LT33 ruleset

akfaew · 2014-07-31 13:34:47

Yes, those are the settings.

ifaesfu · 2014-07-31 15:05:26

Wow!

edrim · 2014-07-31 18:12:42

ifaesfu wrote:

Wow!

Yes, Wow, some players of us like citytrading and others hate it. Same like techlost.

History will judge this settings:) Researching on trade cities, research chains, no techlost means if you will not enter in mega alliance in start of a game you are our of a board. This will be fun and lots of hate at the end.

akfaew · 2014-08-01 09:54:17

ifaesfu, I was supposed to set city trading to disabled, but I forgot. It's good you noticed it.

Haken · 2014-08-01 10:25:22

Alliance sucks. It Needs so much communication.

The ruleset should be fair, so that there is no dependency of he size of the alliance.

So it is the most easy way to win: just make big alliance at the beginning.
For alliance players there should be the team games.

wieder · 2014-08-01 11:09:38

How would you discourage the players forming alliances? Even in a team game there can be allied teams even while only one team can win and all trading between teams is prevented.

ErgoProxy · 2014-08-01 12:36:04

Gentleman agreement, wieder. Gentleman agreement!

Seriously though, it would require coding and thus is barely probable to happen... what I mean is: if we had this techloss-out-of-thin-air patch, we could have a fight-bonus-out-of-thin-air for troops of every player holding no membership in any alliance. This would not prevent informal agreements of course. But the idea is to force players to choose between benefits from civilized behaviour and benefits from rouge behaviour.

Back on solid ground, I have nothing to say against this ruleset (yet).

ifaesfu · 2014-08-01 13:08:56

I think the power of the alliances with the military aid is more than enough. Adding tech and city exchanges forces everyone to take part from the turn 0 in a tech sharing orgy that speeds up the game a lot without involving any strategy. Just to be online chatting and negotiating techs.
Also, no restrictinfra makes much more important the turn change attention.
The 25% in diplcost lacks importance.

akfaew · 2014-08-01 14:29:29

ifaesfu, we had restrictinfra in a previous game and it was very slow. So it's not so obvious if setting it on or off is the proper way. It's best if each game has slightly different settings from the previous one. Chatting and negotiating became an integral part of the game, and is an important factor if you want to win - such is the nature of this game, I see no way around it.

ifaesfu · 2014-08-01 14:56:48

Of course, those chats about you give me this tech and I give you this other one is a part of the game if it's enabled, but it seems this only encourages very big alliances (officially or under the ground, it doesn't matter).
After having played some games with minimal or even zero tech exchange, I now think on this setting of the game as a broken one for this kind of multiplayer game. When 20 players join, who will build archers, catapults or legions if muskets are already there? It is all about being in a big tech chain to be up to date.
What it's true is that adding restrictinfra disabled the game will be much faster.

kevin551 · 2014-08-02 06:29:28

akfaew wrote:

we had restrictinfra in a previous game and it was very slow.

Am not sure what you mean by 'slow'. In LT32 restrictinfra made attack much more complicated in all but the late stages of the game. This make attacks 'slower' in the sense that you have to plan them more carefully and spend longer online to do them. But it didn't effect the effect game length.

Blitzkrieg attacks along rivers were still possible and made the game more exciting but also didn't effect the actual game length. In the latest version of freeciv restrictinfra can also apply to rivers.

The game length in a massive game is usually determined by the pace of tech. That was the case in LT32.

edrim · 2014-08-02 13:48:34

kevin551 wrote:

The game length in a massive game is usually determined by the pace of tech. That was the case in LT32.

Set diplchance to 0 and no tech trading, so every player can have only techs he has researched, less researchcost and we can try tricky settings, no techchain but lots of new exploit invented:)

wieder · 2014-08-03 12:02:12

"Set diplchance to 0 and no tech trading, so every player can have only techs he has researched, less researchcost and we can try tricky settings, no techchain but lots of new exploit invented:)"

I would really like to see this happening for LT34. Not for LT33 because now it's time to do some tech trading but for LT34 or some other game.

For LT33 it's worth noticing that there actually is a sort of techloss involved. If you don't have enough bulbs to cover the 25% cost of the tech you received, you will lose one random tech at the TC. This is really something everyone should know. Yeah, it's not really that bad and you can probably get that tech back next turn, but there is a risk involved. You can lose the government you are currently using and that may result with some issues

But really. I would love to see a game with all tech trading disabled including stealing the techs. In the future Not now.

el_perdedor · 2014-08-03 21:29:47

please! everyone on his own.

Nimrod · 2014-08-04 15:10:09

ifaesfu wrote:

I think the power of the alliances with the military aid is more than enough. Adding tech and city exchanges forces everyone to take part from the turn 0 in a tech sharing orgy that speeds up the game a lot without involving any strategy. Just to be online chatting and negotiating techs.
Also, no restrictinfra makes much more important the turn change attention.
The 25% in diplcost lacks importance.

I agree wholeheartedly with ifaesu on this, especially the restrictinfra. Just want to be on the record about it, given how the game has already started. This is based on previous experience in many a GT game where restrictinfra was either on or off. With Civ2Civ3 becoming more and more the "default" ruleset for upcoming Freeciv versions, it will simply become the norm. Not that I'm advocating that particular ruleset (I used to like it, to a degree, but am more and more opposed to it as time goes on and changes are implemented).

My 2 cents

Lord_P · 2014-08-06 08:37:06

Come on, bardo's ruleset is awesome! The best thing about it is that it is so balanced. There is no single obvious winning strategy like in the old rules, so even experienced players can get suprised by someone trying something different.
Yes, sometimes a really annoying exploit gets found that ruins a game, but I would rather that than being forced to do the same old trade, rapture and then stockpile missiles and howitzers because that's the only way that really works. ...

Anyway. Each to thier own

Just want to confirm something. Does 25% research cost apply when capturing/stealing tech from cities? So even as nation that relies on taking tech instead of researching, or a nearly defeated nation fighting a more advanced enemy, you still need 25% of the research cost banked or you will lose something randomly?

Nimrod · 2014-08-06 14:58:02

@ Lord_P

Don't get me wrong, there is a lot of good in Bardo's ruleset! I used to enjoy playing it a lot.

But latest changes are quite upsetting. For example, forcing attacking units to move into defending units' tile should the attacking unit be victorious. The intent is to make city siege warfare more fair and interesting, but instead defenders are now in a very bad position and city defense becomes extremely problematic. Any attempts to counterattack a siege assault from within the city virtually guarantees that the counterattacking unit is killed off by nearby hostile units.

It makes sense when you think about Knights rushing beyond the city walls to attack a catapult laying siege to the city. It doesn't make much sense for a city Catapult that takes out a nearby unit to then move *out* of the city walls after winning the battle. I've tried reasoning with him about this, but he's pretty adamant about it. Grrr !

There's also a lot to be desired about the way that land transformations are unilaterally changed. We had a lot of back and forth about this on the old GT forums. I won't bore everyone with a long rant, however.

Last edited by Nimrod (2014-08-06 14:59:57)

Corbeau · 2014-08-10 23:43:08

Is there a concise list of the rules we are playing this by somewhere?

Nimrod · 2014-08-11 15:13:18

Corbeau wrote:

Is there a concise list of the rules we are playing this by somewhere?

Yes and no. It's mostly based on Civ2civ3 ruleset, with some changes:

1) Vision and movement 3x
2) Restrictinfra is OFF

You can verify the changes yourself by going to GitHub. Here's a handy list of commit changes:

https://github.com/longturn/games/commi … /data/LT33

Longturn.net

#76 2014-07-31 13:34:47

Re: LT33 ruleset

#77 2014-07-31 15:05:26

Re: LT33 ruleset

#78 2014-07-31 18:12:42

Re: LT33 ruleset

#79 2014-08-01 09:54:17

Re: LT33 ruleset

#80 2014-08-01 10:25:22

Re: LT33 ruleset

#81 2014-08-01 11:09:38

Re: LT33 ruleset

#82 2014-08-01 12:36:04

Re: LT33 ruleset

#83 2014-08-01 13:08:56

Re: LT33 ruleset

#84 2014-08-01 14:29:29

Re: LT33 ruleset

#85 2014-08-01 14:56:48

Re: LT33 ruleset

#86 2014-08-02 06:29:28

Re: LT33 ruleset

#87 2014-08-02 13:48:34

Re: LT33 ruleset

#88 2014-08-03 12:02:12

Re: LT33 ruleset

#89 2014-08-03 21:29:47

Re: LT33 ruleset

#90 2014-08-04 15:10:09

Re: LT33 ruleset

#91 2014-08-06 08:37:06

Re: LT33 ruleset

#92 2014-08-06 14:58:02

Re: LT33 ruleset

#93 2014-08-10 23:43:08

Re: LT33 ruleset

#94 2014-08-11 15:13:18

Re: LT33 ruleset

Board footer