, maybe call it "LongTurn league" or whatever, but if not, it can simply be a game you play for a different kind of fun.
Here are the settings I had in mind.
The core would be civ2civ3 ruleset, meaning movement x2.
Tech prerequisites: you can't get, steal, conquer or receive in any awy a tech that you don't have a requirement for.
Tech upkeep: the more techs you have, the more science you need to have to be able to keep it. Do not want to cripple research, maybe have a moderate level, for example, if you have researched 25-30 techs (Philosophy level), then all your cities must have a library in order to be able to advance further. If you have 50-60 (Industrialisation level) you must have Universities. Also, tech upkeep depends on number of cities which means a smaller nation is more able to keep up.
Tech exchange: yes. With tech Upkeep and Prerequisites, sharing everything with no consequences is no longer possible.
Caravans do not create trade routes. Or create very small revenue, not the game-breaking amount (so that non-aggressive people have something to build).
I would also prefer a less monotonous map with continents.
I had some more settings in mind, like modifying some units, quick start with more settlers, workers and migrants (is this possible?) but don't want to dilute the topic too much. Details can be discussed if the game moves toward realisation.
As for scoring that would be noted from different games, if there is any, it would be based purely on your rank at the end of the game, and the rank would be derived from your in-game score. Ok, maybe an outdated concept, but it's not that bad and, anyway, it's the only one we have.
The important bit here: the 1st gets 100 points, the last gets zero points, all others are stretched more or less linearly (still working on an equation to slightly stimulate being in the top 10-20%). The "league score" doesn't depend on your in-game score, only on your rank. Meaning, once Player A is better than Player B, he doesn't have to kill him completely, he can leave him alone or even take him as a vassal. Furthermore, the best players are more competing against each other than against others, the game becomes more tier-based; a player's goal will become beating nations near them in the scoring table, not giving up when they realise they can't compete with the best. Also, even if you are beaten into the ground at half game, you can still struggle to get those few extra points and overcome one or two players ahead of you, knowing that you WILL get some points for that.
But, again, this scoring thing will depend on whether people want to play it. For starters, I'd be more interesting in a more classic, more diplomatically open game. Anyone else?