#1 2020-02-09 20:11:42

Corbeau
Administrator
Posts: 962

Notes from Discord

Just copy pasting an interesting and potentially useful discussion to preserve it.

------------------------

CorbeauToday at 12:25 PM ::::::::::::::::::::::::
Basically, it seems that the Golden Path for LT rulesets is "get as much land as soon as possible". Leave everything else aside, just landgrab, landgrab, landgrab.

In other news, I think the next Sim game will have AIs.

Let's see how that works out.

WahazarToday at 12:46 PM ::::::::::::::::::::::::
You are right about landgrab, it is a reason that I have killunhomed option turned on in augmented2 (it does make sense here because initial units are Tribe, their main use is to settle, eventually make roads). With HP 15, MP2 and killunhomed, they can spread in radius about 20 tiles from initial position, before they will die. It is relatively fair, because it limit land grabbing of player on huge empty land compared to those without so much lebensraum.

CorbeauToday at 1:12 PM ::::::::::::::::::::::::
I don't mean with initial units. I mean after the first cities, when you start producing stuff. All the way until all land is occupied.

cgalikToday at 1:12 PM ::::::::::::::::::::::::
If we turned off restrict enemy infrastructure, land grab becomes less important. But with it, you not only get the land, but don't allow anyone else to move on it quickly.

CorbeauToday at 1:13 PM ::::::::::::::::::::::::
I think infra is a smaller factor here.

cgalikToday at 1:29 PM ::::::::::::::::::::::::
And now with less MP early in game, restrict enemy infrastructure becomes even a bigger deal. 2 MP can't even reach a city on flats.

Should make borders smaller, don't know if it is possible?

wieder_fiToday at 1:30 PM ::::::::::::::::::::::::
grabbing land is not the only way to win. in LT34 mmm2 was never able to expand outside his original island (before T95) and he was able to wipe out half of the players in 20 turns when he did

cgalikToday at 1:30 PM ::::::::::::::::::::::::
Even within same turn, current border rules make a big difference who settles first.

wieder_fiToday at 1:32 PM ::::::::::::::::::::::::
in the same game I expanded to another island and in the end that was a mistake. or maybe it was... it was an idler island and killing the idling units and cities took lots of resources better used elewhere. then again it wasn't possible to know if the once a week logging player would actually start to play and attack me :slight_smile:

expanding too much is also a risk

WahazarToday at 1:35 PM ::::::::::::::::::::::::
I think it is what Corbeau said: only landgrabbing of empty land is a golden path, while militaristic grabbing is a doom path.

wieder_fiToday at 1:36 PM ::::::::::::::::::::::::
of course... grabbing land may help

I believe LT47 was won with early military strategy

spartacus and shoigu wiped out pretty much everyone and started doing that in the early game

wieder_fiToday at 1:47 PM ::::::::::::::::::::::::
anyway... would you like to make early attacks more easy?

one option would be giving the crusaders 15HP instead of 12

I believe there are few key issues with early conquests. first the other players often team up and turn against you if you become too powerful in the early game. this has happened so many times before. the most successful alliance falling when everyone else turns against them

...or....

is the problem that the early units now have too few moves?

there are units with more moves ... should those become available sooner than later?

assuming the units with more moves would be available when the unclaimed land runs out, when is that? roughly maybe...?

WahazarToday at 2:01 PM ::::::::::::::::::::::::
I think main problem is with unit price, making early units is waste of resources while later with huge cities you can have much better units for similar price and same upkeep. This is a reason why Corbeau introduced cheap units with progressive upkeep (and I steal this idea smile

wieder_fiToday at 2:03 PM ::::::::::::::::::::::::
what should some early units cost to make it more interesting to make war?

in my opinion the early wars are huge gables. in LT50 an average player could build maybe 4 chariots / turn if all is maxed for military and that's roughly 20 chariots in 5 turns

the problem is that this strategy fails if the enemy knows you will be attacking and builds city walls + defensive units

actually... there is one change that might make the war-research combos quite interesting but it would require code

making the upkeep for the obsolete units 2x would force the players to consider how many units to build and when to disband them

btw... to make your augmented game more easy to join, would it make sense to open the signups on lt.net so that you could get a players list that way? or do you have a signup on your server?

WahazarToday at 2:54 PM ::::::::::::::::::::::::
Slow early units is not a bad idea, problem is unit cost which grow much slower than unit capability (knight 2.5x better than horsemen, 1.4x higher price, musk 6x better than warrior, 4x higher price, etc), while bigger cities grant more shields.

Because 10 shields is a lower cap value due to bribing roundings, the only way is to either make higher production price, or progressive upkeep.

Early bombarders (archers etc) are also helpful to make early wars more interesting, but need either patch for blocking view of defending units or allow multiple investigation by diplo or explorer

If talking about signup - is it possible to run signup on lt.net and import it to my server? This players file is longturn specific or just freeciv feature?

wieder_fiToday at 3:01 PM ::::::::::::::::::::::::
importing is sadly a copy paste from the web page and done by hand... and this also applies to lt.net games

hmm... actually... didn't @Ignatus write a bombardment patch for preventing the attacker to see the units? that was maybe for 2.6

the costs... the trouble with the unit costs is also the cost with the city improvements. a market will cost the same in the ancient times as it does in late game and that kind of limits the options with the unit costs

one way to deal with it would be adding multiple improvements of the same type like we have with barracks but I don't like the idea of building the same thing over and over again

CorbeauToday at 3:06 PM ::::::::::::::::::::::::
Firstly, about mmm2, I remember that, and I don't think he wiped out everyone. he had allies, it's just that he started conquering earlier, but still rather late in game, and took the lead pretty soon.

As for conquest, there is a crucial disbalance with attacking and defending. When it is easy to attack it is too easy, when it is easy to defend, it is too easy.

Not sure how to frame this yet.

wieder_fiToday at 3:08 PM ::::::::::::::::::::::::
he had allies but it was me and mmm2 who did most of the attacking when the war started. and there was luck involved. stratthinker had much better production and economy but had less tech because he waited too long with switching from max tax to max sci. he was actually one turn away from fighters when mmm2 attacked him with 100+ fighters and managed to kill too many units at once

CorbeauToday at 3:08 PM ::::::::::::::::::::::::
And the main issue with War&Peace in Longturn is that people only go for Holy Wars: until the enemy has been destroyed. It's a half-grudge: when you attack someone, you attack to destroy him, and if he is defeated in a particular battle over a particular (small) peace of land, he doesn't forget it, nor can forget it because it was  a crucial  blow. Because, again, whoever has most land, wins.

wieder_fiToday at 3:08 PM ::::::::::::::::::::::::
the other people in our alliance did less initial attacking

CorbeauToday at 3:10 PM ::::::::::::::::::::::::
That's a part of the problem. The only way a territorial disadvantage can be overcome is by attacking.

And when you attack, it's to exterminate or be exterminated.

wieder_fiToday at 3:11 PM ::::::::::::::::::::::::
the biggest reason for winning was LT34 was focusing all the possible resources on military production. mmm2 did fighters and maybe some carriers in all of his cities and only some shock troops for actually taking the cities after that was done

CorbeauToday at 3:11 PM ::::::::::::::::::::::::
Some may not see it as a problem, though.

Ok, so it was a game with overpowered Fighters.

wieder_fiToday at 3:12 PM ::::::::::::::::::::::::
the fighters are still the same - only with little less range

or actually... now they have the same range but they need to stop after attacking

no... they now have less range :smile:

in LT34 the fighters had 30 moves and fuel for 1 turns

in LT50 the fighters have 12 moves but can stay on air for 2 turns

so you need bases or maybe carriers for the attack

only the fusion fighter has 28 moves now

in many civ game reviews the reviewers comment the AI saying that it behaves very differently from humans. it attacks with less than optimal number of units while humans usually attack only to win the war and completely destroy the other party

I think blitzkrieg is still possible with fighters if you manage to do it right. even with those 12 moves

that's partially because we don't use dumbed down rules like all marines shooting down airplanes

besides... didn't someone win that game by not killing a single unit during the entire game? :smile: :stuck_out_tongue:

as an alternative to landgrab... we could re-evaluate the old I-forgot-what-gov-it-was-called government idea where rapture would be turned on but there would be a LT40 like empire size step... would that be something people would like to try?

there are multiple exploit risks with this but maybe worth trying?

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB