Longturn Forum

I'll help you Wieder by bringing the discussion from the last few days on this topic over here to this new thread.

(T113 - 23:11:46) <Evan> I suggested to Edrim that the diplomats could lose the 'ignore Zoc', he was thinking of the same thing. In the standard (1x) single player, it's not so bad. But with RTS and (3x), an army just standing by while an invading army simply strolls by is utterly absurd.
(T113 - 23:12:20) <Wieder> I commented that on Trello just before logging in
(T113 - 23:12:44) <Wieder> There might be some side effects and some very nasty ones actually
(T113 - 23:13:12) <Evan> I liked how you said the polls, if any, should be about self-contained or consistent groups, so we don't end up with unbalance.
(T113 - 23:13:45) <Evan> Eg, restrictinfra, if combined with no ignore ZoC, would be too much, etc.
(T113 - 23:14:09) <Wieder> Yeah, if people vote for some specific detail without really understanding how it will affect the gameplay, we might end up with some very conflicting rules
(T113 - 23:14:23) <Evan> Edrim said we should leave this for the forum, but a little bit is ok.
(T113 - 23:14:37) <Evan> Plus, it might encourage people to get involved.
(T113 - 23:14:59) <Wieder> I would prefer restrictinfra instead of removing diplos etc the ability to break the zoc because there is a reason why it's there for those few units
(T113 - 23:15:11) <Wieder> Talking is good smile
(T113 - 23:15:35) <Wieder> You can also copy paste game chat to the forum
(T113 - 23:16:23) <Wieder> It's so much easier to talk about this on a chat. Forum posts are nice but they are quite often walls of text and the focus is easily lost
(T113 - 23:17:58) <Evan> I agree, it's easy for people to skip it. As long as it's about the game. But i do I really think we need a new Topic for LT34 in the forum, especially since people who are already out of the game might pop by to have a quick look. And for everyone really.
(T113 - 23:18:46) <Wieder> Yes, we definitely need one on the forum. Or few if that's how people feel about it
(T113 - 23:18:57) <Wieder> It's a huge topic anyway smile
(T113 - 23:20:11) <Evan> It should be standard. The discussions about the next game, well in advance, in a defined area, and people can branch off to other threads when necessary. What are the side effects you're thinking about with ignoe ZoC, i probably haven't thought about them.
(T113 - 23:22:06) <Wieder> Basically you could paralyze the entire nation with some units blocking the access. That might be a powerful weapon. It would also be too easy to block the explorers from exploring and even capturing those with few units preventing them from moving away
(T113 - 23:23:02) <Evan> You can only have one explorer?
(T113 - 23:23:48) <Wieder> You can have more once you research seafaring
(T113 - 23:24:06) <Evan> Hmmm
(T113 - 23:25:52) <Evan> It seems ok to me, i've always played like this anyway in the single player. If you take the risk to send units out to block access, you might gain the advantage of containing them in an isolated position, but you might also lose you cities. A calculated risk. Not really a problem.
(T113 - 23:27:13) <Wieder> It would also allow some nasty tactics in the mid game
(T113 - 23:27:34) <Evan> There are many ways to prevent unfair advantages, but you can't stop the map generator from producing peninsulas.
(T113 - 23:27:47) <Evan> Like what
(T113 - 23:27:50) <Wieder> I could send out some units preventing someoen almost completely improving his land
(T113 - 23:29:38) <Evan> That's realistic isn't it. All units can move into a tile occupied by a friendly unit, so if you had a military unit there you could bring a worker there too.
(T113 - 23:35:15) <Wieder> Yeah... But then again that's one way of breaking the zoc again
(T113 - 23:37:19) <Evan> No, it wouldn't work if you wanted to go through enemy lines, because that first unit wouldn't be able to get there in the first place. I'll have to go now, can you paste this to the forum. I'll keep thinking about it all. I really think it could take a lot of the RTS/TC crap out of the game, which ruins it for so many people, even if a few do like it. It's not in the spirit of the game, which is turn-based.
... ... ...
<Evan> I've got time now, i'll paste it there.

(T114)

<Edrim> :for my only this one change - removing zoc ignore ability on all land units could bring us some more simcity and defensive thinking, but we shouldnt alow to changeing swamp into ocean in this way
... ... ...
<Evan> re Edrim's last post on the possible ZoC change thread: I had in mind only removing the ability of Diplomats to ignore ZoC, and move from one enemy-adjacent-tile into another. All units can already simply move into a tile that's adjacent to an enemy tile. Other Diplomat/Spy actions would remain unchanged. And the usual exemptions still apply (see help). The tactical side to the game would still be there, just without the RTS/TC rubbish. Even in ancient times, enemy forces could never just wander around/through your country unnoticed. So it's VERY unrealistic. And it terms of strategy and tactics, gameplay and enjoyment, well, it ruins it. The unpredictability is so extreme, especially now with rail. It does however give a massive advantage to the offensive side, and speeds the game. But i don't think that should be the goal of a complex and balanced gamed such as this. In single player, with (1x) movement, the effects are limited, and can be countered.
______________________

Actually, I should have said the ability of Diplomats AND Spies to ignore ZoC rules. Again, I'm not referring to the general ZoC rules that apply to every land unit.

Seeing how ridiculous LT33 became with vast armies completely circumventing territorial borders by using Dips and Spies to ignore ZoC, I'd have to say that I am in agreement that ignoring ZoC should be removed from Dips and Spies. I knew from the beginning that it was a huge mistake to have Restrictinfra = OFF on LT33, and we see now how that's going. It was Akfaew's final decision. I said it was wrong back then, and I still remain firm that Restrictinfra = ON is the best setting.

My only concern remains with Planes. They could be used in some way to circumvent ZoC by allowing land units to traverse ZoC by using a plane in much the same way as a Spy/Dip could circumvent ZoC. I'm not certain whether this is a good thing or a bad thing, necessarily, given how planes have limited range and certainly don't use railroads. However with movement 3x the ranges are pretty big, so this is something that needs to be discussed.

Yeah, good point.

Does anyone know what could be possible ways of getting around this?

Even if there isn't one, it would still be good to have the changes last up until the air war begins.
If you think about it, the fact everyone would now race for flight to get around ZOC shows how much it distorts the game.

I guess explorers would need to lose their IgZOC too? Or could they become obsolete by a certain tech? At the moment they're made obsolete by partisans, but really they're replaced by partisans. Maybe seafaring no longer allows you to build them, so you only ever have one.

evan wrote: Maybe seafaring no longer allows you to build them, so you only ever have one.

What is a problem to keep explorer to end of a game when it will be usefull to go inside a enemy terian even if a player set good defence by forts and other things?

Seriously, with restrictinfra you can actually leave the IgZOC on. The main problem with it is if you can use diplomats to reach and use the enemy railway system. And if you can't use it, then the enemy units bypassing your first defensive line isn't *that* dangerous. Most of the time they will get themselves trapped and destroyed. This isn't a game where cutting enemy supply lines really means a difference.

I say: Restrictinfra ON, IgZOC ON.

Yes, having both restrictinfra ON and ignore ZoC OFF would be too different from the last game.

OMG!
We have restrictinfra on once or twice, everybody said that it was boring and hard to obey game, we have switch it off because of REASONS.
And now when something happend all players want to set restrict infra on again.

Do you want again TC RTS mvoes to build many prefortress on TC when you will be offline and you will loose a cities one by one because you cannot counterattack because you are not TC player?

Maybe trading cities on and we can back to micromanagment all teams by one player.

When a player or ally won a game because of something, it doesn;t mean this something is wrong, player need to lear how this something works and how they can use it.

If player build rails everywhere he should not be unhappy enemy can go throu his land from one direction and back anytime he wish. Learn how to block your travel path and prepare to defend even if youw ant to attack in next turn.

How was it with the workerparalysis parameter? Can we use it and prevent the tc forts from happening that easily? I know it was planned to be used with a value of 15 minutes but how bad would it be if it was 5 hours instead of that? 10 hours would be more fair but would probably result with lots of problems for players who can't connect that often. With 5 hours there might still be problems with that but it sounds like a compromise we might be able to use.

If 5 hours is way too much, please explain why it would be much worse than having it at 15 minutes. Assuming that we can use that parameter

enabling autoattack might be a good solution for this... if u haven't used it before, you just put unit inside city or somewhere that needs to be defended, press "a", and then it will automatically shoot at units in range and calculated to be more than 50% chance to succeed...

edrim wrote:OMG!
We have restrictinfra on once or twice, everybody said that it was boring and hard to obey game

Anybody who says anything in Civ is boring should be aware of the possibility that he (or she, but more likely a he) is playing the wrong game.

And now when something happend all players want to set restrict infra on again.

I wouldn't know, I'm new here

Do you want again TC RTS mvoes to build many prefortress on TC when you will be offline and you will loose a cities one by one because you cannot counterattack because you are not TC player?

I'm sorry, what's the question, again?

Maybe trading cities on and we can back to micromanagment all teams by one player.

Well, since you mention it, I'm all for trading cities. Abuses can be dealt with in other ways.

edrim wrote:OMG!
We have restrictinfra on once or twice, everybody said that it was boring and hard to obey game.

Really who? I liked restrictinfra. Slows down the early game has little impact at the end. The turn change exploit with pre-fortresses claiming borders is easy to fix. Just set the pre-fort to not claim borders. The only reason I initially coded it this way was to allow team mates or allies to easily swap the ownership of border tiles.

A setting to prevent TC worker exploits is far better at preventing this though. Have seen comments on actionwaittime and workerparalysis but don't know if this is coded yet.

mmm wrote:enabling autoattack might be a good solution for this

We tried this a few years ago. There were quite a few exploits that made it unusable. For example sacrificing one weak unit to get a strong defensive unit to come out of fortified mode, making it much easier to kill later. I think Kernigh? wrote patches for this but not sure if they were ever added.

A game where no land unit ignored ZOC would be really dull for the first few months until someone reaches flight. I don't mind playing this but the militarists would hate it.

kevin551 wrote:

mmm wrote:enabling autoattack might be a good solution for this

We tried this a few years ago. There were quite a few exploits that made it unusable. For example sacrificing one weak unit to get a strong defensive unit to come out of fortified mode, making it much easier to kill later. I think Kernigh? wrote patches for this but not sure if they were ever added.

Well, the counterstrategy is to set autoattack only for attacking units. Besides, setting riflemen to auto is stupid; I could come to a nearby hill with another Riflemen and have better odds of the defender dying in its own attack...

Corbeau - I think you missed the second part of autoattack

mmm2 wrote:.. it will automatically shoot at units in range and calculated to be more than 50% chance to succeed...

Ah, nice. Begun, the flame wars have. My work here is done

Seriously, though - I'm new here too. Just bringing my GT perspective, where we played games with restrictinfra = ON and they were highly enjoyable by most. I can't comment about previous LT games prior to LT33, however.

On the upside, I'm optimistic about 2.5's ability to code the mps for rails. This would allow for a more realistic warfare where attacking behind enemy lines is still possible, but not so exploitable that cities at the other end of the world are easily attacked. The battlefront becomes more recognizable, and wars become more epic

Does this mean that games might take longer ? So what ! I think that's the point - after laboring for literally months to build up a civilization, only to see it's downfall in a matter of days, seems both anticlimactic and somewhat disconcerting. Personally, I'm more for great epic battles that make all the previous months efforts more worthwhile. And it doesn't preclude great nations from cooperating with one another to attack others, it just means that the cooperation required is slightly higher. Which makes success all the more enjoyable, actually.

Anyhow, its only my preference. If more people feel otherwise, that's the way the cookie crumbles =P But if most feel the same, isn't it incumbent on the admin to listen?