Post here suggestions about the new game

[wieder]

It will be two teams and most likely continents. Maybe based on LT43.

[jwrober]

Looks like there has been some discussion on Discord about this as well. I like the option of being able to be a part of choosing my team instead of random if possible.

[kamBLR]

wieder, will we start already in Alliance and see each other (have embassy?) , or we need to build diplomat and make contactcs with each other?

[wieder]

We can also do that. Suggestions are welcome.

[Corbeau]

If it's a team game, it would be good to cooperate from the start. Also, pooled research?

[ptizoom]

hi wieder, team games are a great helping for hooking newbies to longturn;

but could they use use the same "wieder's unified and universal perfect" ruleset ?

also is it possible to reforme the alliances during the game ?

sometimes one realise at T100 or so, that cannot bear one anothers style of play !

cheers.

[Sketlux]

Not sure if I can play so my opinion doenst really count here but in my opinion tech trading is less important here. Team games are usually world wars with multiple fronts forcing everyone on the team to help out each other. Hence the balance of the game is less compromised by weak players.

[wieder]

Forgot to answer in hurry. All the players share vision from the start and there is no need for diplomats.

Ptizoom, what do you mean by universal perfect ruleset? Do you mean the LT40 ruleset or similar ruleset used on LT43/LT41/LT39?

Reforming alliances is possible in theory but it requires manual work including saving the game, editing the save file by hand and reloading the save.

Tech trading would be allowed inside the team and would basically mean that all the players would need to research and one or two players would have very hard time doing it all alone. It would be possible but very hard. Pooled research was highly unpopular because sharing the same research would also mean that players accidentally clicking techs might result with trouble to everyone.

Nothing is yet decided. Let's check the possibilities first. Keep the comments coming!

[kamBLR]

does others automatically get new tech, if one player of Ally research technology? If not, it will take more time but effect will be the same (economy of time not to diplomate for tech sharing).

[Corbeau]

There is a server option "Pooled research" that may allow this. I'm not completely sure. Anyone with more knowledge?

[Caedo]

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.

[wieder]

In pooled research everyone will get automatically the new techs. With team only tech trading the techs can be given to others but not traded between the teams. For team only tech trading there can also be tech transfer cost. And probably should be also since there needs to be a gold tax. Maybe something like 30%?

[Corbeau]

I vote for team pooled research. It makes most sense and this will avoid some team members being completely useless. Team-only tech exchange with tax is a mess.

I mean, it's a team game. So make the team, y'know, a team?

[Corbeau]

Wieder, what's with your fixation with the gold tax? Again, it's a team game, no?

More important: is there any way to prevent units in allied territory creating unhappiness at home? That was a killer in my last team game.

[wieder]

Having no gold tax allows front players to move all the gold to someone else while they don't need it. No risk of losing it if cities are lost. And stuff like that. Then again 10% tax might be enough for making that less interesting.

Units in allied territory but not in allied cities? Probably possible, but isn't that also a matter of gov you choose?

[Corbeau]

Yes, I understand of the strategies it makes possible, but I don't see the problem. Why is it good that a player loses money when losing a city? You seem to want it so bad.

As for unhappiness, this is a team war game, a World War situation by default. Why would there be ANY unhappiness when there are military units away? Regardless of government?

[wieder]

With pooled research or with tech trading for teams there is less need for gold tax. One reason for it has been that it also makes it less tempting to boost one player so that one nation could have super techs compared to others. Not losing gold is ok but it's not ok if you can only avoid it with micromanagement = moving the gold to a safe place without a cost. Maybe a 10% tax would be enough if the team shares techs or can give techs to the others.

The 20% cost for switching the tech target is kind of similar thing. It would cost to hide the actual tech you plan to do and that also makes micromanagement less tempting.

[Corbeau]

Not losing gold is ok but it's not ok if you can only avoid it with micromanagement = moving the gold to a safe place without a cost.

Why?

The 20% cost for switching the tech target is kind of similar thing. It would cost to hide the actual tech you plan to do and that also makes micromanagement less tempting.

I always thought that the penalty for switching research was there because tech progress is supposed to be long-term planned process and that you want to curb sudden shifts which are also unrealistic. As far as I'm concerned, this penalty can be even 50%.

[wieder]

Most of the time there are lots of reasons for having some particular setting with some specific value. You know this but this explanation if more for those people who wonder why we have this kind of setup.

Moving the gold to a safe place is one reason and also something that should have a cost. That cost might be just 10% instead of 50% if was in the previous team game. It's not super fun if your ability to defend your resources (gold) depends on how often someone else from your team logs in. Sure, there are situations where mutual defense needs people to login, but do we really want a game where moving gold to a safe place is one very important strategy people need to remember to do every turn? I've played in games where that was a must and I can tell that after a while it becomes less and less fun. It's one of the few micromanagement elements we can remove without really hurting the game or making it a completely different one.

Actually, maybe even a 5% tax would be enough? Assuming it would be needed just for avoiding the gold storing.

Then again if people want to have a zero tax for that we can do it. It's not such a big deal after all. More like an annoyance.

The penalty for switching the tech target is also for that one. There are actually lots of reason for it being 20%. In some games it was even 100% but that was kind of too cruel for players who are attacked or need to switch targets fast. 100% switch cost favors experienced players who can usually plan ahead and know what they need in the future. Then again having just zero switching cost also does that since the experienced players can switch just seconds before the tc and make the others to believe they are researching something completely different. Or they can "store" the bulbs for some expensive tech they don't need yet and do the cheaper techs when the prices go down and when there is also use for that stuff. The 20% cost allows switching when really needed and it's also not too expensive. It however also makes the unrealistic storing of bulbs less tempting while still allows it. We could use 50% switching cost but my guess is that it would help more the experienced players. 20% seemed like a value that does both reasonably well. Allowing the less experienced players to switch with a reasonable cost and also makes bulb storing not that profitable for the advanced players.

Making the bulb storing less interesting is also kind of limiting the choices players can make but it's one of those things I think should be limited with a cost.

[Corbeau]

About tech switch, I'm leaning towards 50%, but less is fine, too. But I'd say 20% is a minimum.

My policy: when in doubt, check reality. In reality you need some serious resource reshuffle to switch research goals mid-term. If you see Civilization as a game of chess, I guess anything goes and in that case, pretty please, set up polls. I see it as a simulation of reality. But others may disagree. However, until someone else joins the discussion, I guess this is all pretty academic.

As for tax, this is a pattern. in order to stop one specific behaviour, you put a penalty that affects a whole set of other behaviours. Money transfers are useful for helping weaker players, rush-building something, division of labour where some players specialise for money and so on. And you penalise all this because of one very mild abuse. I don't think many people keep large sums of money, it's actually a better strategy to invest it in buildings and keep a reasonable reserve. So you are preventing potential "abuse" for only one type of players. Others are not really affected. Also, if I'm not online the whole time, I won't really rely on immediate transfers, I'll keep a reasonable reserve, but if someone is willing to camp online the whole day only to avoid a few dozen coins from being lost, let him have it.

Bottom line: cities aren't conquered all the time, and when they are, only in a portion of cases is the money loss significant, and only in a portion of those cases there is possible "abuse". And for this, you are putting a penalty of absolutely all transactions, ever, anywhere? Not a good game design.

[wieder]

For games without tech trade or pooled research the gold tax is also there to prevent player boosting. It's a complex thing and there are lots of reason why it has been there.

For having lots of gold there is a reason for that too. It will make inciting cities much more expensive.

[Corbeau]

For games without tech trade or pooled research the gold tax is also there to prevent player boosting. It's a complex thing and there are lots of reason why it has been there.

if you mean the strategy where one player takes over and plays for the whole team, then yes, that is an utterly stupid thing to do and this is why I think team games should enable tech trade.

For having lots of gold there is a reason for that too. It will make inciting cities much more expensive.

So now it's good to have more gold and bad to send it away? So make up your mind, are people going to send their money away to prevent it being robbed if their cities are conquered or keep it with themselves in order to prevent their cities being incited?

[wieder]

I'm saying that there are situations where it makes sense to use one player as the bank. You can also move all the gold to one player so that the cities can't be incited with a reasonable price before they grow. Or you can move the gold to safety until it's actually needed. Both cases can occur in the same game so yes, moving gold to precent inciting and also moving gold to get it in a safe place in case a city in conquered.

[kamBLR]

I saw one bad moment in the game. When one nation is almost destroyed by another, the player surrenders, but leaves his cities without leadership. These towns easily get to the opponent who gets a good bonus without further efforts. It may be worthwhile to provide a functional for the losing player, which will allow surrendering completely destroying his cities and destroying the army.