Longturn Forum

There are basically 3 or 4 realistic options for techs.

1) Standard tech prices like they were in LT41 and with 100% - 150% tech costs.

2) LT43 style tech cost where the full tech tree costs about 500 000 bulbs. The first techs are even cheaper than in normal games but they will become increasingly expensive. For example gunpowder is about 1.5 - 2x more expesive.

3) same with 1) but with tech trading enabled inside the team. This would mean that the tech cost would be multiplied with about 0.7*number of players.

4) the same with 2) but with tech trading. Tech costs also multiplied with about 0.7*number of players. This would probably lead to more balanced teams and techs distributed between the players.


The options 3 and 4 would not mean the techs would become cheaper but that more people would need to research them. It's half way to the pooled research where all the players research the same techs. It would also allow all the players to be up to date with techs. Then again some players can be left without the latest tects. This might be useful if stealing techs (with maybe 5% probabiity) would be allowed. Then again I'm not sure if stealing techs should be enabled for this game.

I would prefer option 4 but then again option 1 or 2 would be more traditional and make more sense.

Not sure of protocol here, but I am in favor of option 4. It "feels" like what we are doing in LT43 right now, but doing the team trick to pool resources which seems more natural to me.

The protocols is suggesting here

Thanks for your opinion

I'm more in favour of the option 2.

I thought I replied to this, but it was probably somewhere else.

If the game is team game, there should be tech sharing at worst and pooled research at best. If there is no sharing and progress is benefited only by techleak, then the backward players are just dead weight and the best they can do is make way for the better players. Who needs you if all you can contribute to a gunfight are phalanx?

This will simply create a feeling of frustration and uselessness for the weaker players and slight frustration for the better ones. Not good for team spirit.

However, with a team pooled research, every city is valuable. If the team is producing 1000 bulbs per turn and you are only contributing 10, it's still something. Also, you can produce military units that can join the fight. 1% contribution is still contribution and your cities are not simply "taking up space that could have been used better".

The problem with pooled research is the communications and accidental researching of techs. People may forget or miss messages about tech goals or accidentally click a tech and get it.

Got it. Then, tech exchange.

I still like the thought of pooled research instead of tech trading, even with the potential for an accidental click on the research tree by a team member. Can we also use the polling feature in the client so team members can vote on what to research?

I'm not sure it's possible to add polling for techs without digging DEEP into the code.

Yes, it would be great to have pooled research with only a few people - or one, the "tech officer" - have control over techs, but this is simply not the case.

ok, can use discord or chat line in client to coordinate with the team. we can use other tools for simple polls and ways to decide who is "tech officer" and just implore the team members that are not the tech officer to just stay away from the tech tree.

I'm fine with this, but I hear there are others who dislike it.

Im ok with that, because after all both teams have the same rules to work with, but I can see how pooled research might cause problems.

Suppose most of your team are on a continent and you are the only one on a island. If everyone else thinks ships are a very low priority then you are screwed. Also with differences between players who want to be more militaristic or more focussed on long term development, someone is not going to have the tech they need for their prefered strategy.

Option 4 would be my choice for team game. Everyone can research what they think is important, but the whole team benefits when it is shared (Especially if diplomacy is enabled from the start for the whole team).

On the subject of 'dead weight' players.. Maybe it would be good to remove penalty on gold exchange for team games? Smaller players cant add much to research, because they will always be behind, but they could transfer gold to main researchers (So they can raise their research rate and lower tax) or to players in front line combat.

The gold penalty has been there to avoid situations where one player can be boosted for getting some crucial techs before the other team. And also to avoid situations where gold is moved to safety while not used. The last team game had a 50% gold tax but maybe 10% would be enough now. It's also the same cost for giving techs and there is no way to have different values for those two actions in Freeciv 2.5.

Pooled research really is a mess if there are lots of players. People get frustrated, make accidental clicks or just decide to get a tech despite what everyone else is saying...

With tech trading inside the team, we just need to decide how expensive the techs should be. Comments from LT43 players would be most welcome. Especially if there are players who have gunpowder and have actual experience from the techs becoming more and more expensive with the experimental techs costs LT43 is using. It has been said before but here it is. LT43 has a 40% tech cost and the full tech tree costs about 500 000 bulbs compared to 66 000 bulbs in LT41 with 100% tech cost. My guess is that the techs in LT43 have been researched incredibly fast in the early game but since te techs are getting more and more expensive, we should see some serious slow down by T50. LT43 players, please comment on this.

wieder wrote:Comments from LT43 players would be most welcome. Especially if there are players who have gunpowder and have actual experience from the techs becoming more and more expensive with the experimental techs costs LT43 is using.

LT43 won't have gunpowder for some time and I actually like it that way. The way the tech tree is playing out "feels" more natural to me. We are currently fighting our wars with ancient weapons, which makes sense as we are still in antiquity. In "real" life the more advanced the technology the longer it takes and so again the harder LT43 tech tree feels right to me. As a team playing with some other players, the ability to go separate ways but still share as others have gained techs is nice. The example wieder gives is spot on. That way all teams members feel like they are contributing.

I was originally "for" the pooled research, but now that more have spoken up it seems better to go with what we are doing in LT43 and allow for tech sharing. Like gold sharing, I do think a modest "tax" is ok. Keeps abuse at bay, but still allows for good game play. I don't recall what the tech sharing tax is in LT43, but it does not seem onerous.

wieder wrote:The gold penalty has been there to avoid situations where one player can be boosted for getting some crucial techs before the other team.

Why should this be avoided?

And also to avoid situations where gold is moved to safety while not used.

So, to sum up: sending money away in order to prevent loss when your city is captured is bad and should be artificially penalised, but also hoarding more money in order to make your cities more expensive to bribe is also bad and should be artificially penalised.

Why? Both are valid strategies, both have inherent strong penalties and if you choose the wrong one for the wrong situation, you will suffer. So, decision making which is what this game - or, basically, any game - should be about. And you want to prevent this. Why?

LT43 has a 40% tech cost and the full tech tree costs about 500 000 bulbs compared to 66 000 bulbs in LT41 with 100% tech cost.

That's 40% research speed and 250% tech cost.

Anyway, I agree about pooled research. That vs. shared tech is basically has the same effect, and the difference is only a matter of convenience with "shit happens" events possible in both cases: in team pooled research you can have one player screwing up the whole team, while in shared techs you can have miscommunication and two players discovering the same tech in the same turn, and only requires coordination to avoid.

As for experiences from LT43, I agree with what JW said.

Yeah tech rate in LT43 seems good, but I like ancient weapons

I can see how gold transfer could unbalance normal games, but I dont see why it shouldnt be allowed in a team game.

What I would REALLY like to see in non-team games is a kind of 'Vassal state' treaty option, whereby the player giving the treaty gets peace in return for all their excess gold after upkeep.
This would create a reason to let 'defeated' players to live instead of take their lands. Vassal state should be permanent and players choosing it cant be counted as winners. Is it possible to code such a setup? (Even just an x gold per turn for Y turns option like in Alpha Centauri would be nice)

About "Vassal states", it can be done by delegation. The vassal player delegates to his "lord" so that the "lord" can enter his nation and do whatever he pleases "just in case" and also has full information about the vassal state, but the vassal player keeps playing.

About "giving all excess money", I wouldn't want my vassals to be left without money. I'd want them to develop and contribute their material and intellectual wealth to my empire, and for this they need money.

""The gold penalty has been there to avoid situations where one player can be boosted for getting some crucial techs before the other team.""
"Why should this be avoided?"

It's a winning strategy for 9 players to give all the gold to 1 player. Even a modest gold tax can make this strategy less interesting. Not invalid or impossible but less valid. Another example comes in the form of banks. Player A has cities size 8 and player B has cites size 20. It would make sense for player A to fund a bank for player B since the building costing the same for both cities would give much better output in a size 20 city. This is of course an extreme example but you get the idea.

""And also to avoid situations where gold is moved to safety while not used.""

In the war time it's not uncommon that some of the gold is lost if sent away in hurry. Also the gold tax is tied with the tech cost.... For technical reasons.

Of course 9 players giving the 10th player all their money is a winning strategy. As is 7 players giving 3 players all their money. Or is it 6:4? Or maybe 8:2? Or maybe each team has to find its balance depending on the players and their experience and skills. Adding tax doesn't contribute to that, it actually creates friction that makes movement difficult.

And, again, why is this a bad thing?

It's usually a good idea to have a cost for doing stuff. Like switching between production targets, converting gold into buildings, buildings into gold... There are lots of reason for having at least a small tax. Actions cost something and with even only 10% tax the players need to think twice before boosting one player or moving around gold.

Why should there be no gold tax and no tech transfer cost?

Switching production is a material action. After you are halfway done constructing a bridge, you can't just change your mind and make it an airport. Production is work in a certain direction. So is science.

Transferring funds or knowledge isn't. It's just moving information from one place to another. Nothing is lost.

Imposing tax - apart from being unrealistic - also decreases flexibility making it difficult or costly to change your path, making things more monotonous.

Historically moving funds has been much more than just moving information. It wasn't too many decades ago when it was relatively common to move assets in a physical form. This still happens in some cases while most of the financial world has switched to bits and bytes. In the ancient days moving money was not only a difficult task but also required lots of security measures and all that stuff cost money. There is really no way for having a higher tax for the ancient times and a smaller one toward the modern day. We just need to use one setting.

Then set it to 1%. The price of moving the national bank treasury was always a negligible portion of the treasury itself.