#1 Re: Longturn.net services » longturn.net is now available over https » 2020-05-02 07:10:29

louis94 wrote:

Thank you for the report! I'll make sure to update the links.

Caedo wrote:

- the background image on the forum

All images are on https for me, which theme are you using?

The default "Longturn" theme. The style sheet (Longturn.css) still links to "http://longturn.net/static/background.png" for the body's background-image.

#2 Re: Longturn.net services » longturn.net is now available over https » 2020-05-01 15:06:05

I've noticed a few links still point to non-https URIs:
- the background image on the forum
- the two links at the very top of the forum (to longturn.net and the forum itself)
- on the main longturn.net site, the "your profile" page's link to one's forum profile
- on the main longturn.net site, the "contact" page's link to the forums

These are all I could find right now.

#3 Re: LT50 » Autonomous units (failure) » 2020-01-21 06:21:45

A few other things to check:
- Is the autoattack server setting enabled (I highly doubt it)?
- Did you (or someone else) accidentally aitoggle yourself, allowing an AI to control your units?
- Did someone else /take your civilization and make the moves?
- Did someone else log in with your username and password?

If you didn't (intentionally or accidentally) give the units a goto, auto-explore or auto-settler order, those are the only possible reasons I can think of.

#4 Re: New games » Naming conventions for the LT games when they are being planned » 2018-12-07 08:13:05

Corbeau wrote:

Besides, it's information. it's allowed to be redundant wink

Hoo boy, and now we know for sure that Corbeau isn't a software engineer. Redundant information is a pain to work with, because when there's redundant information, there's the possibility that two different data sets contradict each other, and then we've got a veritable shit-show.

#5 Re: LT47 » LT47 will be (hopefully) the first 2.6 game » 2018-12-07 08:09:53

Actually, last I checked, you can just type in the tileset name in the respective field in the local settings dialog. No need for command line parameters or any of that jazz. See here.

#6 Re: New games » Naming conventions for the LT games when they are being planned » 2018-12-03 16:56:56

No, seriously, I think it would make sense to completely and permanently split it up into multiple series – LT-C for classic teamless/alliance, LT-T for team, LT-X for experimental, possibly some others for games without allied victory or Corbeau's simulation series. Have LT45 be the last of the regular LT series, turn LT46 into LT-X1, LT47 into LT-R1 etc.

#7 Re: New games » Naming conventions for the LT games when they are being planned » 2018-12-03 13:59:25

How ever could you possibly suspect such a thing? tongue

Regarding ruleset history, the final name would only be designated once the final number is decided on, which is going to be rather late in the development process, so if one wants to check the earlier changes, that'll still be under the planning name.

#8 Re: New games » Naming conventions for the LT games when they are being planned » 2018-12-03 13:54:09

I don't think that's necessary – so what if LT42 starts after LT43 has already concluded?

If there are separate names for planned and running games, there's the question of reusing planning numbers.
If planning numbers are not reused, this essentially means that each game has two unique numbers, which isn't necessarily the best thing. Now, since running numbers are in the fourties and fifties right now, whereas planning numbers would start at one, this in itself would not be too confusing; it might just seem somewhat unnecessary. However, if people try to remember it as e.g. "run = plan + 48", that'll come back to bite them whenever that order doesn't work.
If, on the other hand, planning numbers are reused, that will make tracing the rulesets' history later an incredible hassle, since the same file name (e.g. /LTP1/data/effects.ruleset) refers to different files in different revisions. As someone who's had to spend quite a bit of his time digging through version histories... don't make it more complicated than it already is.

TL;DR: Adding a separate planning number for every game – no matter whether they're unique or reused – doesn't sound like that great an idea.

What I would propse instead is either for games that will likely take a longer time to prepare to be a separate series entirely – the games that will start rather quickly get their LT# assigned, whereas long-prep games are e.g. LL#, starting at LL1 – or for the long-prep games to get planning numbers and be inserted into the LT series once their launch is in sight.

EDIT: I'll have to second Corbeau's idea – separate designations for the different game classes make sense, and counting them on a per-year basis avoids the problems I've outlined above regarding planning numbers.
Moreover, the different classes should probably be completely split – instead of just having LT, there should be e.g. LT-X for experimental games (which used to be the case, I believe), LT-T for team games and so on and so forth.

#9 Re: LT42 » The ruleset for LT42 » 2018-11-25 07:12:45

Short answer: That effect doesn't (shouldn't) do anything.
Long answer: That effect is presumably being evaluated like any other effect, but it doesn't matter if it's active or not, since either way, it contributes nothing to the total sum of all Veteran_Build effects.

I'm assuming that's an artefact of a temporary change that was never finished or reverted.

#10 Re: New games » Hexes? » 2018-10-28 07:17:38

Regarding city radius:
On hex maps, calculating distance is a lot easier than on square maps, since there isn't the difference between straight and diagonal movement. As such, for the city radius, I believe the game simply uses all tiles within range (as the unit moves), i.e. you'll always have basically hexagonal city areas. At least that's my experience.

Regarding client-server topology problems:
And players using a square tileset on a hex map will be somewhat confused, since certain moves won't be allowed, so during the planning phase and at the beginning of the game, everyone would need to be reminded to use a hex tileset. Though I do recall some client actually warning me about a topology mismatch; maybe someone that still has a 2.5 client could test this.
Alternatively, the hex game is only started once LT upgrades to 2.6, in which case the problem will solve itself.

#11 Re: LT44 » Kamikaze funny story - from a noob player :) » 2018-09-27 07:16:38

It's possible to detonate nukes with no movement; however, I seems to recall that (at least in 2.5) it's impossible to unload a nuke from a transport outside a city if it doesn't have any movement.

#12 Re: LT45 » The map settngs for LT45 (and LT44) » 2018-09-22 18:57:59

I believe alltemperate would be enabled, since whatever happens last overrides the previous one.

#13 Re: LT44 » Quitting game » 2018-08-27 17:03:10

Corbeau wrote:

The post before mine, now deleted.

You know there's the "Report" button in the bottom-left of each post?

#14 Re: other » Team selection proposal » 2018-08-21 11:35:10

Alternatively, each team captain could submit an ordered list of player preferences, and each player submits an ordered list of team preferences, and the final teams could be decided based on a modified version of the algorithm for the stable marriage problem that accommodates for teams having multiple members (which is a trivial modification). Additional modifications could be made to deal with "I don't care what team I land in" and possibly "I definitely want to be on the same team as X", though the latter could become more complicated.

Notably actually assembling the teams can wait until a handful of days before the game starts, and team captains could already include players that haven't yet confirmed participation / submitted a list into their team's preference ordering. When the teams are finally assembled, any players that haven't confirmed participation are simply ignored with no additional work necessary.

Of course, gathering all of these lists into a proper format to be processed by a script that forms the teams would probably require either a lot of work from one person, or some kind of online form that already spits out the data in a useful way.

#15 Re: LT46 » Siege units against forts » 2018-08-19 07:15:05

Rivers' defense bonus is not additive with terrain (and has never been, I believe). In fact, nothing is additive with the terrain's base defense bonus. Up to 2.5, rivers are additive with other roads and bases (such as a fortress), but this is fixed in 2.6 with the introduction of separate "Natural" and "Fortification" defense layers for extras. While multiple extras on the same defense layer still add, the different defense layers (as well as the terrain defense bonus, effect defense bonus, veteran power factor, defense multiplier and defense divider) still multiply.

So it would be possible to make the fort and river add, but not the fort and terrain.

#16 Re: LT46 » Siege units against forts » 2018-08-14 06:49:43

I'm afraid the CityBuster effect is hardcoded, and there's currently no way to arbitrarily give a unit increased firepower. So, whether or not this would work balance-wise aside, it wouldn't be possible mechanics-wise.

#17 Re: LT46 » Alternative techs » 2018-08-13 14:52:28

At this point, I don't think alternatives that aren't dead ends are possible without voodoo scripting. That is to say, there's no mechanic to have the next tech require either the caravel tech or the junk tech (not even in current developmental versions; this is a long way off).

The voodoo alternative would be to have a special helper tech for each set of alternatives that cannot be researched directly, but is granted to the player upon learning any of the alternatives. This would be used as a requirement for later techs. However, this would affect tech upkeep, could probably be stolen directly and could cause inconsistencies when there are possibilities to lose a tech after discovering it (since there is no way to remove the helper tech via script). It might also confuse new players.

In general, I would advise against wacky hijinks voodoo solutions. Maybe for a short test game, but not for a "proper" experimental game.

#18 Re: LT46 » Bombardment with siege units, from discord » 2018-07-29 07:11:34

I believe in the future (far off into the future), there will be the possibility to perform bombardments at range; however, that's still far away.

#19 Re: LT46 » Adding population to city and disbanding cities » 2018-07-29 05:52:03

Wahazar wrote:
Corbeau wrote:
wieder wrote:

Now there was some option to make the game a bit harder to play with foreign citizens but I can't remember if that was with 2.6 or if that was possible with 2.5.

Server option, can be clicked, simply "use nationalities" or something.

Yes, it works well for 2.5 and make conquer little harder. Sometimes you must starve some native citizens and use own migrants to change population ratio...

Or just wait for a while for your foreign citizens to become integrated. You know, as a less totalitarian approach.

#20 Re: LT44 » Blue Team Morale extremely low? » 2018-07-24 07:23:53

I'm not exaclty following this game, but I gather that one player of the "losing" team rage-quit by disbanding their entire army, thus weakening the rest of the team?
If so, this raises a big question – how do we prevent something like that in the future? Ruleset changes to forbid disbanding units in team games? That would require features that aren't included in 2.6. Only allow veteran players that are unlikely to pull something like this in team games? That would make team games a lot smaller. Try to get as many players as possible into a team game, so that one player giving up doesn't affect the balance too much? That comes with all the logistical problems of having many players. Temporarily suspend or permanently ban players that do this from LT? Not sure we'd want that either.
The alternative, if we want to keep two-team games at all, might be to add more opportunities to turn the tide – I'm not sure what kind of opportunities, but there has to be something.

#21 Re: New games » The next more experimental game » 2018-06-18 07:01:53

The ruleset can specify different graphics for basically anything (such as units, terrain, city improvements etc.). However, these gfx must be present in the client's tileset; otherwise the client will forcibly exit the game. While rulesets are automatically transferred from the server to the client, I don't think that's implicitly possible for tilesets – even if the ruleset suggests a tileset that is present on the server but not on the client. I might be wrong though, but I wouldn't count on that.

Long story short: Every player would have to download the ruleset's dedicated tileset for that game. Moreover, this would reduce players' ability to select which tileset they want to play with (e.g. amplio2 or isotrident), unless you created modified versions of each tileset used by any player.

#22 Re: LT44 » Pollution and Global Warming » 2018-06-11 17:20:31

Corbeau wrote:

The GW in LT41 was exclusively one player's fault.

I didn't play in that game (and I probably won't be playing in this one), but unless that player was one of the most powerful nations in the game, I really think that's something that shouldn't happen. And unless the rest of the players just didn't care and let it happen when they could've done something against it, that would point to the game balance being off.

#23 Re: LT44 » Post here suggestions about the new game » 2018-04-21 19:08:13

Team Pooled Research means that science is done on a per-team basis instead of a per-player basis, i.e. players don't research seperately but instead all research from all players of a team (as well as all tech upkeep) is added together into one big pot. The entire team can only research one tech at a time, but they'll reach it more quickly than if a player did it alone. If one player would gain a tech somehow (e.g. treaty or Darwin), all players in the team gain it; if one player would lose a tech (e.g. techlostdonor), all players in the team lose it.

TL;DR: Team Pooled Research makes it so that the whole team is like one single player research-wise.

#24 Re: How to play the game » Question about units » 2018-04-10 17:02:34

Migrants can be used to more easily move population from one city to another. They cannot found new cities on their own.

#25 Re: LT43 » The start units and the map » 2018-03-18 18:43:27

Corbeau wrote:

Web games were wrapped only in X direction.

Not all of them. Game 8 at least was non-wrapping.

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB