Longturn Forum

I wouldn't make Communism worse because for longturn games, it may be a good idea to make maintaining happiness easier instead of making it harder. If it's hard to keep people happy, you have to spend more time micromanaging the cities.

What it comes to gold, it would be nice to make it easier to get gold. I don't know if people share this opinion, but having less but more powerful cities might be a good idea. It would make it less interesting to get too many cities in the early game. LT30 style economics was more to my taste than that model we had in LT31. I'm sorry about not being more specific about this subject, but I don't really know the exact differences between LT31 and LT30 what it comes to gold.

There was also one idea about balancing the late game, and once again I have no idea if this is possible with the Freeciv engine or not. Making Howizers to have a slightly less improved attack ability against cities (maybe 1,8 instead of 2,0) might be a good idea. Also, making Armors to have a better attack against cities with a multiplier like 1,5 sor something like that, might people to build also those. Some people pointed out that this would make it too hard to win the game. I really don't know, but focusing on building only spies, howizers and mech infantry seems to be a very good strategy in the end game. Armors just seem to be something that's not really needed that much.

wieder wrote: There was also one idea about balancing the late game, and once again I have no idea if this is possible with the Freeciv engine or not. Making Howizers to have a slightly less improved attack ability against cities (maybe 1,8 instead of 2,0) might be a good idea. Also, making Armors to have a better attack against cities with a multiplier like 1,5 sor something like that, might people to build also those. Some people pointed out that this would make it too hard to win the game. I really don't know, but focusing on building only spies, howizers and mech infantry seems to be a very good strategy in the end game. Armors just seem to be something that's not really needed that much.

I agree - for a long time with a continental game, you simply make howizers and spies at the end of the game. There is not much thought, and no real way to defend.

Mech inf and armor are not that much use. LT31 was a bit different in that we had islands and you had to somehow land on an enemy island.

If the howizers that start in your cities can reach the enemy city in this same turn, then I agree there is no reason to build anything else. And the military unhappiness will have no effect at all.

I think the only solution for that is to disable the use of enemy infrastructure (roads).

This way, if howitzers need to stay in enemy territory one turn, I think they will not be so good, and it will be useful to take positions with paratroopers or helicopters, or to use mech inf and armors. At same time, if it is hard to send howitzers, then bombers are going to be important to damage the defenders, and at the end I think all unit types will become useful.


But I think you are right about communism, I'll keep the same martial law.
Maybe the easiest solution for longturn games would be to increase the trade bonus for Democracy/Republic so it affects every tile, or at least every oceanic tile.

My attempt to improve air units:

- bombers cause 1 extra damage point:
Helicopter 2 (cost 70), Bomber 3 (cost 100), Stealth Bomber 4 (cost 120)
- fighters get "citybuster", so they are as powerful as in default rules against cities.
early Fighter similar to Cavalry against cities, and Stealth Fighter similar to Armor.

I'll try to update this week the ruleset available with modpack tool.
Thank you all for the comments.

If musks and rifles can attack from the sea, I would say that alpine units should definitely be able to as well.

Personally I don't like the attack from the sea, but if it's going to be in there, I would suggest that change.

I'm fairly sure that Swordsmen/Muskets/Rifles having marine ability was introduced by elrik because of the island game setting, it is not part of the default civ2civ3 ruleset.

det0r wrote:I'm fairly sure that Swordsmen/Muskets/Rifles having marine ability was introduced by elrik because of the island game setting, it is not part of the default civ2civ3 ruleset.

I see. It was a necessity for island game. Just need to add alpines (and maybe others).

About Mariners, I agree what akfaew says. It was designed this way in the original ruleset too.


About Air units, the more I test them, the more powerfull they seem. I'm testing to conquer a city with all the defensive improvements, defended by mech inf.

It seems I'd need as much attacking howitzers as defending mech infs in order to conquer it. For example, 40 howitzer against 40 mech inf.

If I use Stealth bombers, 20 of them can damage completely any number of mech inf in the city, and then I can use 20 fighters to end the job (each fighter can destroy several damaged defenders), and 1 helicopter to capture the city, without the need of any land unit, and with almost no casualties (maybe some fighter).

I think they are not overpowered because bombers are field units (cause unhappiness even in home land), and because such army would be more expensive than the howitzers, and vulnerable to enemy fighters. But they look very dangerous, and I'd like to know your opinion.

akfaew wrote:I built a civilization and let it just be there for the night in LT32's test game. And all my units died, because cities grew/shrunk for 400 turns.

You needed to set up your city governor before quitting - all of my cities are still alive, and they all have about 300 spies/diplos in them, haha

There has been some talk about good units to have in future games; here two I think would add to strategic game play:

1. Trireme can move on rivers and does not become obsolete (irl, the Vikings ventured from Scandinavia to Turkey in this way)
2. New 'train' unit - can only move on rail, no/low defense, no offense, can carry all kinds of units incl. air units and nukes, maybe not battleships though

I guess that no.1 above could be implemented fairly easily? And it would greatly add to the penetration of forces from the sea inland in the early game (or when use of enemy infrastructure is turned off).

akfaew wrote:I built a civilization and let it just be there for the night in LT32's test game. And all my units died, because cities grew/shrunk for 400 turns.

As it was designed, after those 400 turns, you should have as much units in each city as its pop size (if Despotism) or as much as shield production (if Tribal).
I'm not sure what is the cause of the rest of the units dying. I'll try to test it.

Kryon wrote: I like that wheeled units can't climb mountains but it is annoying that they also can't attack mountains. Without wheeled units, it is very hard to kill rifleman landing on a coastal mountain especially after a fortress is built.

I have found a partial fix that makes fortress native for wheeled units (so artillery can attack there, and from there).
Artillery will be still unable to attack mountains wihout road nor fortress, but enemy can not place artillery there either.

Xercise wrote: 1. Trireme can move on rivers and does not become obsolete (irl, the Vikings ventured from Scandinavia to Turkey in this way)
2. New 'train' unit - can only move on rail, no/low defense, no offense, can carry all kinds of units incl. air units and nukes, maybe not battleships though

I implemented the 1st one in previous versions of the ruleset and I don't remember why I had to remove it. I guess in part because AI don't know how to use such units, in part because I found it annoying to micromanage this kind of transporter units.
Actually, I'm not sure if it is a good idea to allow Mech inf to carry 1 land unit, as planned for next version. I don't like the idea to see chain movements on land. I prefer to keep Helicopters as the only unit capable to transport other land units.

akfaew wrote:I built a civilization and let it just be there for the night in LT32's test game. And all my units died, because cities grew/shrunk for 400 turns.

I know what is happening now. If you build units faster than the city grow to next level, then the extra units will waste food and the city will be stuck at the current population.
It is not really a bug, but the way the gold upkeep was designed in order to keep a similar number of units than the total population.
I guess you need to let the city grow, then to let it build units.

Xercise wrote: 1. Trireme can move on rivers and does not become obsolete (irl, the Vikings ventured from Scandinavia to Turkey in this way)
2. New 'train' unit - can only move on rail, no/low defense, no offense, can carry all kinds of units incl. air units and nukes, maybe not battleships though

I have decided to give trireme on rivers another chance for next version. I just remembered that I removed it because android version had no option to load/unload units outside cities, so triremes on rivers were useless.

civ2civ3 was mainly designed for single player games on Earth maps. It was adapted for Longturn by Elrik (if I remember) who changed the effects/costs of some wonders, the movement points, and some other things, to try to adapt it to multiplayer games, so LT31 was not exactly the same than civ2civ3.
The incresed movement of longturn affects the unit balance more than I'd like. For example, longturn artillery can move further than tanks in standard rules, and they seem to make useless the standard cavalry. It could be a good idea to reduce the movement of Howitzers to 1 (3 in longturn) in order to keep some use for Armors.

akfaew, then I'm not sure what is happening in your case, but I see that this waste of food seems to cause troubles to the AI too. I'm testing a different system where units cause military unhappiness instead of food upkeep when there are more supported units than population in a city.

Now I see there is a bug related to food upkeep.
When a city is supposed to shrink due to starvation, a unit supported with food is destroyed instead, and the city does not shrink, but the unit is destroyed no matter if it is actually wasting food or not... so the city will keep destroying units turn after turn until there are no more units, and then the population finally shrinks.

Until this bug can be fixed, I'm trying to find an alternative way to limit the max number of units supported with gold.

bardo wrote:Now I see there is a bug related to food upkeep.
When a city is supposed to shrink due to starvation, a unit supported with food is destroyed instead, and the city does not shrink, but the unit is destroyed no matter if it is actually wasting food or not... so the city will keep destroying units turn after turn until there are no more units, and then the population finally shrinks.

Until this bug can be fixed, I'm trying to find an alternative way to limit the max number of units supported with gold.

I saw it couple of times in LT31 but i thought it was a feature, not bug.

edrim wrote:

bardo wrote:Now I see there is a bug related to food upkeep.
When a city is supposed to shrink due to starvation, a unit supported with food is destroyed instead, and the city does not shrink, but the unit is destroyed no matter if it is actually wasting food or not... so the city will keep destroying units turn after turn until there are no more units, and then the population finally shrinks.

Until this bug can be fixed, I'm trying to find an alternative way to limit the max number of units supported with gold.

I saw it couple of times in LT31 but i thought it was a feature, not bug.

Cannibalism as a feature? :rolleyes: I would rather have it as a bug!

haha, it really looked like cannibalism.
It seems this bug was already reported and the fix is planned for next freeciv version.


About civ2civ3, this is the full list of changes for the incoming version, based on the comments from LT31:

- Doubled the empire size for all governments. Federation available with tech Economics (instead of Democracy).
- Republic uses standard upkeep of units again: 1 shield per unit. Increased free units under Democracy (to 1\2) and Federation (to 2\4).
- A city can support twice as many units with gold upkeep as its population size (aditional units cause waste of food).
- Max 3 units can apply Martial Law (was max 20 for Despotism and Anarchy).
- Barracks available without any techs again. Warriors become obsolete by Musketeers instead of Pikemen.
- Super Highways require Stock Exchange to get the bonus +50% to Gold/Luxuries.

- Wheeled units (Big land) can conquer cities again, but do not take advantage of terrain defense bonuses. They can move to fortress even if not roaded.
- Units with CityBuster (artillery and missile) bypass the bonus to defense from fortress. Howitzer movement reduced to 1.
- Increased damage caused by Bombardment. Cruise Missile no longer cause unhappiness, and increased range to 16. AEGIS protect against fighters, bombers and missiles again.
- Removed bonuses to movement in river. Triremes can navigate rivers again.

I uploaded here the new version of the ruleset, while cazfi update the pack for modpack-tool:
http://forum.freeciv.org/f/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=86

There are some additional changes compared to LT32 that you may like, in case there is still time to introduce them.
The only one that could affect seriously the gameplay is the removal of terrain bonuses for wheeled units, and the reduced movements of howitzer, the rest are minor adjustments, mainly to try to make democracy/republic more competitive in conquest games.