#1 LT32 » New Nation » 2013-03-25 14:47:10

johnhx
Replies: 2

Probably an old subject for some but can I add a new nation for LT32? What do I need and how do I do it? The name I know. I also know the flag I want to use but what size? Can I specify a colour? Can I specify a default list of city names in advance? Thanks, in advance.

#2 Re: LT31 » Dead players can see the whole map » 2013-02-24 11:49:08

If dead players have seen the whole map then this game is probably over ...

#3 Re: LT31 » 500 BC Livy reports on the most MILITARIZED Civilizations in the World » 2013-02-19 17:39:34

I'm number 1 !!! ??? I only have about 400 military units ... how did this happen? I blame the East Germans ... when communists bang on about peace I know I should prepare for the opposite !

#4 Re: LT31 » using a browser » 2013-01-28 19:50:16

Thanks. Perhaps that's what I saw. When I say delegate I mean the regent thing which I’ve never used. Does that work?

#5 LT31 » using a browser » 2013-01-28 10:28:16

johnhx
Replies: 4

I might be away from my computer for a while but I should have access to a browser. Is it possible to join LT31 without the usual client? I have read somewhere that it can be done but I’ve never tried. If it isn’t, I shall have to delegate my civ or abandon the game.

#6 Re: LT31 » LT31 has started » 2012-11-11 15:03:33

Well done akfaew. May I be the first to congratulate you.

Can I also be the first to put my name down for LT32 which should start around January 2014?

#7 Re: LT31 » LT31 will start soon » 2012-11-11 10:02:09

I'm also unable to log into the test game. I get the usual "Conection to server refused ... etc".

#8 Re: LT31 » LT31 will start soon » 2012-11-09 12:42:09

I think that in an island game it should be possible to convert deep ocean to shallow water and then to land. Or is that already possible? I haven’t tried. I think it would be useful for civs that want to create land bridges.

#9 Re: LT31 » LT31 will start soon » 2012-11-09 12:29:08

No. I do not want cities on mountains. I am happy with that rule. I want to be able to convert mountains with geoeng so I can build a city later.

#10 Re: LT31 » LT31 will start soon » 2012-11-09 12:19:35

Can we change the rules to allow the conversion of mountains by geoeng? Should I start poll or can we just do it?

#11 Re: LT31 » LT31 will start soon » 2012-11-09 12:14:03

Dear mrsynical,

I regret to inform you that your civ has been wiped out. This message should not be seen as an admission of liability.

Regards, johnhx

#12 Re: LT31 » LT31 will start soon » 2012-11-09 12:08:46

T603:

Is LT31 going to to be reset for another test game or are you still debugging? I'm getting bored and it looks like the server can't cope with my civ. Or am I being restricted in some way?

Cities: 89  pop: 550,190,000

I'm unable to log in for more than one turn at time.

#13 Re: LTeX23B » Ltex32b giving connection refused » 2012-06-29 17:14:14

Can we have turn 62 again? There's something I’d like to change.

ps. well done admin

#14 Re: LTeX23B » Some early changes to consider » 2012-06-29 12:33:11

bardo:
A good table that illustrates how the units fit together. On that basis the price is right. My point is the cost of a basic city unit jumps from 10 to 30.

kevin551:
Like you I rarely build pikemen but in difficult games I like having the technology available to upgrade existing units if necessary.

Inevitably, here is my suggestion for a new unit available after Warriors become obsolete.

Militia: defence 2, attack 1, cost 10. After feudalism Militia would replace Warriors as the basic military unit. Here's another idea. They would be available to the end of the game and can be ungraded to any non mechanized land based military unit. That would include riflemen, paras and marines. The cost of these upgrades would be high.

#15 LTeX23B » T62 CRASH - my suggestion to the admin » 2012-06-28 21:27:47

johnhx
Replies: 0

Here is my suggestion to the administrator of LTeX23B.

1. backup everything you've got

2. ask for volunteers and when they can be available

3. roll back the game to T59

4. set the turn time to something very short, like 10 minutes

5. try to get to about T65

6. repeat the above until it works or you give up

I don't care if this gives a few players an advantage in knowing where the game is going but this can't go on.

I believe this game wasn't set up by the administrator akfaew and I’m sure he's doing his best but I think this needs sorting out one way or the other. This is not a criticism of the present team. Whoever did set up this game screwed up.

If anyone else has a better idea feel free to comment.

#16 Re: LTeX23B » Some early changes to consider » 2012-06-28 10:52:52

det0r:

1. I have done that, hopefully the right way.

2. the thing is warriors and phalanx are not available once you research feudalism. it's really a question of putting two or three units into a new city asap. perhaps if warriors were still available after feudalism that would help.

3. “accelerate the game”. funnily enough, that was the idea. I thought people were becoming bored with this but I can see how it would speed things up too much in a large game.

4. agreed

5. again my idea was to speed up the development of small wonders to help people control large civs.

kevin551:

I usually avoid building my capital on a hill preferring to use the general terrain and other cities for defence.

I always start by setting my capital to build a barracks followed by a settler and research horseback riding. When the barracks is built I reduce the shields so the settlers are not actually produced. When I have horseback riding I change production to horsemen and build a handful of veterans as fast as possible. With five or six horsemen and a good river system you can sometimes wipe out a neighbour before they know you're there. Units that survive the game often become seriously hardened armour. I usually research bronze working early and build veteran phalanx for important locations. I leave warrior code until I want feudalism.

#17 LTeX23B » Some early changes to consider » 2012-06-27 12:05:29

johnhx
Replies: 7

First thing to say is how interesting this game has been for me as my first time on LT. I'm now too far behind to affect this game but the experience has been invaluable. These are a few early ideas.

1. barracks
I would like to see the first barracks made non dependent on tech. Attaching it to warrior code gave an unfair advantage to the aggressive kill-kill-kill people. In fact, I would like to see a free barracks in the capital upgraded through the game. Perhaps the palace could double as a barracks.

2. pikemen
I think pikemen should be reduced from 30 shields to 20. The jump from 10 for a warrior is too much. This could help the 3ks people as well by giving them more time to build attacking units.

3. trade routes
Is it too late to introduce trade routes? Having a large game with nearly 500 cities at T62 for an average of 15 per player, although most players probably have over 20 by now, seems contradictory.

4. caravans
I think caravans should be reduced from 50 shields to 30. This would help the city builders and perhaps help to overcome waste problems with distant cities. More waste and corruption balanced by more trade points.

5. mini-vans
I would introduce a new unit. It would be a sort of second class caravan, a mini-van. It would cost 10 shields, contribute 20 shields, not be able to create trade routes and can only help build small wonders.

#18 Re: LTeX23B » Ltex32b giving connection refused » 2012-06-27 01:30:25

No. And the turn counter hasn't moved on from T62 either.

#19 LTeX23B » AI Barbarians and Pirates » 2012-06-23 17:28:43

johnhx
Replies: 5

Can we expect AI barbarians and pirates to appear at T60? According to the game settings / military we can but another player has told me there won't be.

#20 Re: LT31 » Tech sharing » 2012-06-22 12:58:25

Paladin wrote:
Steelski wrote:

To limit the power of tech sharing, how about setting non-zero chances to lose techs when trading them, for example 40% for giving and 50% for receiving? This would mean a 20% chance that both lose the tech and 30% that both keep it. This way, cooperating players would still get some benefit from sharing their techs, but not nearly as much as with the current settings in LT30.

Penalty for changing research target should also be set.

This might be a better way to prevent huge, overpowered alliances, than limiting the number of winners (which could also be done though).

I agree.

I disagree. I think introducing yet another “throw of the dice” is not the way. I actually like Civs general predictability with a little uncertainty thrown in. I don't like this plague thing. I've already been hit twice in LTeX23B and I’m not happy.

I like the idea of setting diplcost if it works the way I understand it. Each ally would research at their usual speed but there would be a fairly severe, and predictable, penalty for tech sharing.

#21 Re: LTeX23B » Aqueducts » 2012-06-05 15:11:37

Interesting. It seems someone has added entries to the help file about Aqueducts. There are now separate entries for “Aqueduct”, “Aqueduct, near Lake” and “Aqueduct, near River”. Excellent. I have only one question. It's about the phrase “Lake terrain on the tile”. How do you build a city in a lake, or is this something else I didn’t know about?

#22 Re: LT30 » And the winner is.... » 2012-06-02 14:55:30

Is it too late to sign on with some sort of guest account? I'd like to see this! lol

#23 Re: LT30 » Ideas on How to make sure Lt31 is not as frustrating as Lt30 » 2012-06-02 09:32:30

wieder: You are right when you say I didn’t play this game and can only go by what I read. I simply formed the impression that a number of people were unhappy with the way the game was played and with the result. If you think TG was beaten in a fair fight that's good enough for me.

monamipierrot: Your making my point for me! You seem to blame their defeat on a failure of “diplomacy/politics”. In other words, they didn’t join the right alliance. I don't want to be forced into joining an alliance I don't want to be a part of on threat of being “gang-banged”, as you so eloquently put it.

By RPG I assume you mean Role Playing Game. That is the last thing I want to see Civ become. If I wanted RPG I would play something else. If you think that's where Longturn is going I might as well leave now.

#24 Re: LTeX23B » Governments » 2012-06-01 18:29:17

I read this excellent post from bardo about governments some time ago and have based my strategy on it. If these aren't the current rules for LTeX23B what are they?

#25 Re: LT30 » Ideas on How to make sure Lt31 is not as frustrating as Lt30 » 2012-06-01 15:20:19

New to Longturn does not mean new to Civ, or FreeCiv.

I don't see how a 5% penalty per alliance favours big alliances. Reading the LT30 forum I was concerned about people like friddelprimpf who survived the game but is declared “a loser”. You also seem to have thrown out the best player Longturn has ever had because he hacked accounts after being overwhelmed by an outrageous alliance of players who weren’t good enough to beat him on their own. I feel you need to learn from these things.

I’ll say it again. I have nothing against alliances per se and I will probably enter one or two myself, if I stay around, but I think there should be a graduated penalty to discourage big alliances. The fact that you have already imposed a limit of 10 civs suggests I have a point.

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB