Longturn Forum

Ejjo.
I think we are going to end in a month or two.
To make understanding next game/ruleset, I am posting LW3 so early.
This game may be called - "10 settlers game".

It means changes like those below:

10 settlers on start without being able to make more settlers ingame.
Settlers are not caputrable
No corruption on board at all
Citymindist = 8
Workers can cut ground but no able to alternate, ony engs can make hills from flat
Adding 1 or 2 to city working radius, it may let you have size 50 or more cities.
No ZOC Ignore units.
Growing rapture every 2 or 3 turns.
No tech trading or setting close to no tech trading mens (2% to loose tech when trading/stealing/conquering and 1% to get tech when stealing trading conquering)

If you have any more ideas please write it in comment, I will add it or not to list of changes.

I am looking forward to it.

Can we switch off tired attack? This patch should do it (I am a bit rusty on patches).

Can you write why should we do it?
I think tiredattack=on is good and we always wanted to have it on, it is quite better to count your defence when you know how many tiles enemy need to attack in full power.

When a ruleset is modified, I ask myself how will this affect my playing style. Here are some ways that a change in the ruleset can affect me
a) Will it force me to make a series of moderate to difficult decisions that determine how well I am doing.
b) Does it force me to repeat a certain menial action over and over.
c) Does it make me do more of one thing, less of another thing but does not require me to think critically about any in game situation.

Most of the time tired attack is of type (b) and (c). This is how it affects me: instead of attacking someone that is 3 moves away, I only attack someone that is 2 moves away; instead of leaving a unit 3 moves away from enemy lines, I can leave them 2 moves - it is basically more of one thing, less of another, i.e. type (c). It also forces me to have to count every single attacking move, hence it is of type (b). There is once or twice in the game where I have to ask myself "Do I attack this unit with partial moves or not?" but that is too seldom to outweigh the negative aspects.

I suppose that it can be argued that it theoretically allows opposing cities and units to be closer together (i.e. if player X and Y are at war, then player X can keep his units 2 moves away from player Y instead of 3 moves), and hence players can keep better tabs on each other; but I do not see this happening often in real games. Most of the time, if you want to keep tabs on another player, then you build fortresses near their border; also opposing cities (i.e. cities from different players at war) that are close together are usually separated by forests.

I have never played a longturn game with tired attack off, so if there is something that I am missing, then please let me know.

Sounds great. I'm in.

StratThinker wrote:I have never played a longturn game with tired attack off,

I always thought we are playing with tired attack on. But maybe it was a bug in settings.

Anybody else against "tiredattack=on"?

edrim wrote:If you have any more ideas please write it in comment, I will add it or not to list of changes.

Once there is no ideas about ruleset (except tiredattack=off which is hardly non acceptable by me and nooone elese say yes to it) in LW I will do it by myself in a scetch you can see in first page.

Ok, signups open.
As usually there is only one game to singups, i will transfer all players to specyfic boards when signups will be closed.
Ladder is set after LW2 so you can check with who you will play LW3 if signup.

continent or islands?

It is not clear now how big land it will be, but there is no chance to have LW on islands, Ladder Wars means Wars from the beggining, i am trying to make a ruleset where we will fight from start without and disadventage to tose who will not.

sounds lovely...

I have registered and would like to join the game. I downloaded freeciv 2.5 recently, but as far as I can tell this game will be played in 2.3. Where can I download freeciv 2.3?

Also, from this list, is it 2.3. what?

http://sourceforge.net/projects/freeciv ... civ%202.3/

fox wrote:I have registered and would like to join the game. I downloaded freeciv 2.5 recently, but as far as I can tell this game will be played in 2.3. Where can I download freeciv 2.3?

Also, from this list, is it 2.3. what?

http://sourceforge.net/projects/freeciv ... civ%202.3/

I suppose 2.3.5 is fine

Thank you, CedricD. I have installed 2.3.5 successfully.

I don't sure if my suggestion correct.. I cannot connect the game!

Is following command is fine:
start freeciv-gtk2.exe -s longturn.org -p 5131 -n CedricD -a
?

I have connection problem too:
Error contacting server "longturn.org" at port 5131 as "wwqt"

I have the same problem
"the operation completed succesfully"

I cannot connect to the game either, but I never received an email saying it was starting. Is it actually in progress with the first turn?

The game hasn't started yet.

Ok guys, once again I have susspend start LW3. I will do my best that LW3 start at 14.06.2015

I am trying to figure how it should looks like.
Ladder Wars should have wars from the beggining and it has didnt happen in LW1 and LW2, of course in "a" board, I dont know how it looks like in other boards.
So next game I am trying to set like:

-No wonders at all.
-Workers can lowerate ground, so you can cut ground to plains/grass in very beggining, but once you will cut it from mountains/hills/trees and other type of grounds you cannot alternate it again even with engeeners.
-Cities can be pleaced only on flat (means grass/plains) with rivers included.
-We will play in very big landmass, and average land per player. It means one big island without wrap and poles on edges.
-Tech leakage is on again, no tech trading is on again but with much bigger science costs, it means that one who will get a tech because of tech supermacy he will get a boost of it. Last player will get a tech for free again.

I would like to know if you like option that we will get numbers of settlers similar to number of players playing on board and settlers will be with flag "nobuild", it means players cannot build a settlers ingame. Next option that I would like to know your opinion is that player cannot get a city, when city is conquer even with size more then 1 it will be lost. This two options would give very unpredicteable games, but i hope it will became a war game in this Ladder Wars competition.

Edit:In this ruleset it could be tired atatck off, so we can attack with 1/3 with full power, no resrtict infra of course.

I was thinking, the map generator tends to give a lot of swamp.

And although this is historically accurate, perhaps it would be better if workers were able to transform swamp. There might be plenty of room for everyone to expand and make up for a poor start position, but draining swamps should be straightforward. Especially with no prospect of future settlers or cities.

As for the auto-destroy of conquered cities, it will be fun. It will be like we are enemies colonising a hostile planet, and once the protective Dome comes down, the people inside of course all die.

Sounds great. I'm easy. Thanks in advance for admin'ing!

Personally I like wonders, and some long term can increase aggression, but agree with your thought to get wars going quick.

The limited number of settlers is pretty interesting, but I don't think we should try it with so many other changes. It could result in 1 city on one side of the map vs 1 city on the other side of the map. But also slightly curious about how it will play out.

Another option to consider is allowing catapults to attack and go on rough terrain. This just increases aggression and decrease defense which is what I think the point is? But that is a little less strategy.

Are you allowing gold transfer? And capturing of settlers or workers? Those are a few more of the in-game "currency" that can be used to trade. I personally love the capture element. But gold transfer maybe a little 25% loss or so will decrease deals.

Sounds good but I disagree with no wonders promoting war.. Pyramids with tribal provides an alternative to monarchy that is excellent for an aggressive style of play. Things like lighthouse or suntzu promote attack with better units. Maybe just get rid of the economic wonders?
Really like the idea of limited settlers and destroyed cities on capture, but around 6 to 8 settlers would be better I think. No one will ever reach the normal average empire size even with that many.

So lets make a list of wonders we need to make war, and costs of them.

a szu's version, perhaps earlier in the game, like with warrior code, for 200 shields.

a lighhouseversion for horses, charriots, etc...? like one or two movement more for say bout 200 shields, you can build it when u research the wheel.

an exclusive for phalanxs wonder, one plus defenses(or 50% plus), we could restirct that just for cities, say also 200 shields.

a catapult wonder, so it can move without roads and on hills. for 200 shields with maths.

a wonder so units, or some units, have one plus vision, 200 shields, with dunno.

and a wonder for diplos, so they dont disappear after using them in a city, say 200 shields too.

the cost of each wonder, can be, in my point of view, cheapier, like 100 shields.

yeah, that.