Longturn Forum

While it's impossible exactly define the number of the turns used for a game without using an end turn, it's still possible trying to do that. This can be done with units, victory conditions, number of winners, cost of the techs and with various additional parameters.

How many turns do you think an ideal game would last?

LT33 lasted 132 turns and the fate of the world was already known by T120. Some people say that it was already known by T100 but that's really irrelevant to this question. LT32 lasted over 230 turns and I personally think that was way too many turns.

How many turns would you like to see for LT34? My personal preference would be something like 120 - 150 turns. Would someone want to see a longer or shorter game and if you would, why?

I'm not planning to have a pre defined end turn for LT34 but since the ruleset is not yet finalized, we can try making it faster or slower paced.

My congrats again Wieder,
and i agree with you, no rule changes regarding end game can happen unless they are agreed upon beforehand.

I know you organiser guys are the people that make it all happen
And i have seen you guys fight. You guys fight really well.
But what are you so afraid of? That we peaceful nations will defeat you...
Do you really want every game to be the same?
What kind of 'game' is that

I'm more afraid that you don't fight back. Looking at the animated map it's more than obvious how too many players since gave up once few capitals were conquered. If the remaining players would have organized some resistance the game might have had a very different ending.

Let's hope people really try to win LT34

Civilisation is built on the land, the water, the fresh air, rain and snow... and the people.
We are born into this world.

It is your obsession with victory, and how to 'quantify it'
Why can't you just let it go?
Do you really hate us sim-city guys that much?
Yes, of course you you do.
Because the history of Civilisation is written by the builders,
not the destroyers.
You will always be the vanquished, who pick up their few pathetic hangers-on, and find their faith rekindled in the desperate and the lonely, and you will see that you are lost.
What a bare harvest you have to look forward to.


And you will dream of the day when you were welcomed into the loving arms of us, who love you, because even though we hate what you did, we know, for the better good, all of our Sacred Tribes should be as one.
Yes my brother, you will dream of this day, for the rest of your natural life...
You were my brother,
it is not a sign of weakness to say so.

You guys form the rules to suit your epic battles.
Faction against Faction.
Well, this is what you do.
It's what you want to do.

I've read over the history of your forum.
And, i don't think you should change what you're doing.
I signed up for LT34 didn't i?

There is nothing wrong with people who just build civilizations. However it would be nice if people would like to conclude the game and not try to play it indefinitely.

I was asking about how many turns would you like to see before the conclusion. Maybe LT34 ends without some player(s) conquering everyone, who knows.

evan wrote:Because the history of Civilisation is written by the builders,
not the destroyers.

Eg. Atilla or Gengis Khan.

I think that game could take even 200 turrns, but I would love if science research is so slow that you can barely reach muskeeters at t=200.

I love massive warriors battles.

maho wrote:I love massive warriors battles.

Me too! I really hate the idea that warriors might become noveteran.

Kryon wrote:The biggest reason LT32 lasted 230 turns is restrictinfra was ON.

Not really. restrictinfra really only effects the early and middle part of the game.
In LT32 science was really slow, so we never finished the tech tree.

wieder wrote:LT32 lasted over 230 turns and I personally think that was way too many turns.

I liked LT32. It had the best settings I have played. I wouldn't play another like it for a long time though.
Instead I think most games should be deliberately made shorter than this.
I suggest 120 turns could be an aimed for length.
I think shorter, more frequent, more varied games are something longturn should aim for.

maho wrote:

evan wrote:Because the history of Civilisation is written by the builders,
not the destroyers.

Eg. Atilla or Gengis Khan.

When was the last time you've been to Mongolia?

Corbeau wrote:

maho wrote:

evan wrote:Because the history of Civilisation is written by the builders,
not the destroyers.

Eg. Atilla or Gengis Khan.

When was the last time you've been to Mongolia?

Why?

To see what remained of the pages Ghengis Khan wrote.

I don't know what Gengis Khan wrote. But you must admit, that we remember him, with fear, respect and sometimes with admire, not for his writing/building skills.

Anyway - my point is, that history is written by destroyers as well as by builders. Who knows if destroying factor isn't more important.

Phoenix arises from ashes, but he needs to be burned first.

History was written by the winners. No matter how they won :SS

maho wrote:I don't know what Gengis Khan wrote. But you must admit, that we remember him, with fear, respect and sometimes with admire, not for his writing/building skills.

Anyway - my point is, that history is written by destroyers as well as by builders. Who knows if destroying factor isn't more important.

Phoenix arises from ashes, but he needs to be burned first.

You are missing the point. We remember him, sure, but it was a one-time occurence that had a temporary effect. We remember him the same way we remember the year 1000 AD: because it happened, not because it left anything of significance.

The 30-year war had a much, much greater significance than Ghengis Khan, as well as consequences. But that kind of destruction had completely different motivation, methodology, occurence and executors.

Being violent "as a style" gets you nowhere. You are remembered as a problem and what is more remembered than you is either the solution or the fact that there wasn't any. The last thing that is usually said about Mongols: "They went back to the steppes never to return". And life went on.

but it was a one-time occurence that had a temporary effect.

Well, that temporary effect is written in heavy and bloody letter in world annals.

And, when we say "vandalism" we mean bizzare, violent and destructive behaviour, not building state in northen Africa.

If destroying Roman Empire is not significant, then there are no significant things in our history.

History is written by destroyers. Destroyers are fed by builders.

Plague killed more people than Ghengis Khan. So did the 30-year war, along with other events. But even more died daily of regular diseases. No, Maho, the Khan was insignificant in the greater scheme of things.

And if you think the Vandals destroyed Rome, you should read a book occasionally

I know this thread is supposed to be about turn limits,
but since i started this cultural topic, i thought i should hop in to mention how even when the Mongols/Manchus became dynasties in China, they adopted the dominant culture, and contributed relatively little.

There were many reasons for Rome's collapse, and the numerous tribes whose names are largely forgotten were opportunists.
People like Attila the Hun were remembered for their usefulness as Bogeymen to scare little children into eating their vegetables.

And the Jewish nation must surely be the most conquered in all of history, and yet they have defined the nature of our world perhaps more than any other.

Regarding the turn limit, i was thinking a good indirect way of achieving this would be to allow players to be winners/RIP/ and survivors. I would like the option to be a survivor, in which case I don't lose points, and therefore contribute no points to the victors. This would encourage people to not give up, and keep fighting so they could 'sue for peace', as any conqeuring alliance would have to weigh up the benefits.
And they would be more likely to start fighting from the beginning, rather than just hiding.

I like this because it's not the kind of thing that players can work around and manipulate, which only advantages the more experienced players.
Similarly, starting the next game before the last one ends can not be manipulated.

I'm not sure how you'd go about setting a turn limit. Reading through the forum, it's very complicated.
But since you're making the ultimate decision as admin, you can come up with a balance.
I think if you make it possible for larger alliances, and allow survivors-with-no-points-loss, we might have a better game.
And please reconsider starting LT35 before LT34 ends.
We could at least give it a go.

I have been thinking about the number of the winners and the number of the survivors. We obviously have a problem with some players actually only wanting to survive.

This is not (yet) even a proper proposition but an idea I had the other day.

Let's assume we would have two possible scenarios where the game would end with someone winning it.

In the first case the winning alliance wold be the one with the space ship reaching the distant planet. In that case there would be unlimited number of survivors since it wouldn't be possible to destroy or conquer anyone once the game had ended with the space race victory. And yeah, it may be possible to win LT34 with the space race. Just with an incredibly expensive space ship but anyway.

With the conquest victory (with survivors) it becomes tricky if we have an unlimited number of people able to make it through the game without any penalty to the winners. Ideally :SS with the conquest victory there wouldn't be any survivors left and those who had the military might just took what they wanted. In some games this just didn't happen and some really big alliances were formed. Alliances able to win with the support of the survivors.

Let's assume that we have 6 winners. With the 6 winners we would probably want at least one single survivor so that someone would be able to betray his/her allies without a penalty for the winners. Just one survivor is not really an issue but lots of those are. It's not too nice to see an alliance of n players to win while there are something like 6*2 survivors left to support them. In a 60 player game that would be half of the players effectively teaming up.

How about?

With 6 winners we could have 1 survivor (or 6 winners an no survivors)
With 5 winners we could have 3 survivors (or 5 winners and 2 survivors)
With 4 winners we could have 5 survivors (or 4 winners and 4 survivors)
etc

6 is just an example and may not the the exact number of the winners for LT34.

My $0.02. I liked the idea that someone expressed that we limit number of players in an alliance and the game ends when all alive players are (possibly transitively) allied to each other. I don't understand what's so cool about being a survivor. Is it just about keeping your score? Well, if you want a good score, then try to win

Number of turns? I would not want more than 120-150.

This is slowly drifting into the "bizarre" section.

Corbeau wrote:Plague killed more people than Ghengis Khan.

And influenza killed more ppl than I World War. Does it mean that IWW was insignificant in greater scheme of things?

So did the 30-year war, along with other events.

Yes, 30 year war is great example how devastating events changes direction of river of history.

But even more died daily of regular diseases. No, Maho, the Khan was insignificant in the greater scheme of things.

Oh, ok. Khan and his heirs conquered and ruled China, Russia and India for ages, threatened half of Europe and made serious political and geopolitical turbulences. Mongol settled in world iconography, legends and culture as ruthless, bizzare plunderer. They even inspired Japanese behaviour in IIW.

Quite insignificant in greater scheme of things.

And if you think the Vandals destroyed Rome, you should read a book occasionally

If you think that I think that (asuming that Rome == Roman Empire), then you should read post you're replying to. Occasionally.

wieder wrote:I have been thinking about the number of the winners and the number of the survivors. We obviously have a problem with some players actually only wanting to survive.
[...]

Let's assume that we have 6 winners. With the 6 winners we would probably want at least one single survivor so that someone would be able to betray his/her allies without a penalty for the winners. Just one survivor is not really an issue but lots of those are. It's not too nice to see an alliance of n players to win while there are something like 6*2 survivors left to support them. In a 60 player game that would be half of the players effectively teaming up.

I don't get that part "so that someone would be able to betray".... How betraying alliance is related with survivors? Do you mean situation 6allies vs 1 survivor? Who would betray alliance with such proportions?

Anyway - proposition about survivors looks tempting. What about rule that game ends when less than X% living players is alive and declare that they want to survive? And of course rest of players are allied. Question is - what should be value of X, I think that it could be something like 33%.