#1 Re: New games » 2 team/island games and the ruleset changes we need to have for those » 2021-02-08 00:02:37

Actually, island games would be fitting for "no killstack". The chance for encountering a super stack are much smaller because everything has to be transported by water, and it would make invasions much easier and, at the same time, not too powerful with units immediately attacking and conquering cities.

#2 Re: LT59 » Rule changes from LT53 » 2021-01-12 19:02:11

I have a feeling you are talking about Freeciv Web.

#3 Re: New games » One player legally controls several nations » 2021-01-12 18:59:56

I am not sure what exactly this post is about. You are giving an idea or warning about something or complaining or...?

#4 New games » Idea for a new game: LT Carousel » 2020-12-17 18:29:15

Replies: 1

I mentioned this idea a while ago, and I'm not sure, I think it's even not mine originally, but I can't remember where I picked it up. I've been thinking about it for a while, and I'm very close to solving how it can actually be done even without any tweaks to the servers and rulesets.

The basics:
Every player runs a nation for a limited period of time. Then he, as a ruler, "dies", takes over some other nation, while his nation is taken over by someone else. What counts is the progress he has made during his rule.

The details:
After the game starts, the clock starts ticking. Let's say you have 20 turns (number can be discussed) to rule uninterrupted, but then the probability starts to increase that the next turn will be your last. Eventually the dice are cast and you're done with this nation. You sit on the bench waiting for the next ruler to "die" to take over his spot. Your previous nation is taken by the player who was sitting on the bench previously.

All players switch nations at the same time.

The score:
I haven't checked full math, but as a first approximation this model sounds reasonable. For this, the in-game score must be known from the beginning. During the first segment, when you "die", your score is calculated and normalised for total score of all players. (If all players combined have score 200 and yours is 20, you hold 10%) During your second segment/rule, what counts is the difference between the Normalised Score at the beginning and the end of your rule. If you start your nation with 12% and end with 14%, 2% is added to your initial Normalised Score. So, in each segment, you gain or lose % depending on how you ruled.

The mechanics:
"Blank" players are created on LT.net. They can be given any names, maybe it's best to tie them to nations. Then standard, live human players are delegated into those nations. When the segment/rule period is over, the delegation is simply changed by the LT admin.

When to switch:
One model for the probability of transition could be 1% for turn 20-25, 2% for turn 25-30 and then the probability increases for 2% every turn. So, theoretically, a player can run his nation for a maximum of 80 days total, but it is most likely it will last maybe 40 days. (Not 50, probabilities multiply, they don't add.) Of course, this is only one model. Probabilities can be modeled according to anything that is agreed on. Of course, this is just the example model, anything else can be agreed.

As always, comments are welcome.

#5 Re: New games » Less narrow and more... hollistic... scoring » 2020-12-16 20:44:06

Ok, after some thinking, then some incubating ideas and some more thinking, I'm considering this:

Total score = classic in-game score * literacy % * GDP per capita (economy per population points)

#6 Re: LT58 » LT58 has started » 2020-12-16 20:36:54

What is "unfair setup for the islands"?

#7 New games » Idea for a new learning/practicing/sandbox/tutorial game » 2020-12-16 20:34:49

Replies: 0

After the "Learning LT" game is finished, we could start a new one, if there are people who may be interested.

The purpose, again, would be to create a map for completely new people to get familiar with LT settings. However, this could also be used for a testing battleground for more or less experienced players, as long as they follow the rules.


Fair islands.

Players' home islands are "untouchable", you are not allowed to conquer them. However, there are additional islands that everybody is free to fight for.

This way new people are free to explore the economic game features on their island, but also investigate combat features on terrain that is isolated from their homeland.

Additional feature: create "Blank" players in LT system so that new players can join after the game has started through LT admin delegation.

Also, once a player has had enough fun with his nation and decides he is not interested in playing (or has gone idle for X turns), his nation is weakened and given to a new player if one appears. If nations are possible to revert back to stone age, the game can be endlessly recycled without restarting.

Ruleset tweaks required:

1. Small tech upkeep used to leech techs from idle/abandoned nations and make them restartable again

2. Suicide/migrant unit used to leech idle/abandoned cities: very cheap, no shield/money upkeep and maybe a lot of food upkeep

Technical problems and possible solutions:

In order to create a favourable map with fair islands available for conquest, it may be necessary to create a number of AIs to occupy the islands. Map generator on this setting only creates large island if it is to be a nation's starting point. I would say that the number of AI islands, that are to be used as non-home and thus battle islands, should be at least equal to the number of player islands.

#8 Re: LT58 » LT58 has started » 2020-12-16 13:55:53

I'm thinking... Maybe publishing this is not such a good idea. Let people discover stuff by themselves. This may spoil the surprise a bit, it's nothing game-breaking, but just decreasing the fun of not knowing.

#9 Re: LT57 » The winning conditions and the ruleset for LT57 » 2020-11-28 00:01:25

What is the point of a score victory if this is a team game?

#10 Ruleset analysis and discussion » Corbeau's wishlist » 2020-11-21 12:16:10

Replies: 0

I've been planning this for a long time, will just post quick notes for now, make more comprehensive list a bit later. This is basically a reminder for me.

I wants it now:

food overflow

more flexible score

either no Senate at all or more flexible casus belli

bombarding duells

bombarder may move away after bombardment

unhomed (or all) units are paid (gold upkeep) from national budget, not individual city

HP loss delay (when away from city/base)

can not acquire (steal, treaty) more techs if you are in negative bulbs or if it would put you into negative bulbs. And at some point (at -500 or more) you should start losing techs, but only 1 per turn

long shots:
FCW style of reports under sentry or something to the same effect

#11 LT56 - Sim » Proposal: Endgame, winning and general Rules of Engagement » 2020-11-19 00:18:30

Replies: 0

These rules apply only to players who care about scoring and victory. If you only want to enjoy the game and ignore the score, you are free to disregard everything here EXCEPT ONE THING: once a player declared Endgame/Resignation, if there is no objection and you are stronger than him, you must NOT attack him until he has left the game. After he leaves (if there are no objections), he is considered Resigned and you may drag his carcass over the floor all you want. If there ARE objections, this means someone is competing for his place; in that case please leave them to settle the contest on their own.

The goals of these rules are:
- to decrease the chance of ganging-up on the player as much as possible
- to prevent players to boost their weaker allies and undeservedly gift them a better place on the ranking table
- promote individual play and move game emphasis from alliance-building to empire-building and decrease the effect of popularity contests and association-by-familiarity

Basic principles

The game ends with a score victory. There is no alliance victory. When the game ends is decided by players by way of unobjected Endgame Declaration, but can also be agreed informally by concensus.

However, a player can end his game by declaring Resignation. The player should declare Resignation only if he is satisfied by his rank OR sees no way to improve it and only if he wishes to stop playing. If there is no objection, the Resigning player leaves the game with the current rank.

Another player may object to Resignation, but should do so only if he wishes to contest the Resigning Player's ranking place (for example, Resigning Player is 3rd and the Objecting Player is 4th or 5th and believes he has a chance to reach the 3rd place).

Official rules and protocols

1. The game ends with a score victory. There is no alliance victory.

2. Once score of all players is known, any player can declare Endgame/Resignation. Deadline for objection is the END of the SECOND turn (or third TurnChange) after the declaration. If there are no objections until deadline, the score is noted at the moment of declaration and the scoring part of the game ends. (Declaration should be accompanied by the score list which is the "official endgame declaration document".)

(The reason the deadline so much shorter than the usual LT is to avoid calculation and manipulation: "if I object, this will happen, if I don't, that will happen, let me try this strategy and if it succeeds, I will object, if it doesn't, I won't". You either want to continue playing or you don't.)

3. Endgame/Resignation declaration can be objected by other players. The purpose of the Objection should be solely to keep playing in order to improve the Objecting Player's position on the ranking table relative to the Declaring Player, not influence the whole game and other players. Naturally, if the game continues, the game is on for everybody.

However, there is  difference if Endgame/Resignation is objected by a player who is weaker or stronger than the objecting player.

For the purposes of those rules, "stronger/weaker" player means "has higher/lower score than...". Players whose scores are within 10% difference are considered equal. This is reevaluated every turn.

3.1. If the objecting player is stronger than the declaring player, Endgame is cancelled, but not Resignation. Game continues, but ends for the Declaring Player. His ranking position is frozen/preserved and he is not allowed to play any more in order to prevent him to influence the score of the players still playing officially.

3.2. If the Objecting Player is not stronger than the Declaring Player, endgame declaration is cancelled. However, players stronger than the Declaring Player are not allowed to attack him anymore, nor is he allowed to attack them. In case of breach of this rule, if there is no agreement (confession), the injured party should allow the game admin a delegation so that the admin can verify the claims.

3.3. The Objecting Player may declare that he is objecting Endgame, but not Declaring Player's Resignation. In that case, 3.1. applies.

3.4. Endgame/Resignation can not be cancelled by the Declaring Player nor a formal or informal Ally of the Declaring Player. For the purposes of this rule, players are considered Allies if they are fighting against same third player(s). In case of foul play, it is upon the "third player(s)" to cry "foul" and raise an issue with the admin.

3.5. In case of forbidden attacks, the offending player will be sanctioned by the admin delegating himself into the offending player's nation and reverse the effects of the attack in the fairest way possible; this will create a lot of mess and will probably result in a lot of crying, but is very easy to avoid: do not attack whom you shouldn't attack. If you are continuing to play, allow respectful resignation or, if you are resigning, leave the game in an orderly manner.

3.6. Endgame/Resignation declarations and cancellations should not be used as means to block out the strongest player from an alliance war. If there is suspicion, issue should be raised. Common sense will be applied.

If the admin is involved in the said alliance war, you should trust him to be objective and fair. If you are afraid in advance that admin will abuse his power, you probably shouldn't be playing, for your sake. Keep in mind that this is just a game.

Possible problems, abuses and related questions

Q: I am fighting my foe and winning. Why is he allowed to get out of the game in a way that I can't stop him and destroy him?

A: If he has "declared Endgame/Resignation", he is effectively surrendering to you. You have won. Once he is out of the game, you are free to continue to conquer his carcass. If other players wish to take his rank, it is upon them to act, object and fight for themselves, not you.

Q: My alliance is fighting another alliance. The endgame declaration is only used to block out our strongest player out of the conflict for 2-3 turns after which someone will "object" the declaration only for the war to continue, where those 2-3 turns were used to fortify or prepare an attack.

A: Hence rule 3.4. However, if suddenly some other player emerges from outside your local conflict, you have the right to cry "foul". Common sense will be applied. Also, now you have an idea who else is your enemy and can act accordingly.

Q: My opponent has broken the rules and is lying about it.

A: Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. This is why the admin may want to collect evidence. Or he may say "you guys fight it out and leave me out of it, all previous declarations are null and void". Just play the game, not the meta-game.

#12 LT56 - Sim » Confirmation, the game planned to start on Nov21 » 2020-11-15 14:03:56

Replies: 0

Confirmations for LT56 (Simulation ruleset) are now open. The start is scheduled for November 21st, but in the best LT tradition, delays are, ehm, possible smile

DO NOT UNDERESTIMATE THE FOLLOWING: This ruleset is very different from everything you have played before so assume nothing. Check the manual, at least the quick notes in the beginning, and tread with care

Official ruleset "manual": https://freeciv.fandom.com/wiki/Simulation_Ruleset

Additions, not yet added into the manual: http://forum.freeciv.org/f/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=90758

#14 Learning LT » Test game started » 2020-09-07 23:54:03

Replies: 0

Longturn Learning game test started! Two-minute turns, do NOT destroy opponents you find.

The purpose of test games is checking if everything is working with server settings and the ruleset before the real thing. Also, if someone needs some warming up.

Host: Longturn.net
Port: 5065

#15 Re: LT53 » The winning conditions and the ruleset for LT53 » 2020-08-30 13:47:15

fran wrote:

I do not understand at all what you are writing. It's a bunch of prejudices, insinuations and inconsistencies.

Oh gods! It's another Lexxie! They are multiplying!

#16 Re: LT53 » The winning conditions and the ruleset for LT53 » 2020-08-28 09:23:05

"Officially ending the game" isn't equal to "shutting the server down".

#17 Learning LT » Game begins on September 10th » 2020-08-26 13:09:14

Replies: 0

At the moment there are 14 people signed up, eagerly waiting for more.

Info about the game and also signup page is here

For additional info, feel free to ask here or join us at our lively Discord server.

#18 Re: LT53 » Some settings do not match original Warclient » 2020-08-24 15:20:43

el_perdedor wrote:

sure corb, you are, like always, right.

Why, thank you! I appreciate this!

#19 Re: LT53 » Some settings do not match original Warclient » 2020-08-24 10:42:35

ilkkachu wrote:
el_perdedor wrote:

It is like we are making a pasta, a old recepie, and we want it to be like that. Then we found out that we forgot put in the thyme, and somebody says: no, we have the pasta like it is, we cant change, I'm acoustumed to this(even it is the first time we do it).

So, if we realize that only halfway through dinner, shall the cook get up to get the thyme and force it on _everyone's_ plates? Or should we just finish dinner and remember the thyme the next time? The problem with analogies is that they don't match reality. For one, with food and spices, we don't have to give everyone the exact same thing. We can just give the thyme to whoever wants it, and let others finish without it. But we can't really do that with the airlifting settings of the freeciv server.

Actually, this is an excellent analogy. Thyme is just a spice that can be omitted, the pasta doesn't taste the same, but it doesn't necessarily have to be bad. it's just that here one person got used to eating pasta with thyme and, once he realised it isn't there, threw a tantrum, catapulted the plate out the window, jumped on the table and shit on it.

Everyone else is technically able to continue with the meal, but somehow, the mood is broken.

I'm also a bit surprised at how something like this comes to pass. Perhaps with the benefit of hindsight, it comes to mind that starting a game like this with a ruleset coming from the outside seems it should involve getting _the actual ruleset and server settings files_ from somewhere where the game has been running previously with the "right"  ruleset. If warciv even uses a ruleset file compatible with freeciv, that is. If it doesn't, then that's obviously harder.

I think the regular warciv is played with 2.0 so some "translation" and rewriting is required.

#20 LT56 - Sim » Official announcement » 2020-08-01 17:12:29

Replies: 0

This game will be played with Sim ruleset - the most different of all massive multiplayer rulesets played with the Longturn system. be sure to get acquainted at least with the basics so that you know what are the usual Civ features that you can't count on.


The official ruleset manual (contains a Short Summary)

Signup for the game

All discussion about the game will take place here and on the LT Discord server, #lt56-sim channel.

The game should start in early September.

#22 Re: New games » Less narrow and more... hollistic... scoring » 2020-07-30 19:54:56

Hm, 10 best cities! Didn't think of that. I am reluctant to use "average Whatever per city" because that can really hurt big players. (VERY ROUGHLY, the end score amounts to AX+B where X is number of cities and A and B are whatever, so dividing the whole thing with X would result in "bigger X -> smaller score"... on the second thought, it would be good to verify this with real numbers...)

Calculating score each turn would require a script or something. At this moment I am trying to use something that can be implemented right away without the score-keeper doing this as a daily job.

On the other hand, "10 best cities" would also require coding...

#23 Learning LT » First announcement » 2020-07-25 21:33:36

Replies: 0

Join on the LearningLT game page on Longtirn.net.

This is a tutorial game aimed at beginners who have never played (Free)Civ or have played it very little and/or would like to get better acquainted with the interface, mechanics and House Rules. The main feature of the game (unless there is a consensus for otherwise) is low-aggression environment.

PROPOSED features are:
* do not conquer more than X cities per week
* do not attack a player who has Y or less cities
* no early aggression: do not attack anyone before turn Z
The values for X, Y and Z will be discussed.

Once the rules are agreed on, the admin will use delegation system to prevent or reverse violations. Again, this is a learning game, not a competition.

There will be at least one experienced player in the game. Their role will be "advisory supervision". If they overstep this, it should be reported and admin will act.

The game will start when we decide there are enough players for it to make sense. To take part, you need to apply for the game. Once the starting date is determined, a week before the admin will send e-mails to the players so, if you wish to receive it, please sign in with a real e-mail. Then you will have to confirm participation through the LT web page interface.

All discussion will take place on the forum (here) and on the LT Discord server, #LLT channel.

#25 New games » Less narrow and more... hollistic... scoring » 2020-07-16 12:35:01

Replies: 4

Now, there are people who play Civ as a military game where everything else is secondary or simply used for military purposes. This post is not for them.

So, when you get down to the core of it, in absolutely all Freeciv games so far it has been the case that victory means military victory. Alliance victory, score ending, spaceship ending, there is even supposed to be some culture scoring in 2.6, but absolutely every one of these things depends on military conquest. Official in-game score is calculated by adding population points and military units and kills (also great wonders - as few of them there are - and techs, with most players being more or less equal). Every aspect: economy, production, science, that influences the score in the end, is heavily dependent on the size of the empire, and the size of the empire is heavily dependent on military conquest.

Every game aspect is viewed through the prism of two things: playability and realism. And this scoring is problematic in both of there aspects.

Regarding playability, this funnels all aspects of the game into one: military conquest. If you are not successful with this, you are not playing well. Which narrows down a wide variety of choices into one.

Secondly, this is very unrealistic. In today's world we see a number of countries being more or less successful, and their size having some influence, but far from crucial. The best example is Germany: having lost every single war in the last 100 years, it is now the leader of the wesern world. Also, Netherlands, Denmark, Finland, Austria, Switzerland, maybe Portugal, all of them being at the top with successfull management. In current Civ configuration, they would be considered losers, while empires like USA and Russia would be considered winners.

Any idea how to change this? I'd go in two directions: adjusting the ruleset so that size matters less when you run your country, but also modifying the score with the values that re made public at the end of the game. But I'd also like to hear some opinions.

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB