#1 Re: LT36 » How to research multiple techs in the same turn » 2016-03-23 14:59:02


Thank you for telling us about the teleport [bug|feature] - maybe someone who knows how to do this can make a fix to the ruleset for LT37?  I didn't know about that one either.

I also played the test servers, and have created my own test server.  I was not clever enough to test trade routes, but I DID discover things such as the inability to build a fort on rivers, the ability to use ZOC to avoid the automatic move after attacking, and I believe I announced these on global chat.

That kind of voluntary admission is what I was looking for wrt the trade routes as well.  So yes, we think it is 'sneaky' - not cheating, but not 'honorable' either.  I'm sure that clears up any misunderstanding about my muddled composition.

#2 Re: LT36 » How to research multiple techs in the same turn » 2016-03-22 21:00:18

I take responsibility for not taking this statement at face value:


wieder wrote:

Caravans can't establish trade routes (was like this in the pervious LT games)

I agree it is difficult to make sure all of the changes are consistent - I remember creating a ruleset that was riddled with errors.

However, I am slightly disappointed that there were those that wished to have a fair and balanced game, and their win will hinge on a tactic that directly contradicts this stated ruleset change.  An announcement of an unintended [bug/feature] could have helped accomplish the first goal and would have made the loss more bearable.

I'm not calling anyone a cheater or claiming that the rules should be changed mid-game, but to deny that this has cheapened the game is a bit disingenuous.

#3 Re: LT36 » war strategy » 2016-03-21 20:04:12

wieder wrote:

d) and maybe the most important thing. Diplomacy. make some private chats with your neighbors and agree about a Non Aggressive Pact (NAP, usually for some limited time like 20-40 turns) covering your back. Maybe eventually ally with someone. The veteran players are usually careful about the reputation and backstabbing is not that common. Saying hi! to your neighbor is a good idea smile

To me, this is the most interesting part of the game.  And I'm horrible at it smile .  There are certainly some strong feelings as to how this 'should' be done, but I think the differences are actually quite small and unite around a common theme: "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.  If you can't join 'em, organize enough others to try to beat 'em."

Some players abhor the concept of the so-called 'wolfpack' strategy.  As far as I understand it, this is usually a term applied to an alliance of nations that unite under a singular purpose to defeat a common enemy.  In all the games I've played, I recall two games that emerged due to successful applications of this strategy - LT30, where there was a large coalition of alliances that defeated the clear front-running alliance.  If I remember correctly, this was tried again in LT32 under the auspices of "The Church" - and while the outcome of the game would certainly have changed without the actions of that group (a success of sorts, in taking down the front-runner), they did not succeed in officially 'winning' the game.  I don't think it always has to be in response to a common threat, as perhaps those that take part in a 'super-alliance' merely do so to join a rolling stone that propels the aggregated momentum of the group towards an inevitable win.

Despite measures taken to limit this behavior (i.e., maximum alliance sizes have been hard-coded into winning conditions), this pejorative term is still applied to groups that are smaller than this max size.  I don't know the magical formula. If others have different definitions of this term, it would be enlightening to hear them - I admit a bit of confusion as to how it is applied.

I've noticed another important strategy for some veteran players is to immediately gobble up weaker nations early in the game if there are clear differences in playing ability.  This may not seem 'noob' friendly, but it can't be denied that it teaches a hard lesson on what it may take to survive in an LT game, with the risk that it may cause a beginning player to lose interest in future games.

For newer players, I think it is most fun to be a part of a team with a few veterans that can show them the ropes.  I think it has the greatest potential of recruiting/retaining new players in the LT community.

I don't see any way around the 'kill-the-winner' or 'join-the-winner' aspect of the game, I don't think there is anything unusual to be said about players wishing to de-throne a clear front runner in order to have a chance at winning.  I don't think it disappears even in the diplomatic clarity of a 'team game' - it just becomes the negotiation of alliances of teams doing the same thing.

Despite the obsession over reputations in this game, I sometimes wonder what 'honor' is being protected.  Sure, outright lying is usually sniffed out early and would certainly be the most damaging to one's reputation... but unorthodox interpretations of NAPs might be a 'grey' area which may or may not destroy one's chances of allying in future games.

I'm certainly not skilled enough to win this game in the absence of diplomacy - perhaps there was one player (who is no longer playing) that possibly could have. So leaving lone-wolf strategies aside, is joining a group early on to meet a perceived greater threat any less honorable than waiting to join the side of a super-alliance after that group clearly becomes the front-runner?  I admit I've done variations of both in different games. Neither times did they grant me a victory, and perhaps my reputation has suffered in the eyes of different players in each case smile .

In any game, players of my skill level are often lucky to get to the point where these questions even matter... but I'm interested to hear what some of the more established players have to say about this, or whether my definitions disagree with theirs.

#4 Re: LT37 » Here you can list suggestions about what to change for LT37 » 2016-03-18 17:26:43

--- LT36/data/LT36/units.ruleset    2016-01-04 15:36:42.955447711 -0600
+++ LT37/data/LT37/units.ruleset    2016-03-18 12:20:47.965295749 -0500
@@ -2351,7 +2351,7 @@
uk_shield     = 1
uk_food       = 0
uk_gold       = 1
-flags         = "TradeRoute", "HelpWonder", "NonMil", "Capturable"
+flags         = "HelpWonder", "NonMil", "Capturable"
roles         = ""
helptext      = _("\
A Caravan carries goods or material for trading with foreign countries,\
@@ -2360,11 +2360,6 @@
Caravans can only travel on roads, railroads, rivers or ships, and\
  are not affected by movement modifiers.\
"), _("\
-Caravans can establish trade routes with the cities of other nations\
- (even your enemies). A trade route's ongoing revenue is doubled if the\
- two cities involved are on different continents. Each city can support a\
- maximum of two trade routes.\
-"), _("\
Every Caravan that is used to build a wonder will add 50 shields\
  towards the production of the wonder.\
"), _("\
@@ -2398,7 +2393,7 @@
uk_shield     = 1
uk_food       = 0
uk_gold       = 1
-flags         = "TradeRoute", "HelpWonder", "NonMil", "Capturable"
+flags         = "HelpWonder", "NonMil", "Capturable"
roles         = ""
helptext      = _("\
The Freight unit replaces the Caravan, and moves at twice the speed.\

#5 Re: LT37 » Here you can list suggestions about what to change for LT37 » 2016-03-18 17:25:38

--- LT36/data/LT36/effects.ruleset    2016-01-04 15:36:42.955447711 -0600
+++ LT37/data/LT37/effects.ruleset    2016-03-18 12:21:26.025297645 -0500
@@ -289,7 +289,7 @@

type    = "Max_Trade_Routes"
-value   = 2
+value   = 0

#6 Re: LT37 » If LT37 is going to be a team game, maybe we could try something diffe » 2016-02-25 17:04:38

I would be interested in trying a scenario such as what Sketlux has made, but perhaps as an "Other" game. I think map balance (in terms of growth and production potential) for fairness should be strived for, and the scenario maps lack that feature in my view.  That said, I like the idea of zooming in and expanding a portion of the tech tree, featuring new units (i.e., the already created 'ancients' or 'detailed' rulesets from the modpack installer).  The balance is hard to achieve and test games would be needed before developing an LT game as such.

I think we should keep the random fractal maps for LT games, but I liked the team and position selection method from LT32.

I would not be interested anything besides a 1:1 player:nation situation, and would not play if a nations were to be passed around to different players other than for normal vacation delegations.

Small static team sizes could be interesting, but n=3 would discourage cooperating with newer players.  I like n=4 or 5, depending on sign-ups, but shooting for 5 or more distinct teams.

I'm at a loss as to how to create incentives for alternate win conditions, honestly.  For those that want a space race/diplomacy (Atlantic Telegraph) game, perhaps they too could create an "Other" game that requires some more drastic limits to military expansion - say, double military unit upkeep?  Otherwise, I like keeping the flagship LT games as large war games with big maps.

#7 Re: LT34 » A rough draft of LT34 - EDIT 1 » 2014-12-09 20:33:42

Wieder, I support what you have put together thus far - My preference is a team game (maybe because I'm still a noob tongue ), but I look forward to playing regardless.

I think it is important to have everyone equally disadvantaged by map position, thus I voice my support for N-S and E-W wrap.  The torus is just a topological construct - surely cylinders or planes are equally absurd?  At least the two-way wrap simulates the ability to circumnavigate the globe.

In the same interest of equality, I support the (scientifically implausible) elimination of poles.  A tundra start has significant challenges compared to a temperate globe position, although in a team game, this variation can lend itself to strategic diversification.  I think we should eliminate poles if we have an alliance (teamless) game.

If we choose a team-game, I like edrim's suggestion for leaders picking initial positions. 

For picking teams, could there be a way for an impartial game administrator to anonymize player names during the picking process, by instead categorizing players into percentile ranks based upon their ranking?  Flags could also be added for potential idlers based upon precedent or to distinguish brand new players from non-ranked sophmore players (those with 1 LT game under their belts). 

Of course, this won't stop veteran players from joining with new accounts, which could tip a team into an advantage by chance (not that THAT has ever happened, right?).

#8 Re: LT33 » Victory declaration » 2014-12-07 19:17:49

I accept defeat at the hands of the winning alliance.

Edit: And I should not neglect to congratulate to the winners, it was an impressive showing.

#9 Re: LTeX25 » LTeX25 preparation » 2014-09-28 15:56:57

I appreciate the work you've done, kevin551 and akfaew.

As an alternative, I have a ruleset here that might be interesting to test.  It is a port of bardo's new Civ2Civ3 for 2.5, with a few features retained from the original Civ2Civ3 ruleset:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/fsi8tx1nliam … dwula?dl=0.

Changes to Civ2Civ3 ver. 2.5:
  - Courthouses no longer reduce waste and corruption by halving, but instead by providing a government center similar to Palace
  - Bardo's changes to ancient units (archer, elephant, chariot) retained, ships unchanged except build cost
  - Longturn-style 3x movement, etc.

#11 LT33 » clarification re: mis-delegation » 2014-08-13 22:13:55

Replies: 3
edrim wrote:
bamskamp wrote:

I will be gone for two turns (T5 and T6).  Delegation TBD.

You should delegate to someone else then you, but in this way players shouldnt attack you once you are away and you gave delegation to your own nickname:) (yeah, gentelmans agree).

I appreciate being given the benefit of the doubt - I originally set the delegation to a different player's name, but because I couldn't get confirmation before I left, I re-set delegation to myself to protect the identity of that player.  I don't understand how else I can removed the name of that potential delegate, other than re-setting the delegation to another player's name.  Thank you edrim for leaving my cities in peace while I was gone smile

#12 LT33 » Vacation idle list » 2014-08-10 01:50:19

Replies: 3

This topic is for announce more then one turn absence from a game.
Please write when you are planing to go out from a net and go back.
You can announce who will be delegate your nation but it is not a must.

Remember that it is forbidden to login to a game when you are in delegation (read http://longturn.org/rules/ point 5).

Old delegation posts and discussions will be deleted.

#13 other » problem contacting players from longturn.org » 2014-08-08 06:11:23

Replies: 4

I tried to contact another player through the website's messaging system. 
I logged in, went to http://longturn.org/account/players/ which led me to http://longturn.org/account/profile/xxxxx/ (insert player name for 'xxxxx').
Upon attempting to send my message, I was met with the following error:

error at /account/profile/xxxxx/

[Errno 111] Connection refused

Request Method:     POST
Request URL:     http://longturn.org/account/profile/xxxxx/
Django Version:     1.4.5
Exception Type:     error
Exception Value:    

[Errno 111] Connection refused

Exception Location:     /usr/lib/python2.7/socket.py in create_connection, line 571
Python Executable:     /usr/bin/python
Python Version:     2.7.6
Python Path:    


Server time:     Fri, 8 Aug 2014 07:50:13 +0200

Anyone else successful?

#14 Re: LT32 » Vacation idle list. » 2013-09-20 16:41:49

I'll be on vacation from Sept 24-30.  I am delegating to Sandain during this time.

#15 Re: LT32 » Vacation idle list. » 2013-08-21 21:45:39

I will be gone this weekend, 2 days.  I am delegating to sandain.

#16 Re: LT31 » LT31 Winner Claims » 2013-06-05 16:15:06

I 'withhold' a claim of either defeat or victory... and now I have a better understanding of what this ranking is worth. 

There are more games being played here than freeciv, in this silly experiment...

#17 LT31 » Incoming chat messages aren't saved? » 2012-11-15 10:27:25

Replies: 1

I was wondering if anyone else can confirm this behavior... I had a 1 on 1 conversation with another player (by preceeding my messages with '{playername}:', without the quotes or curly brackets), and logged out. 
Upon logging back in, I could not see any the incoming messages from this person, but I could see my own; hence, I was left with a one-sided conversation.
With this behavior, I'm assuming I can no longer read messages that were sent to me while I was logged off.  This was not a problem in the past, and I have not made any changes to my client (version 2.3.2).  Is this a server setting, or are there client-side settings I can modify to change this behavior?

#18 Re: LT31 » LT31 will start soon » 2012-11-09 23:55:54

As Pipo mentioned, Big Land units cannot capture cities by design - it is a feature of this ruleset, not a bug.  This includes Catapult, Chariot, Cannon, Artillery, Armor, Mech. Infantry, and Howitzers.  They also cannot pillage tiles, nor can they be carried by transports other than Galleons or Transports.

Since these units cannot be placed on triremes or caravels, it essentially makes chariots and catapults obsolete in an island game, in addition to the other problems mentioned above. I assume Elrik's updated ruleset converts all units in the "Big Land" class to the "Land" class - can you confirm?

I think it would be worth keeping the transport-related effects if we were playing a fractal map, but I think it's hard to justify why any of these units shouldn't be allowed to capture a city.

#19 Re: LTeX23B » Ltex23B start/changes » 2012-04-27 18:57:49

I appreciate all the work that has gone into this to make it possible.  Akfaew, when you have a moment, do you mind updating the git repo for LTeX23B?  I'd love to play around with these settings offline.

#20 Re: LT30 » Concern about Delegate option » 2012-01-31 14:02:48

monamipierrot wrote:

Even if you swear you will not abuse, you'll end do it, because just by controlling another player you will come to know a lot of what's going on in the game. This spoils the game for your enemies and also for you.

I really don't see the difference between this and simply communicating with your allies/sharing vision once embassies have been established.  There is no limit to the level in which you communicate with others as to how you are playing a particular nation.  True, other eyes may have other ideas as to what is possible... but given that the level of information sharing / coordination of activities is not restricted between players, I simply cannot see how this would give a single player that much more of an advantage.

monamipierrot wrote:

Or, even better, there should be a special forum thread visible ONLY to registered users which are NOT playing in the game...

I see this being much more suceptible to abuse in terms of uncommitted players digging up information for rival groups.  The current system minimizes information leakage and can ensure that turns taken during the time a player is away will be done in the players alliance's best interests.

#21 Re: LT30 » LT30 TODO LIST » 2012-01-21 22:04:26

I propose you remove the password cache file from the git repo.  Even though they are md5summed... they 'could' be cracked.

#22 Re: other » help running 2.3.0+ w/ longturn patches » 2012-01-21 18:49:48

Thanks dude... that helped.  I had to edit rc.subr to add a few fi to close some loops (maybe a bash/dash thing?), but it works.

#23 other » help running 2.3.0+ w/ longturn patches » 2012-01-20 21:47:29

Replies: 2

I'm trying to run the LT30 ruleset AND the patched longturn server to play solo vs. AI (as running the 2.3.1 server with just the ruleset does not have the correct movement and sight)

I successfully compiled the freeciv-server code from git (with authentication) on Ubuntu 11.10.  I tried following these old instructions:
http://old.longturn.org/forum/how-load- … mment-8786

They no longer seem relevant, as I cannot connect my client to the server due to not being a 'preregistered user'.
I run the server with the flag "-r LT30.serv", and have also tried adding "-G" to no avail.  Adding "-N" allows me to type a password and confirm password, but then rejects the client with "cannot change password".
I also installed MySQL, and ran the setup_auth_server.sh.  I cannot connect with any username/pass I set up in this database.
What very simple step(s) am I missing ? 

A grateful linux noob.

#24 Re: other » New (and old) member introductions :) » 2011-12-10 20:19:41

I'm 31 and I work as a molecular microbial ecologist in the US, however I'm soon relocating to Sweden.  I was introduced to Freeciv through my first linux distro (Debian Squeeze) a few years ago.  LTeX 2.3 is my first longturn experience.

#25 Re: other » Your nations plots » 2011-12-10 19:59:54

My set-up for Ubuntu 11.04 with Firefox 8.0 works fine for seeing global graphs, however I was unaware of right-clicking and 'View Image' to see nation specific stats.  They appear to be identical to the global graphs from my perspective.  My nations plots are available in a link above the categories, when I sign in.  Do you see that link, Grendel?

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB