#1 2019-10-08 19:56:40

Corbeau
Administrator
Posts: 933

New Longturn Web game - pre-discussion

I just realised that out of all games being played right now, none are "classic LT". LT49 is team game, LT48 is Sim ruleset, LT50 will be MP ruleset, current Web game on freeciv.xyz is also MP ruleset as are all on Freecivweb.org.

So maybe start one more, more LT-classic, but make it on Freeciv.xyz, both Web and client-accessible, with some "quick fixes" to make MP ruleset more LT-like.

Quick fixes from the top of my head:

- cheaper Settlers (at most 30, but I'd even go with 20)
- no rapture
- restrictinfra ON
- no tech exchange, stealing or conquering
- techleak ON (because we want to be a bit more friendly to new people)

Those were the ones that would go towards the classic LT. Quick fixes that I'd try in order to make the endgame slower than the usual hectic madness that MP-ruleset games end up with would be:

- KEEP the granary increase taken from classic Civ
- increase unhappiness due to empire size (say, first at 10-25 depending on government and then steps of 5 or even 3)

Anything more? Anything less? Please discuss.

Offline

#2 2019-10-08 22:12:12

Corbeau
Administrator
Posts: 933

Re: New Longturn Web game - pre-discussion

Another thing to decide is winning conditions. In standard LT it was usually alliance victory with up to X members. However, X depended on the number of starting players and here we can never know this because in Web games people join in after the game has started.

So, any suggestions? It could still be an alliance victory, but under what conditions would it happen? What is the maximum number of players allowed in the alliance?

Personally, I'm always in favour of "no alliance victory, ony score counts", but that's less of a classic LT and is also left with the question about when the game ends.

Offline

#3 2019-10-09 16:26:15

Corbeau
Administrator
Posts: 933

Re: New Longturn Web game - pre-discussion

After some thinking, here is my idea how the game should run. Opinions are welcome and I would gladly hear them (meaning: I am saying this so that when anyone complains later, I will be able to say that I asked and nobody had objections tongue )

The main issue is how the game should end: with a declaration of an alliance victory or some other way, like a marker and individual scoring.

Like I said above, the problem with an alliance victory is putting a meaningful limit on the size of the alliance (which was a tradition in LT). Being a Web game with the number of active players unknown at the start of the game and possibly varying between 5 and 50, I don't dare setting such number in advance and would definitely like to avoid fluid definitions such as "10% of the number of active players on T50" or something like that.

So this is my idea.

Victory is individual and the result is calculated using individual in-game score.

Endgame:

ANY player can call for an endgame to happen. Naturally, any OTHER player can object, say, within a week.

However, in order to avoid unnecessary protraction, I'd like to set a condition: the objecting player has one week (or maybe ten days?) to change his position on the ranking list. If he doesn't, the game ends. Unless someone else objects. The purpose of this is to make the objection meaningful and having some real purpose - that is, to overtake someone on the list and not simply protract the game for protraction sake.

Also, the leading player shouldn't be able to object. (And, probably, he will be the one to call the endgame.)

This approach may demand introduction of an all-embassy wonder at some point and/or all-embassy tech later i the game.

What say yea?

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB