And now for something completely different

[Corbeau]

Hello everybody.

Wieder was kind enough to let me make the introductory post, so here it is.

After finally finishing the (first version of) a ruleset that I've been thinking about for a while now, I would like to try it out in the only way I believe Civilization is worth playing - slow and thought-through, multiplayer, diplomatic overkill.

Now, I am perfectly aware that probably not everybody will share my enthusiasm with some aspects and this is why I suggested that this subforum be opened so much in advance. The LT42 game is roughly planned to start at the beginning of April which should be enough to test and discuss or completely reject this new ruleset. If you are against it, do not hesitate to voice your opinion. There is no point in having a game with too few players.

I am "hosting" the ruleset and the "documentation" on the Freeciv forum, namely here so, if it's not too much trouble, please discuss technicalities there so that everything is in one place. If it *is* a problem, by all means discuss it here, better than to keep quiet

One thing that should go hand-in-hand with that ruleset are the server settings and game code tweaks so I'll list them here.

High priority:

1. No direct tech trade

2. Source code tweak - Diplomats can steal technology from any city, not just once per city

3. citymindist = 1
Explanation: with such drastic changes in city radius (sqrt() ranging from 1 to ~25) a maximum liberty at placing cities should be allowed. Also, huge cities spread apart don't stimulate skirmishes and reduce the desire for war because stakes are high and defences are huge. But with a spread of villages that can't all be defended equally easy, war *should* be more dynamic.

Abuse should be covered with ruleset features:
- fort doesn't change tile ownership
- Migrants are more expensive with tech progress
- Settlers don't add to city
- smallpoxing is discouraged with Settler costing 2 population and tech upkeep based on number of cities

4. Science box at least 150 (to stimulate early wars)

5. Contact and diplomacy possible without diplomats: alliances made more easy, more map exchange, more knowledge of the outside world, more involvement in the game.

6. Techleak, restrictinfra...
---------------------

About other matters, I would prefer if LT42 wasn't an "alliance victory" based. I believe it strongly dictates how people play and this ruleset was made with steady progress, growth and expansion in mind. If there is an alliance block established early in the game, it may defy the purpose of some changes.

Naturally, in the end, it will al depend on how people feel about it. So, again, speak your minds.

[wieder]

You might want to create some kind of winning conditions for this game. I can help creating them. One way to start might be taking the winning conditions from some previous game and start editing from there. LT40 wc might work as the base for LT42 winning conditions.

[Corbeau]

What's the WC there, again? Space race only? Yes, that can work.

OR, again, create something new based on population, technology, score...

I uggested this a few times in a few places, so let's put it here, too. I have an idea about declaring the game end when a number of conditions are met. The combinations are endless, the only thing needed to decide is if we want it.

Endgame conditions could be anything:
- a player populates X square miles
- a player exceeds Y population
- a player researches all techs / Future Technology I
- a player builds a wonder A, B or C
- a player launches a spaceship
- a player holds D coins in his treasury
- anything else in the Demographics Report
- N players discover M Future technologies

Of course, some conditions are more easily detected than others and some make more sense than others, and that can be worked out. So, the main question would be: do we want that? I'd be willing to try, but what about others?

In the end, the moment the conditions are met, the game ends next turn, or X turns later, score is taken for a winner. Possibly some bonuses are calculated.

So, any opinions?

[wieder]

As we learnt from SG1 2.6 would be needed for game ending wonders or buildings. With that I mean something that would automatically end the game.

I suggest something everyone has the chance to understand and also something people can monitor. Conquest and space race victories with space are easy to understand. Something with wonders might also easily work.

Would be best if there would be no need for any admin to check the save files or do additional work. Ending by hand can be done.

Might help to add winning conditions if everyone will automatically get an embassy with everyone once the winning condition is met or if it's about to happen relatively soon. This would let everyone to see who the winner will be.

[Corbeau]

I'd go with all-out embassy once Radio is discovered. Or at least that all players who discover Radio get embassies with everyone.

As for the winning conditions, of course, not admin-monitored, but something everyone can check for themselves: wonders, best player's stats in certain demographics area (Population, Land Area etc.) Also, I believe that with embassies, the game reports which player discovered what so techs can also be monitored by everyone.

[wieder]

With winning conditions based on population or something else on the demos, it might make sense to give everyone an embassy with everyone once someone discovers radio. It would also introduce kind of interesting problem for the best players. Do they want to let the world know they are that advanced or do they want so research something first.

Also would be unlikely that the game would end before radio but you could make some rule for that just in case.

And maybe something for situations where the players want to end playing. That could be a situation where someone is too advanced and "wins" the game or maybe a situation where something else unexpected happens. I don't think its's a big risk but with more changes to the ruleset it may make sense to prepare for the unexpected.

Maybe listing what's possible and what's not. Like saying that there is no allied victory with LT40 but saying that people can still RIP everyone. Just examples.

[fran]

The LT42 game is roughly planned to start at the beginning of April

Great. So who is responsible for LT42 not happening:
The ruleset designer, the administrator, or the community (due to lack of interest) ?

BTW, I understand there is a freeciv-web longturn game, which ruleset does it use?

[Corbeau]

Lotsa stuff

Are you looking for someone to scream at or just curious?

Basically, after I finished the v1.0, I let it go for a while and nobody poked me to wrap it up (and some additional fixes may be helpful). So, basically, I feel that I slacked a bit, I should have made more preparations.

However, perhaps the main factor was that Freeciv Web suddenly died, there were a lot of people hungry for a game and Wieder pushed for a more orthodox game with much more standard rules where a people can play a standard game, we wanted it to happen as soon as possible, and so LT43 happened.

And having three LT games at the same time, along with one game on reincarnated Freeciv-Web, would maybe be too much, at least for me. So LT42 is most likely to happen in September. (Summer is usually reserved for team games because people go on vacation and can delegate to team members.)

[wieder]

LT42 was not ready and tested for launch before summer. Lots of changes and new stuff and that needs testing.

The web game uses standard multiplayer ruleset.

[fran]

Are you looking for...

Sure I'm looking forward to see your ruleset in action.
So what is currently in https://github.com/longturn/games/tree/master/LT42
can be played?

[Corbeau]

So what is currently in https://github.com/longturn/games/tree/master/LT42
can be played?

?synthax error

Anyway, I think it's playable. Not been tested, though If you wish to do the honours, I will be extatic to hear the first comments. I'm not joking. I would really like to hear people's comments.