#1 Re: Longturn.net services » Hidden password length limit » 2022-01-18 15:24:09

Thanks for reporting this. It has been logged and we will have a look.

#2 Re: Ruleset analysis and discussion » The idler problem in ffa games: Proposing auto-destruct » 2021-10-31 20:59:13

That would make it too easy for the players that border the idler to take over the idle player's territory. A really good player will become unstoppable in this case. Currently the game LT admin will set the idle player to research defensive techs and then queue up defensive players. The player won't grow in number of cities, but the cities that do exist will become small fortresses.

If we had better AI in place, I would propose we assign the idle player to a cheating AI. This would be better than what we do today and still make it "some" amount of work for the neighbors to gobble up the idler.

#3 Learning LT2 » Game going to start soon - rules » 2021-09-14 22:37:57

Replies: 0

Join us on the LearningLT2 game page on Longturn.net.

This is a tutorial game aimed at beginners who have never played (Free)Civ or have played it very little and/or would like to get better acquainted with the interface, mechanics and House Rules for the Longturn Traditional Ruleset. The main feature of the game (unless there is a consensus for otherwise) is low-aggression environment.

The general rules are:
* continent based, each player is allocated 500 tiles
* do not conquer more than 1 cities per week
* do not attack a player who has 8 or less cities
* no early aggression: do not attack anyone before turn 30

As originally posted, each player will be teamed up with an experienced player from the Longturn community. The primary means of communication between players and their mentor will be on Discord. If not already, please create an account and visit us at the LT Discord server and the #learninglt2 channel

Admin will periodically log in and observe randon players to see how things are progressing and if anyone is not following the rules. If, as a player, you experience anothe player not following the rules, please either post in game chat or on the Discord game channel. I am hopeful that with the experienced mentors providing guideance that this won't be the case.


#4 Learning LT2 » Learning LT #2 » 2021-08-30 00:31:58

Replies: 0

Hello everyone

A second round of Learning Longturn is being setup. Similar to the first round of this gameplay style, we will be going with a low aggression game to emphasize the learning aspect of the game versus the aggressive winner take all approach of standard teamless games.

Please see the game signup page at https://longturn.net/game/LearningLT2/ and also the Discord #learninglt2 channel at https://discord.gg/98krqGm

I'll post more information here and on Discord as things progress. No set date of start right now. Need at least 10 players to sign up and get some mentors/coaches to also volunteer.

#5 Re: LT57 » Resignation and Congratulations » 2021-03-06 01:42:06

I'm not sure I could do any better of a write up than cgalik.  Early game I made a miscalculation and didn't explore to my West to take a nice island that eventually ended up in panch93's hands. With so little land to work, I was not able to build a large empire. Then when I learned that xandr was my neighbor I went full defense mode and decided that my contribution to our team would be to go for naval units. I think this strategy worked pretty good for a lot of the game. I was effectively the east india transport company for our team for a bit since I pushed to navigation first. It definitely allowed us to attack ste - to his surprise I'm sure smile - that little ol' Scotland was pounding his beaches half way around the world with Frigates.  That what the best part of the game for me.

As cgalik stated, eventually my number was called and xandr and ghamath pulled off a brilliant siege of Scotland and when I lost my capital I was pretty much finished.  I started killing off my cities on the island and using the resources to beef up my few cities on my small second island.

All in all I am super glad to have played this team game and enjoyed it immensely, even though we didn't win. Thanks to cgalik for being a great team captain. Thanks to louis94 for stepping in and lastly to weider_fi for providing admin support.

Congrats to kevin551 and his team for the win.

-- jwrober

#6 Re: LT53 » Some settings do not match original Warclient » 2020-08-23 19:03:33

Just because the current settings don't follow "original" warclient, doesn't mean we should stop play especially this far into the game. I don't think we should change rules at this juncture. If that means we stop and declare a truce and do an LT55 take two of LT53 I am in favor, but we are too far in now to change the rules.

#7 Re: LT53 » Game recording » 2020-05-27 15:31:37

I agree, good for learning post game as well as something to add to the website for some flash/bling.

#8 Re: Ruleset analysis and discussion » Nukes » 2020-04-22 14:54:16

Wahazar wrote:

Another idea, at least for 2.6 version.

Strategic Arms Reduction Treaties - Great Wonder, which require United States wonder existing in the World (by the way not used usually), and Environmentalism tech.
When START wonder is finished, Retire_Pct effect apply to Nuclear units - for example each nuke has 15% chance of disappear each turn in case of Democracy, 10% for Republic, Federation or Communism , 5% for more retarded govs.

That is a good idea too. Do you mean United Nations wonder vs United States?

#9 Re: Ruleset analysis and discussion » Nukes » 2020-04-07 17:56:56

Corbeau wrote:

Maybe: you need to have Uranium Processing Facility to build a nuke, but to build a UPF you need to have a whole array of technologies for it. Or something like that.

Maybe a new tech - Advanced Mining or Uranium Mining is needed and that gives you the Uranium Processing Facility. Could also have to have a Spent Uranium Storage Facility before you can build them. Can also get a Nuclear Power Plant to go along with it.

#10 Re: Ruleset analysis and discussion » Nukes » 2020-04-06 17:34:39

This is an interesting concept. We certainly see a lot of nuking going on in LT games near the end.

Manhattan Project wonder would be small, so the nation that wants nukes has to built it and not just get it as a great wonder. The wonder would open a Nuke Prototype unit that has the characteristics to have few MPs and be required to be loaded on a bomber. With another tech (rocketry?) would get ICBM or another nuke unit that has more MPs. Agree that they should be expensive like they are in RL.

#11 Re: New games » Augmented2 modpack longturn game » 2020-03-06 16:49:03

Also don't forget that this ruleset has bombarder flag set for a collection of units starting with Archer. The rules for these units are a little different than the direct attack/defender types.

#12 Re: M3 » [Vote] Replays should be released at game end » 2019-11-18 15:32:53

I am not playing M3, but a replay feature sounds really cool.

+1 for that!

#13 Re: Meanwhile... » Augmented2 ruleset modpack for freeciv 2.6 » 2019-08-03 23:29:29

This looks like fun. Thanks for sharing. Lots of hard work in this I can tell. I got an error using the modpack URL, but I was able to clone the git repo just fine.

#14 Re: other » expiring domain - longturn.org » 2019-01-26 16:47:22

What is involved in taking the domain. Is it just registering it with a registrar? I am willing to do that as it seems the move to .net is being a bit troublesome. GoDaddy here in the US does domain registration for pretty cheap.

#15 Re: LT47 » LT47 will be (hopefully) the first 2.6 game » 2019-01-01 14:22:39

Maybe turn LT47 into an experimental game on 2.6 and run some tests?

#16 Re: New games » Possible solutions to fix the problems with tc moves » 2018-12-08 15:29:24

I guess I am too linear. I never would have thought of that tactic. I am in favor of adding a per user wait time. Would help the scenario you gave. Would also help with those that stay online a lot during a turn. Keeps you from being able to make a ton of changes in a single turn. Maybe something like 4 or 5 hours for the per user wait time.

#17 Re: New games » Possible solutions to fix the problems with tc moves » 2018-12-08 02:25:36

Wieder - What problem are you trying to solve with these suggestions? I could use a bit of context. I thought that with unitwaittime (UWT) you were pretty much stuck to do nothing with your units for 10 hours after move. This means that if you move your units 10 seconds before TC then you can't do anything until almost the middle of the following turn. You and play with stuff your cities are doing mid-turn, but only so much of that is going to work in your favor as well.  This is honestly why I have never really understood the whole RTS thing that folks complain about.

#18 Re: New games » Naming conventions for the LT games when they are being planned » 2018-12-08 02:21:53

Corbeau wrote:

Well, I'd like to keep LT(number) simply for tradition. So that we always know how many were played from the beginning and so that the veterans can say "my first game was...")

I can as easily state that my first game was C19-1 in the same way i could say that my first game was LT43. In this case I would be a veteran. I can still say, hey look my first game was the most awesome LT43 to a noob player who's first game was C19-3 or whatever. We can have a sticky message on the forum or something on the main website stating that as of xxyy date we moved from raw LT#s to a game type+date format.

#19 Re: LT47 » LT47 will be (hopefully) the first 2.6 game » 2018-12-08 02:16:10

Caedo wrote:

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.

I had no idea you could type a value in a drop down box in client settings. I've never tried. I'll have to check that out.

We will need to publish this to players and ensure we set the serv parameters appropriately so anyone can use whatever tileset they like for our games.

#20 Re: LT45 » Ruleset suggestions for future games. » 2018-12-08 02:08:37

Corbeau wrote:

Oh, so that isn't possible now? You can confirm it?

But is that actually a ruleset issue?

I don't know if it is a ruleset or code issue, but allies cannot send a caravan to an allied city help help his/her teammate build a wonder there. I would like to see this added.

I also like Hans suggestions. I am not sure I understand the ZOC issue though. The other 3 seem interesting.

#21 Re: LT47 » LT47 will be (hopefully) the first 2.6 game » 2018-12-07 01:44:07

wieder wrote:

What's the actual problem with 2.6 tilesets?

There are settings on the geological tab for map topology index. You can set isometric, hexagonal, both, or neither. If you set iso, then you have to use an iso tileset, if you pick both then you have to use either an iso or hex tileset. If you pick neither then you have to use an overhead tileset (managed via local client settings). They way things are in 2.5 now is anyone can use any tileset they like. 2.6 seems to lock you into one and everyone uses it.

wieder wrote:

It was an error to remove the trade bonus from fundamentalism. That will be restored to the new game and it should make funda almost as good as it was on LT44.


wieder wrote:

If we manage to pull off 2.6 there should be this cool new patch zoltan wrote for tuning down the global warming and also tuning up the nuclear winter.

Double awesome. I like the concept of super powerful nuclear winter.

wieder wrote:

The city working areas might be something that could be considered but maybe in more classic style? Like having them as classic ones in the start but allowing them to grow around the mid game. That would allow some new ways for planning the city locations while not really changing the game too much. Maybe getting a bigger working area once hitting size 17 or something like that?

I like that idea. Start with the classic 20 tiles around a city at formation. Maybe get to the current size that we play when the city is size 9 and then grow to something even bigger at 17 and maybe even bigger than that at 30?

wieder wrote:

Oh.. And the x y wrapping is one there will be but I mean adding the actual pole glacier areas to the game. Those are usually disabled.

Ok. Can we go over the poles? that is something I would like to see, hence the request for both X and Y wrapping.

#22 Re: LT47 » LT47 will be (hopefully) the first 2.6 game » 2018-12-06 01:18:35

There are some client issues with tilesets in 2.6 we will need to figure out. Right now we have players able to use any tileset they want. 2.6 has settings that limit that.

I like the idea of X and Y wrapped poles.  I also like a "classic" game. Can we add some of LT42's simulation to it though? for example instead of a fixed city footprint, go with an expanding one based on city size.

Can we do something about global warming being over powerful?

Bring back all the cool/fun features of fundamentalism from LT44.

#23 Re: New games » Naming conventions for the LT games when they are being planned » 2018-12-06 01:13:23

I am not sure it really matters that LT42 started after 43, 44 and 45. That being said, I do like Corbeau's idea of going with game style in the name with a year and period included.

C for classic, E for experimental, T for team and S for simulation and then a two digit year and one digit identifier.

C19-1 = First Classic game of 2019
S19-2 = Second simulation of 2019
T19-1 = First team game of 2019

Don't rename to an LT#, keep them named as such. What is nice about this is if gives a nice sequence to the game IDs and you know natively when they happened.  Like right now I have no idea when LT30 happened.

The port the game runs on is really irrelevant. We publish that information on the game page anyways so when folks ask we can point them there.

#24 Re: New games » Limiting the online time for a game? » 2018-11-30 01:44:30

This is a tough one. I assume you are thinking about thwarting RTS type activity for those that have more time available vs others who just pop in once a day and make their moves.

In early game, one or two hours is plenty of time no matter what kind of game you are playing. In late game that can be too little, especially if you are in a protracted conflict with large numbers of units to move with proper planning.

What if a person is playing two nations on a team game? Do you somehow get twice the time allotted? Or would the timer be based on nation?

At first blush I would say you don't do anything. I don't see that much of an issue with it.

#25 Re: LT45 » Delegations to zoltan » 2018-11-20 23:17:19

louis94 wrote:

As far as I'm concerned, I set my delegation to Hans at the very beginning in case I needed to delegate. Hans had only one player at the time. I don't think he ever used the delegation, and he probably didn't even notice. As far as I can tell, having the delegation set is not against the rules; using it in an inappropriate fashion is.

Thanks for the reply louis94. I agree with your comments regarding intent versus actual use, especially inappropriate use. My team ran into a similar situation. I had cgalik as my "default" regent at the start of the game. However, when he and I both needed to take on a perm idler cgalik suggested that I move my default regent to Mooreinstore to ensure that from the public's perspective it would only look like we each were operating under the 1+1 format. This is the main premise of my original post.

Tech exchange or any other function of a regent is only supposed to happen when the person is either perm idle or needs some help with being out of pocket for a few days. That is why we went with the 1+1(+1) solution. To allow say me to take on Mooreinstore if he was going to be out for a holiday or something and then revert back. All publicly commented here or on Discord. There is absolutely zero need for a regent to handle tech exchange. The live players have to coordinate!

My ask is that all teams with "extra" delegations get them cleaned up as soon as possible (with expected coordination via established comm channels). Maybe in the next 2 or 3 turns?

Teams need to learn to communicate in the best possible manner available to them. That is the ultimate challenge of team games and why I like them so much. We would not play if it was easy!

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB