Suspicious restart of LW3

edrim · Post by **edrim** » Thu Jul 30, 2015 1:36 pm

There will be a server restarts in couple of days.
I didnt thought about diplomats, so they can bribe cities in normal way, player can reduce city t size 1 and revolt it.
I prefer to have same mechanism as in conquering, so if you want to revolt city it needs to be at least size 8, size 1-7 will be destroyed after revolen.
In current situation this ruleset is stupid, in a way it should not be possible to take cities in easy way.

Once we will figure if change in diplomat tools from 1 to 7 fix this problem, we will restart server, if anyone has take it in mind that his strategy is going to be a diplo war I am inviting to discussion, it is my fault and I need to change rules after game starts. If there will be hard problem with it I can think about change my mind.

maho · Post by **maho** » Thu Jul 30, 2015 2:43 pm

why bribing is not ok and why you must restart?

edrim · Post by **edrim** » Thu Jul 30, 2015 3:21 pm

maho wrote:why bribing is not ok and why you must restart?

Maybe you didnt noticed, but there is no more settlers here then initial once, so every player will have at least 7 cities.
When you are conquering city and wants to have it after enter to empty city, city must have at least size 8 and after conquering it will be size 1.

Same thing should happen when bribing because it is breaking my ruleset in this case.

maho · Post by **maho** » Thu Jul 30, 2015 4:11 pm

Ok, I didn't notice your rules. Especially that they don't work

. Eg - LordP just conquered my city in LW3b. And it was way less than 8. I thought that it's normal behaviour so I didn't file a bug.

edrim · Post by **edrim** » Thu Jul 30, 2015 8:20 pm

maho wrote:Ok, I didn't notice your rules. Especially that they don't work . Eg - LordP just conquered my city in LW3b. And it was way less than 8. I thought that it's normal behaviour so I didn't file a bug.

This is very bad info. I dont know what to do in this way. I have tested it and city was been destroyed when conquered, but if it is true i dont need to replace diplomatic actions.

edit:Strange, I have tested in and it is working as it was invented. Can you confirm he got your city and you can see it or just a border out of vision.

edrim · Post by **edrim** » Fri Jul 31, 2015 6:49 am

It looks like that we have 2 different versions of LW now.

LWa is going on new version with city kill option off.
LWb and LWc is going on standard longturn server.

I have and idea to fix it, restart servers, add city kill option to all servers, add bribe kill option to all servers, check if anyone got a city from anyone to this time, kill those cities, and start a servers again. It is a little work to do but i would like to hear if anyone has anything to repair this bugs in this way.

Lord_P · Post by **Lord_P** » Fri Jul 31, 2015 2:08 pm

No, I dont have any extra city

I would rather we just keep playing whatever the rules are. They are still the same for everyone so its fair.
All the stopping and starting is just a pain in the arse, why not implement the changes in the next game.

Lord_P · Post by **Lord_P** » Fri Jul 31, 2015 2:12 pm

We still cant build any more settlers anyway. So the number of cities is fixed and some are sure to be destroyed. I think that is an interesting game to try playing even without the min size 8 rule.

But if you really want to restart I would rather start again from the beginning than change things in the current game. Like Maho I also didnt read the rules properly and would do some thing differently

Temmikael · Post by **Temmikael** » Fri Jul 31, 2015 4:51 pm

I dont like restart. Nobody cant buy city before get +200 gold and city are size 1. First attemp possible +T30 and bribe being obsolote gov and wonders.

cgalik · Post by **cgalik** » Fri Jul 31, 2015 5:14 pm

I am fine with this change and a server restart of LW3c. Thanks, edrim for admining!

edrim · Post by **edrim** » Fri Jul 31, 2015 8:08 pm

This ruined all my plan of interesting game.
I dont like idea that someone will destroy city to size one and bribe it in future.
There was an idea that we have only cities we started with and maybe some big cities when conquered.

I have a dilema what to do, if Lord_P doesnt has any extra cities we can just restart servers with correct settings, and i think we will do it now, and think about diplomats actions in future.

Temmikael · Post by **Temmikael** » Fri Jul 31, 2015 11:41 pm

All you decision is fine for me. I destroy few of citys allready. i dont want restart game ,but maybe its better all of us.

chill · Post by **chill** » Sat Aug 01, 2015 3:12 am

I have neither lost, nor destroyed any cities at this point. I am content to go along with whatever decision our faithful admin should decide in this matter.

Post by **wieder** » Sat Aug 01, 2015 4:05 pm

I think Edrim means restarting the server with the fixed ruleset and not actually restarting the game? Restarting the server with the fixed ruleset would allow everyone to continue from the same turn they were playing before restarting the server.

This is actually something I have been thinking about. It's usually against the rules to change the ruleset after the game has started but with obvious mistakes it's reasonable to do that. Opinions?

edrim · Post by **edrim** » Sun Aug 02, 2015 10:27 am

What if a player got a city conquered from size 2 to 1 and now have 8 cities?
Should we kill this city he got or leave it as it is?
Is it fair for rest of a players playing this game, they will not get an extra city for very long time.

Subfusc · Post by **Subfusc** » Sun Aug 02, 2015 11:41 am

edrim wrote:What if a player got a city conquered from size 2 to 1 and now have 8 cities?
Should we kill this city he got or leave it as it is?

They should be killed. My reasoning being:

If you leave them intact, not only are you giving the players that managed to take the cities before your rule change a huge advantage, you are also ruining for people who planed this strategy just a few turns later (e.g. because of waiting for more advanced military tech).

I think that in general, if a rule was so horrible it had to be changed mid-game, it should apply retroactively (where possible). If not, you might as well just let the game run out with the fault because its not going to be less if you change it later blocking others from using the same tactic and turn the bad rule to their advantage.

Thats my 2c's

edrim · Post by **edrim** » Sun Aug 02, 2015 12:07 pm

Can you talk with player who took extra city to pass it away and let someone destroy it or should i do it by editing savegames and restart game again?

Subfusc · Post by **Subfusc** » Sun Aug 02, 2015 12:54 pm

Yeah, enemy tells you to give up cities. Nothing is going to go wrong there.

edrim · Post by **edrim** » Sun Aug 02, 2015 7:29 pm

You know.
We have a normal people here, if you know who is a player with extra city on LW3c just ask him to open this city because he got it because of wrong server was started, this is fair way and i hope he will open this city to let it be destroyed.
In other case we can stop games and remove this city in savegame or just restart LW and start it again (worse possible way), or just leave it as it is with blame of a player who get an extra city because of admin mistake.

cgalik · Post by **cgalik** » Mon Aug 03, 2015 3:21 am

edrim, I don't have an extra and I've seen half the board of LW3c and don't see any extra cities, just ruins.

So I don't think you have a problem there. But I think you can just edit the save game if need be.

edrim · Post by **edrim** » Mon Aug 03, 2015 7:48 am

my fault, it is LW3b

iaau · Post by **iaau** » Mon Sep 21, 2015 3:11 pm

In LW3c, it looks like cgalik has bribed Karak. Was bribing not disabled?

cgalik · Post by **cgalik** » Mon Sep 21, 2015 3:40 pm

nope! lol.
edrim, what happens if 3 players "win" LW3c?

iaau · Post by **iaau** » Mon Sep 21, 2015 3:57 pm

That is beside this topic. If you feel stabbed in the back, you should maybe seek for an answer in your own gameplay. We all know that there is max 2 winners in lw3c.

The topic of this thread is the bribing of cities. Edrim: I understood this thread that you disabled this.

cgalik · Post by **cgalik** » Mon Sep 21, 2015 4:00 pm

iaau, thanks for the advice. I will "seek an answer in my own gameplay!" lol Sorry for mixing topics on you. I can open a new topic for separate discussion if needed.