#1 Re: LT38 » red team surrenders ? » 2017-11-05 11:06:09

Well played guys, another classic LT experience smile

I surrender on behalf of Marduk and Axoi under the same conditions as Wieder of Catalunya. Congrats team blue!

#2 Re: LT38 » please firewall ! » 2017-09-23 08:32:19

Yea thanks man!

Recently web-longturn (Andreas) also got hacked, could it be related?

#3 Re: New games » New type of team game » 2017-09-10 11:01:58

I like the concept. It helps solve the issue that the later game becomes really time intensive.

Just thinking out loud: what if all players are divided into teams of 2 players, where one is flagged as 'military' player and the other one as 'city manager'. The city manager controls all cities, workers, settlers, migrants, caravans and sets science targets, tax rates, government. Whenever he builds a military unit, it is automatically reassigned to the military player of that team. There is code for reassigning units (like when you steal a worker), and if you allow the reassigned units to remain without homecity then maybe it's possible to reassign them to the military player?

If these duo-teams can then be assigned to superteams (teams of teams), then you could have several nations working together, where each consists of a fighter and a builder.

#4 Re: LT40 » The empire sizes (proposal) » 2017-08-22 20:24:04

A further thought: would it be possible to have an advanced gov totally geared towards gold income? For example: no waste, free upkeep for buildings that normally cost 1 gold per turn (like Adam Smith), extra trade bonus, difficult to maintain happiness, 40/50 max tax, no free unit upkeep, penalty on warfare, maybe some kind of penalty on research if it's possible to set that. I think Sid Meier had in mind to make the Economic track one of the key ways to play the game besides science and warfare, in the civ boardgames this is also partly implemented. But in freeciv there are hardly any players that really focus on gold income instead of warfare or science.

#5 Re: LT40 » The empire sizes (proposal) » 2017-08-22 20:11:59

wieder wrote:


- can use max 3 military units for martial law
- 28 cities
- 3 free units / city
- additional units will cost 3 gold
- gets the same trade bonus as republic, democracy and fundamentalism
- corruption / waste pretty much same as with tribalism
- max rate for tax, sci and lux is 50%
- no incite for units or cities

Is this ok, too powerful or too weak? If it's too powerful we could change the ax tax/sci/lux rate to 40%.

I like it, nice for warfare. But maybe slightly weak? How big would the corruption/waste be compared to republic? If it costs a lot of shields then that would make it less attractive for warfare (warriors may not care much for trade, but they care about production -> waste).

With low waste this gov would be a production powerhouse.

#6 Re: LT40 » The empire sizes (proposal) » 2017-08-20 09:47:35

fran wrote:
Marduk wrote:


For example:
despotism: 5 cities
monarchy: 8 cities
republic: 12 cities
communism / democracy: 15 cities


I disagree. Following such a path is quite "normal" anyway, so no need to set in stone.
That would be boring.
I'm in favor of the original proposal of wieder.

To be fair, most players don't follow such a path in the games I've seen. Rather they build a dozen cities in despotism, and then just one or two more in advanced governments. Building more cities is currently not an important reason for changing government.

I know it's a radical idea. Let's just generate lots of out of the box ideas and then see which ones we want to include in the experiment.

#7 Re: LT40 » The empire sizes (proposal) » 2017-08-14 18:33:04

I really like the idea of big map with high citymindist. Not sure about gov specific units though, could unbalance the game. You could also set empire_size_step to a really high value (like 3), and then let the number of cities before unhappy citizens appear depend strongly on the government. Then staying in Monarchy means you'll keep a small kingdom, while steadily upgrading your government is necessary to get a big territory. Kind of realistic in historical terms too. Why several dozens of cities? Less cities means more premium on being able to grow (very) large cities.

For example:
despotism: 5 cities
monarchy: 8 cities
republic: 12 cities
communism / democracy: 15 cities

This way there will likely be lots of empty nature left between different players, which creates interesting tactical challenges (attacking requires good movement planning, but fog of war can make it possible to sneak up unseen).

#8 Re: other » Experiences with technology trading in LongTurn games » 2017-08-08 11:58:19

Thanks! Checked it, and the chance to lose an invention while receiving it is set to 100. So no tech is gained through conquest, works for me!

#9 Re: other » Experiences with technology trading in LongTurn games » 2017-08-07 19:32:13

LT38 is now well underway, and I have to say I love having tech trading disabled. With tech trading most players end up with about the same level of tech, but now there are real differences between advanced players and low-tech players. This makes the game much more diverse: high tech defensive style versus low tech human-wave attacks etc. Also tech trading means that most people will race through antiquity and end up in modern times too soon. With tech trading disabled there's more time to enjoy ancient warfare, and to make good use of each tech before researching the next one.

Question: I noticed that when one of my cities was captured in LT38, that player stole a tech from me. How big is the chance to steal a tech when capturing a city? How about in Freeciv-web, can players steal techs by capturing cities?

#10 Re: other » Delegation Team Etiquette » 2017-06-24 23:11:58

Ideally it should be for limited time only, and players shouldn't end up controlling several delegated accounts. In practice since longturn games last several months it can be hard to avoid such situations. As far as I know we haven't been very strict on this.

#11 Re: ScenarioGame 1 » A new concept to Longturn games, scenario game » 2017-06-20 20:35:43

Sounds fun! Depending on the scenario these games could also finish faster. Short intense games are something many LT gamers crave for.

#12 Re: New games » A new (or an alternative) point system » 2017-06-01 18:45:05

Corbeau wrote:

Is there a way to force historian reports?

I wonder about this too. And is it still possible to get historian reports at endturn for historical games? If yes then I'd be happy to make a new (alternative) ranking list based on this and see if people like it.

#13 Re: New games » A new (or an alternative) point system » 2017-06-01 18:34:03

Sounds fun too, but still I think there's a fundamental question: distinguishing between winners and losers, as we have always done so far, implies that civ is a purely military game. But actually civ is also meant to have economic victory, technological victory etc as options. Focusing only on military victory causes big games to become unmanageable, many people say the endgame is just too much work because you have to move hundreds of units each turn to conquer a huge map. But if your goal is to build huge cities and have an amazing economy then this is still doable even if there are 100 other players and there's a huge map.

A system based on ingame points with ranking points awarded to the top X players at endturn, rather than based on survival, would make more playing styles possible. And it would solve the issue of games becoming "too much work". Players still have the option to try to conquer the world (if they enjoy it and if they have enough time to see it through in the endgame), but they're not forced to choose that playing style.

#14 Re: other » Do I still have an account ? » 2017-05-30 14:18:28

Hi guys, here's another zombie that decided to come back from civ death smile Funny Sokrat and me picked the same time to reappear!

Really nice to see LT is doing well, gj Wieder!

#15 Re: New games » A new (or an alternative) point system » 2017-05-30 14:09:23

Totally agree that the ranking system should always make the game more fun, not less fun. We designed this ranking system way back based on how games were played then, but if LT evolved in the meantime then the ranking system should evolve too.

Some thoughts:
- LT games can drag on for too long. Survivor status was meant to limit this, by incentivizing players to give up rather than force the winners to destroy their last north pole mountain fortress. If there's another way to make sure games don't drag on then that would be great.
- some games were won by huge coalitions ganging up on more skilled players. When 15 players together smash 5 players then it's not a real victory. Having a maximum number of winners prevents this. But if we don't make such a strict separation between winners and losers then maybe people also don't have a reason to gang up just to win the game.

I like the idea of not focusing on winners and losers, and just awarding points to the top X players based on ingame points (correcting for the number of players in the game: place 5 means more in a 100 player game then in a 6 player game). Maybe this can be combined with some correction for the number of games played: the fewer games you played, the more your score is dragged to the average. Otherwise you can have one great game and then walk away, and forever be the king of longturn.

#16 Re: LT38 » Reply here to join Team Red » 2017-05-30 13:23:15

*zombie comes back to life*

Red China reporting for duty!

#17 Re: LadderWars » Start - when? » 2013-09-08 08:18:01

option 4: when only 3 teams are left in LT32.

#18 Re: LadderWars » Ladder Wars. » 2013-09-08 08:16:17

This sounds awesome, very well thought through!

In principle it would be compatible with team games, though in a team game you have an additional step in the starting process (team formation, then player location choice). Maybe team games are best kept for non-ladder games.

The system is quite information intensive (number of survivors, idlers, number of units killed etc). Is all information available, and can it be easily managed? Maybe it's possible to make a script that feeds the required information directly into the website?

#19 Re: LT31 » I claim victory in LT31. » 2013-05-26 09:13:23

Dimitril wrote:

If it wasn't for turn 180 limits, the Church wouldn't have been so big I think. There was simply no time for eliminating all those players, and often no reason too. So it was easier to make them agree to some sort of ''who get the most merit in the alliance win''.

Yea the time limit did not have the intended effect: it was supposed to make it more likely that people backstab in big alliances (otherwise everybody loses), but it instead discouraged people from even trying to win because it seemed unrealistic (so they might as well just stick together). In earlier games it was quite different, often there was a situation in which backstabbing some allies would result in world domination within say 20 turns, that's a much stronger incentive. Conclusion (as we already knew): much smaller map, no pre-set time limit.

Also, there was no reason to backstab someone who never had any interest in who win or ranking. I doubt outsider may know the story of the Red Tide. The Church was a strange bunch for sure.

We can't force people to try to win the game. But I'm quite sure the game is more fun if everyone tries to win, even if it's a long shot. It simply increases the tension and unpredictability of the game. But again, a smaller map makes it more realistic for people to give it a try.

#20 Re: LT31 » I claim victory in LT31. » 2013-05-26 09:09:06

edrim wrote:
Marduk wrote:

I think some players still don't fully accept backstabbing as a fun aspect of the game, but then as soon as a big coalition forms the game ossifies. Longturn could be more like Game of Thrones, we should all be a bit more evil smile

Yes, we all know Marduk, that you are evil.

Join me, I know you want to smile

#21 Re: LT31 » I claim victory in LT31. » 2013-05-25 16:22:29

There should be a stronger incentive to backstab when you're in a huge coalition. So the more players you have bunched together, the more tension and uncertainty there will be about what comes next. In bicyle racing it's no problem if half of the race most people drive in a big peloton, but it's only fun because we know that they're watching each other and guessing who will make the first move, who will leave the rest behind to go for his own glory.

I think some players still don't fully accept backstabbing as a fun aspect of the game, but then as soon as a big coalition forms the game ossifies. Longturn could be more like Game of Thrones, we should all be a bit more evil smile

#22 Re: LT32 » Poll: unreachableprotects » 2013-05-25 16:11:18

longturn wrote:

Vote yes to set it so that fighters no longer protect land units.

Yes, yes!! big_smile Finally defending a land border will be a real challenge. And it takes away a major benefit of RTS'ing.

#23 Re: LT31 » LETS RECOGNISE THE BEST PLAYERS OF LT31! » 2013-05-25 16:07:36

An earlier version of the ranking list included the following situations: winner; surviving+top50% score; surviving+bottom50% score; dead; idle. Problem is that for earlier games we don't have this information. But I'd be all for re-introducing this whenever possible.

#24 Re: LT31 » End at T180? » 2013-05-24 18:14:30

Maybe in the future we shouldn't allow endturn polls before gamestart anymore. It's impossible to know beforehand how a game will end up, and hence whether a fixed endturn will be called for or not. In this game I think it's a shame because we're actually reasonably close to a natural end with a winning team.

If a game gets totally stuck then we can always still open an endturn vote at that moment.

#25 Re: LT31 » Suggestions for next civ2civ3 version » 2013-05-24 17:59:09


I had to change my usual strategy for keeping my cities happy (no michelangelo and bach in their old form anymore), but in the end it was easier than I expected. I built Artemis+temple, then amphitheater and church in all cities, then Shakespeare. After that there was a bit of a difficult period as cities grew fast and became more and more unhappy. I had to switch tax rates to 40% luxury at some point. But then banks, stock exchanges and finally super highways kicked in and allowed me to switch the tax rate for luxury to a low level again. I've had 23 cities throughout the game, so didn't encounter massive empire problems. My governments were straight to Republic, then to Democracy till the end of the game.

Super highways:

I agree that it's a bit overpowered. My income really shot up when I built these, and I even didn't know what to do with all the gold anymore.

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB