Longturn.net

To me, this is the most interesting part of the game.  And I'm horrible at it .  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 .

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.

--- 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 @@

[effect_trade_routes]
type    = "Max_Trade_Routes"
-value   = 2
+value   = 0

Wieder, I support what you have put together thus far - My preference is a team game (maybe because I'm still a noob ), 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?).

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.

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

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.
Thanks!

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

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?