Longturn.net

Hans_Lemurson

Player

From: Silicon Valley

Posts: 183

Ruleset suggestions for future games.

In the in-game chat, Wieder asked:

(T43 - 14:19:01) <(wieder)> any suggestions about what to improve/fix/change for the next ruleset version?

Since messages like this are lost quickly in the deluge, I thought I'd make a more permanent forum thread about this.

I'll get this started with some very basic changes (bug-fixes, really) that I would like to see:

• Chariots and Elephants should go obsolete with Knights.  Currently they persist until Dragoons.

• Make sure that the Longboat's graphic is u.longboat, not u.trireme

Hans_Lemurson

Player

From: Silicon Valley

Posts: 183

Re: Ruleset suggestions for future games.

• Rename "Fundamentalism" to "Theocracy".  That would make more sense given how it's depicted in the game.  It's more like the "Papal States" than "Jihadi Empire".

Last edited by Hans_Lemurson (2018-11-12 02:29:50)

jwrober

Administrator

From: San Antonio, TX

Posts: 87

Re: Ruleset suggestions for future games.

Allow allies (team mates or traditional allies) to help build wonders in allied cities

Last edited by jwrober (2018-11-13 03:25:56)

Corbeau

Administrator

Posts: 1,025

Re: Ruleset suggestions for future games.

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

But is that actually a ruleset issue?

Hans_Lemurson

Player

From: Silicon Valley

Posts: 183

Re: Ruleset suggestions for future games.

A few suggestions I recall thinking about or reading about:

• Frigates and Flagships should have a Defense equal to their Attack.  Navigation-age naval warfare is much too dependent on first-strikes, with a nearly guaranteed Kill if you happen to move first, and a pitiful chance to survive if your opponent does.  Let naval combat in the age of sail work like every other age: a battle of Numbers and Veterancy, not TC-moves and death from the shadows.

• Mountains should not be traversable terrain by ANY military unit (land, big land, siege...) without a road.  Too much of warfare depends on "seizing a mountain", and the biggest determining factor in whether a city can be assaulted or not is whether there is a mountain nearby that can be fortified.  Hills and river-forests will be the new strong terrain, and clever or adventurous people can still build roads into strategic mountains to fortify them.  But by default, Mountain ranges will be obstacles that armies have to maneuver around, not vulnerabilities that doom a city.

• Building a Mine on a Hill-City should remove the free irrigation from the city center.  Currently hills are the best tile in the entire game to build a city on.  Period.  Not only do they give you a strong defensive bonus, but they can give your city a production output equivalent to a city +2 sizes bigger!  And they do this without even sacrificing the baseline of 2 food. 
  Forest cities don't get 2 food. 
  Swamp cities don't get 2 food. 
  Why should a hill with a MINE (already an above-average tile) be able to produce 2 food?  Every hill becomes as powerful as a Buffalo resource, and puts every other terrain to shame.

• Diplomats, Spies, and Explorers should not be able to let armies bypass Zones of Control.  ZOC is meaningless if all it takes is one specialized unit to let an entire army move past.

Last edited by Hans_Lemurson (2018-12-08 00:01:47)

cgalik

Player

From: Chicago

Posts: 311

Re: Ruleset suggestions for future games.

A few suggestions I recall thinking about or reading about:

• Frigates and Flagships should have a Defense equal to their Attack.  Navigation-age naval warfare is much too dependent on first-strikes, with a nearly guaranteed Kill if you happen to move first, and a pitiful chance to survive if your opponent does.  Let naval combat in the age of sail work like every other age: a battle of Numbers and Veterancy, not TC-moves and death from the shadows.

• Mountains should not be traversable terrain by ANY military unit (land, big land, siege...) without a road.  Too much of warfare depends on "seizing a mountain", and the biggest determining factor in whether a city can be assaulted or not is whether there is a mountain nearby that can be fortified.  Hills and river-forests will be the new strong terrain, and clever or adventurous people can still build roads into strategic mountains to fortify them.  But by default, Mountain ranges will be obstacles that armies have to maneuver around, not vulnerabilities that doom a city.

• Building a Mine on a Hill-City should remove the free irrigation from the city center.  Currently hills are the best tile in the entire game to build a city on.  Period.  Not only do they give you a strong defensive bonus, but they can give your city a production output equivalent to a city +2 sizes bigger!  And they do this without even sacrificing the baseline of 2 food. 
  Forest cities don't get 2 food. 
  Swamp cities don't get 2 food. 
  Why should a hill with a MINE (already an above-average tile) be able to produce 2 food?  Every hill becomes as powerful as a Buffalo resource, and puts every other terrain to shame.

• Diplomats, Spies, and Explorers should not be able to let armies bypass Zones of Control.  ZOC is meaningless if all it takes is one specialized unit to let an entire army move past.

I agree with all, except the ZoC part.

As far of ZoC I do no think explorers should cause a ZoC around them. Or we shouldn't give them out to start. As it's pretty lame to have them block your settlers at start of game. Or maybe settlers could just bypass ZoC. Actually maybe that's the way to go.

Hans_Lemurson

Player

From: Silicon Valley

Posts: 183

Re: Ruleset suggestions for future games.

• Allow Settlers to bypass ZOC.  Settler movement being blocked by explorers before a military can even be created is kinda BS.

jwrober

Administrator

From: San Antonio, TX

Posts: 87

Re: Ruleset suggestions for future games.

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.

Last edited by jwrober (2018-12-08 02:09:34)

zoltan

Player

Posts: 23

Re: Ruleset suggestions for future games.

No to all

Hans_Lemurson

Player

From: Silicon Valley

Posts: 183

Re: Ruleset suggestions for future games.

No to all

Care to explain any of your objections?

Corbeau

Administrator

Posts: 1,025

Re: Ruleset suggestions for future games.

No to all

Care to explain any of your objections?

I wouldn't gratify that reply with the word "objections".

Wahazar

Administrator

Posts: 232

Re: Ruleset suggestions for future games.

• Allow Settlers to bypass ZOC.  Settler movement being blocked by explorers before a military can even be created is kinda BS.

It is already solved in v.2.6 (explorer have HasNoZOC flag)

Hans_Lemurson

Player

From: Silicon Valley

Posts: 183

Re: Ruleset suggestions for future games.

• Allow Settlers to bypass ZOC.  Settler movement being blocked by explorers before a military can even be created is kinda BS.

It is already solved in v.2.6 (explorer have HasNoZOC flag)

Yay!  I vaguely remember reading that.

Wahazar

Administrator

Posts: 232

Re: Ruleset suggestions for future games.

Flagship Frigate is not obsoleted, should be obsoleted by Cruiser.
Elephants should belong to the Big Land class (they also can have more HP to balance this).