#1 Re: LT45 » Delegations to zoltan » 2018-11-25 00:38:14

Sooo... what is going on here.
I play my turn once a day, rarely more. I dont have time to be online all the time or chat on forums/discord etc, thats the whole reason why I play longturn.
A few times Zoltan has been too impatient to wait for me to play my turn and has decided to take my turn for me. Which pisses me off and based on behaviour in other games I think hes a bit of a prick....but hey, hes the team leader so ok its his choice....

Now I cant log in to this game, or LT42 which was getting a lot more interesting. Password reset???

I think im done with Longturn. Seems to be no point to be competing with/against players who taje it way too seriously and have time to be on it all day.
Its been fun, goodbye.

#2 Re: New and current games » The Rebels vs. the Old Empire » 2018-09-22 23:31:22

How about this;
Of the 20 players, 15 start as a team (Empire) and 5 as independents (Rebels).
Any time a player gets eliminated, they get restarted as an independent player with a few units on ships and techs that everyone has. (But maybe no non team diplomacy or ability to trade with each other?)
No independent player can win by themselves, they have to keep attacking the empire until they pick off a player to join them as a restarter.
If the empire has 2 or more members when the turn limit is reached, the empire wins by holding out against the endless rebellion for long enough.
If the empire is reduced to one player, then a turn counter starts and everyone else must eliminate the last empire player in x turns. In which case rebels win.

#3 Re: LT45 » Please list players who you think might need a 2nd confirmation mail » 2018-09-11 09:19:22

Indeed... ragequitting in the Bronze Age because you dont like the map should get players banned.

#4 Re: LT45 » Longboats able to attack other ships? » 2018-08-15 10:40:46

Had another crazy, not very relevant idea... but Ill add it anyway.

How about adding dangerous weather at sea?
Im thinking an AI (Barbarians) and give them a bunch of 'Storm' units. These are essentially 'ships', which cant be killed and look like clouds, that can only move slowly on deep ocean and do bombard damage to whatever they run into.
Damage level could be set to be severe for early ships but not much problem for later units.

#5 Re: LT45 » Team Selection » 2018-08-15 10:30:39

Talking is overrated tongue

Black for me, obvs.

#6 Re: LT46 » Siege units against forts » 2018-08-14 14:35:38

Achtung Stukas!

Yeah, good to divide into;
Fighter - Only air attack including missiles, bombers and fighter bombers, does not protect ground units, unreachable by ground units.
Fighter bomber - Limited/poor air attack, is reachable by ground units (So you cant use it to just block tiles while also attacking, but maybe with defence bonus), does normal attacks not bombard, ignores walls and forts.
Bomber - Heavy bombard attack only. unreachable by ground units.

This would avoid the situation where your enemy is attacking you with masses of fighters and you cant do anything about it until you also get fighters...

For forts full of units, thats why there needs to be bombard attack unit, to wear down multiple units before they can be taken out individually by conventional attacks.

#7 Re: LT45 » LT45 is supposed to be a more traditional game » 2018-08-10 08:44:13

Theres nothing wrong with the granaries...

Fundamentalism is a bit too powerful but as the changes are still new maybe let it play out for a few more games before changing.
I really like the idea of having some kind of early bombard unit as it promotes combining different unit types and more interesting strategies sad But yeah, archers are too weak to be effective and did just show how many defenders.

Research rate.
This was adjusted in recent games and I think now the effects are clear.
LT43 - As much as I am a fan of long slow games with higher research costs... In this game the rate at which the price increases for the later techs is too high, even the largest nations are struggling to research anything and global warming will probably kill everyone before the deadlock caused by strong defence of riflemen/marines can be broken.
LT44 - While in this game research seems too fast.. probably because its a team game with tech trading..
Some where in between for the next game?

Can we have amphibious attacks for Swordsmen back again? I miss that a lot... Maybe a specialised, but weaker, ship attack unit would be a better role for archers. Cause some opportunistic chaos in the early game but then be innefective once players get their cities properly defended.

#8 Re: LT44 » By Vectron's beard, Fundamentalism is amazing! » 2018-08-08 09:04:47

By Vectrons sturdy trousers, you are right!

Its way too powerful as it is. I am used to having to compensate for poor research when using Tribal+Pyramids gov for high production, but with Fundamentalism you also get insanely rich at the same time. Its the extra trade per tile that does it..
I think it would only be fair if none of the happiness improvements worked and there where also lower empire size limits to cause more unhappiness. Then the fact you have to use a lot of your trade for luxuries would balance things out.

#9 Re: LT45 » elephants » 2018-08-06 10:59:46

Traditionally when Elephants where 2.2. no one used them.  There is some small advantage to having a mobile phalanx type unit but not enough to worth the high price. It because they have been undervalued and given higher attack that they are being used at all.

So I would suggest.. Make them full price (30) A3 D2 but make them into Elephant Archers with bombard attack. Maybe give them infantry move rate too which would be more realistic...

So for infantry you get a progression from Warrior, Phalanx, Swordsman
Mounted attack units progress from Horsemen, Chariot, knights etc.
Then bombard infantry with Archers, Elephant archers.....  (Grenadiers...  Snipers... )

#10 Re: LT44 » Ending LT44 » 2018-07-25 09:30:30

I was enjoying this game despite a slow start...
Personally I would be ok with just restarting with the same rules/setup.
Redistribute the currently active players into new equal teams.

#11 Re: LT44 » Salvaging LT44 » 2018-07-25 09:29:03

I was enjoying this game despite a slow start...
Personally I would be ok with just restarting with the same rules/setup.
Redistribute the currently active players into new equal teams.

#12 Re: LT45 » LT45 will be based on LT44 » 2018-07-19 15:52:52

Another suggestion.. I like the archer as an infantry bombard unit in LT44, but it is weak and there are no later equivalents until flight.
So maybe make alpine troops into snipers? There are already riflemen, partisans, cavalry and marines in that period which do defence or attack just as well as alpines.
Sniper unit could be able to keep the movement over all terrain, do bombard attacks to weaken enemies and withdraw, then maybe even be only visible from adjacent tiles like subs so they are hard to find behind enemy lines.

#13 Re: LT45 » LT45 will be based on LT44 » 2018-07-19 15:38:50

I had an idea for desert world. First make a wet, mountainous, resource rich map but with quite small islands per player. Then with the editor (or maybe a script?) make all of the ocean tiles into desert. So there are many 'habitable' oases of green land, but apart from maybe a few rivers the rest would be huge distances across open sand.
Or do the same with mountains and ice for a crazy himalayan map.

#14 Re: New and current games » The next more experimental game » 2018-06-21 08:32:30

Something to bear in mind..  some people might be using some form of linux on ARM devices, for example I have previously used Linux Deploy to to play freeciv on a rooted smartphone and tablet and at the moment Im experimenting with Debian Noroot (Because I have a work phone).
On all the various options I have tried it is extremely difficult to 'make' stuff from source that will compile properly on ARM linux, so you have to rely on installing freeciv via package manager. Ive not seen an ARM linux version with freeciv 2.6, most still have 2.4...

Not a reason not to do it though, Im sure im in the minority with this kind of stuff...

#15 Re: LT43 » delegation » 2018-06-19 20:48:11

The Russians 'loveprince' is now idle for 7 turns. Is it possible to send them a mail asking if they will be back?
If not I would happily take on that nation until someone else can also be found to take it over.

#16 Re: LT44 » More defense to the capital city? » 2018-06-13 13:25:52

Just to add to whats been said already;
More capital defence - No.. if you dont locate and defend your capital well enough its your own fault.
No Civil war - Agree. Theres no place for AIs in longturn and no way to do it without AIs.. unless cities are just divided between neighboring players.
no auto palace. - Yes this would be a great alternative penalty for losing your capital. I suggest that the palace should have a base happiness bonus for all cities, so if you lose it you will get unrest everywhere until you build another, so simulating the effects of civil war/revolution without actually splitting players. So it not a knock out blow if you take a players capital but they will be weakened.

#17 Re: LT44 » Ruleset » 2018-05-17 15:00:37

A hard thing to balance.. but there should be some kind of diminishing return on investment the more powerful a player gets. So yes you have an advantage.. but at an increasing relative cost.
There is already that effect from things like unhappiness and corruption from empire size, but theres rarely a point where it would be better not to capture another city or increase your population.

I think it might be interesting to have higher building upkeep costs (Maybe compensate with more free unit upkeep, so its better to create units and do stuff with them than just develop cities) and even buildings that you have to have before a city can build certain things. Currently it never seems to be a problem for upkeep costs to just build all the buildings available, theres no need to choose between affording building A or B. Having to specialise and keep cities lean, or afford huge costs, would add to the strategy and be an increasing drain on players with loads of cities.

#18 Re: LT44 » Ruleset » 2018-05-17 08:53:35

Major wonders favour players who are already winning..  The player with the largest production will be able to build them first and then get even more of a boost. This widens the gap between 'winning' and 'losing' players and makes it even harder to keep up and have a chance.

Personally I like things that level the playing field and allow smaller players to have a chance if they strategically work together. Rather than getting hopelessly left behind by a couple of advanced players and not being able to do anything when they roll over them with bombers and tanks..

#19 Re: LT44 » Techs for LT44 » 2018-05-02 16:49:10

Yeah tech rate in LT43 seems good, but I like ancient weapons smile

I can see how gold transfer could unbalance normal games, but I dont see why it shouldnt be allowed in a team game.

What I would REALLY like to see in non-team games is a kind of 'Vassal state' treaty option, whereby the player giving the treaty gets peace in return for all their excess gold after upkeep.
This would create a reason to let 'defeated' players to live instead of take their lands. Vassal state should be permanent and players choosing it cant be counted as winners. Is it possible to code such a setup? (Even just an x gold per turn for Y turns option like in Alpha Centauri would be nice)

#20 Re: LT44 » Techs for LT44 » 2018-05-01 07:53:05

Im ok with that, because after all both teams have the same rules to work with, but I can see how pooled research might cause problems.

Suppose most of your team are on a continent and you are the only one on a island. If everyone else thinks ships are a very low priority then you are screwed. Also with differences between players who want to be more militaristic or more focussed on long term development, someone is not going to have the tech they need for their prefered strategy.

Option 4 would be my choice for team game. Everyone can research what they think is important, but the whole team benefits when it is shared (Especially if diplomacy is enabled from the start for the whole team).

On the subject of 'dead weight' players.. Maybe it would be good to remove penalty on gold exchange for team games? Smaller players cant add much to research, because they will always be behind, but they could transfer gold to main researchers (So they can raise their research rate and lower tax) or to players in front line combat.

#22 Re: LT43 » Fundamentalism is now improved for maybe 4th time » 2018-03-21 15:26:54

Not Monotheism?
The ancient greeks and romans where pretty good at astronomy and very religiously tolerant of many polytheistic and philosophical beliefs. (Except the Spartans, but I think they are more Tribal..)
Fundamentalists arrived with the old testament Jews and Christians...
Same for the phoneicians, egyptians etc. until Mohammed got his fundamentalists together to conquer N africa.
Monotheistic Medieval Europe was peak fundamentalist..

Look forward to trying it though.maybe an improved Despotism (Shit economy high growth?), so that it is an option with pyramids, would be nice.

#23 Re: New and current games » Making battleships both "Bombarders" and normal units » 2018-03-21 13:59:23

I was thinking about the same thing for coastal defense batteries capable of firing on ships off shore.
Make a 'Coastal Cannon Ammo' unit, that is basically a cruise missile with range 2 or 3, that must end its turn in a city with coastal def.
This would make coastal defense an active as well as passive deterrence to an armada gathering off shore.

The added logistics of having to re-supply battleships would be interesting, and its kind of an earlier available version of carrier/sub + missiles. It could even be introduced with gunpowder/navigation. Frigate and Ironclad 1 shot, destroyer 2, cruiser 3, battleship 4.

I think you could also make all (post industrial) surface ships slightly stronger in defense than attack, so they are more like floating protection for transports etc that cant be sunk 1 on 1, unless they are bombarded first (Ramming is for ancient ships only. smile).

With this addition I think all ships should be unable to directly attack land units or cities. It makes zero sense that you can ram someone on the shore with a trireme or sail a battleship into a harbour wall to kill a unit of marines...

#24 Re: LT43 » LT43 test has been started » 2018-03-21 13:54:42

Flagship looks good!
I thought we where going to get some artillery units with bombard capabilities this game, or was that LT42?

#25 Re: LT43 » Post here suggestions about what to change for LT43 » 2018-03-15 09:42:05

Yes yes and yes to tech cost 600%!
With tech trading on an alliance of 6 players effectively pays 1/6th the cost to develop tech. Large alliances are common when tech trading is enabled so such a massive increase in cost seems totally fair to me.

We may as well test if such a high value is playable

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB