Longturn Forum

edrim wrote:

paavo wrote:And spies are definitely too cheap compared to diplos, both are 30 shields.

Same like Musks (30 shields) compared to Swordsmans (40 shields), how it is possible to build better units cheaper then worse one.

In fact they were cheaper in real world. Training swordsman is way more expensive than training muskeeters.

I read that muskeeters was not so popular because they were good unit - mukets sucked in accuracy a lot, was heavy etc... but you could train green peasant to be muskeeter in very short time, comparing to years needed to train archer or swordsman.

edrim wrote:Why don't play on a square without coneting from N to S and from E to W.
Sides can be out of terian, we will have hudge isle in a center of map and couple of islands close to sides.

Or map could look like this: one big island in a center of a square and couple less land or none outside. Every team are getting position close to side of a square and start growing by going to center, or to any other direction. a Map like this link to a map

When you fortify on your terian you can be sure nobody will destroy your cap in a dirty trick.

I like map from link very much. If it don't wrap, it's definitively my favourite one.

EDIT: I know why I have feeling that I wrote some comment and then I don't see it. I click [preview] instead of [submit] and go to other tasks ... next I mass close tabs...

How about a large circular symmetric continent in the middle and each team starting on a smaller island off shore? Then they fight for colonising the big continent and can fortify on their small(er) islands.

I remember at least one person saying he isn't going to play, maybe even two.

wieder, you could leave all the settings to be a surprise when game starts in terms of game settings such as landmass, specials, startunits, etc... It would be nice if we could have a wall message popup when you login with a message about the details about what changes were made to the ruleset and some basic tips - stuff that you would write in forum ordinarily...probably only a 1/4 of players check this forum before/during game - so it would be better to have that stuff written in game messages rather than in obscure forum posting that most probably won't ever check. Last time I checked,there is a way to configure on server a wall message, or at least have it written in the intro message, along with some ascii art to catch attention?...

Not that bad idea really. The only real problem with this is that I would have even better advantage for about knowing the settings before the game starts. I'll prepare a list of changes and possibly a list of most important game settings. The unit costs may not be that important to promote beforehand but it looks like while some things will be cheaper, some units may actually become more expensive. Not much but just slightly in order to balance the game.

We now have 15 players signed to LT34. Depending on the person you ask it would be cool to have 30-60 players for the next game. While it might be interesting to have 126 player game, this is not what we should be targeting for LT34 because with these settings it may be actually possible to have a game where an alliance of 2-3 may win the game. Possible only, not something that will probably happen

Btw. I took a look at Civ V wonders and most of those look really boring to me. It's like the designers were just trying to split some wonders into many and also made some wonders way too powerful. After playing some LT games this seems much more obvious to me now.

wieder wrote:- techs can't be acquired through conquest

How exactly did you set this? What is the full syntax of this option?

Tech lost chance for receiver 100%.

Doesn't it work?

I'll clarify my question. How exactly did you *technically* do it? What did you type or what did you click when setting up the game?

No, haven't had the opportunity to check it yet, I'm trying to find the full list of options, but didn't find this one anywhere.

According to the serv file, LT34 uses

game help wrote: /help: Option: techlost_recv - Chance to lose an invention while receiving it
/help: Description:
/help: If you receive an invention via a treaty, this setting defines the
/help: chance that the invention is lost during the transfer.
/help: Status: fixed
/help: Value: 100, Minimum: 0, Default: 0, Maximum: 100

It says "via a treaty". Conquer is no treaty?

Exactly. That's why I'm asking.

Oh, it seems that "techlost when receiving" refers to ALL methods of receiving: treaty, stealing AND conquest!

Corbeau wrote:Oh, it seems that "techlost when receiving" refers to ALL methods of receiving: treaty, stealing AND conquest!

Ok, I seem to be having one misunderstanding after another. The above seems to be false.

So, by everything I have learned so far (without actually verifying it in-game), there is no option to prevent conquering techs. Can someone verify this? I know there has been some conquest in LT34, can those people say if they ever got a tech from taking a city? If yes, Wieder, how did you make this possible?

set techlost_recv=100

This will prevent getting techs also by conquering. The tech will be always lost during the transfer.

wieder wrote:set techlost_recv=100

This will prevent getting techs also by conquering. The tech will be always lost during the transfer.

I verified this in a local test game. The game reported me to have stolen a tech and loosing it on transfer.

It would be also nice if we have techlost 100 for donor. So both sides would loose techs.

maho wrote:It would be also nice if we have techlost 100 for donor. So both sides would loose techs.

Stealing would be a horrible for defender with % we have now.