Corbeau's ruleset (2.5)

Contribute, display and discuss rulesets and modpacks for use in Freeciv here.
Caedo
Elite
Posts: 376
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2013 10:21 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Corbeau's ruleset (2.5)

Postby Caedo » Tue Dec 05, 2017 7:22 pm

Corbeau wrote:However, it seems the "No_Anarchy" effect can't be tied to a regular city improvement, only to a Wonder (either small or big). So I've given up on the idea for now. if anyone has any suggestions, feel free to share.

Really? I'd highly doubt that. Did you, by chance, try to evaluate the building requirement at a city range, instead of a player range?

User avatar
Corbeau
Elite
Posts: 622
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2014 11:13 pm

Re: Corbeau's ruleset (2.5)

Postby Corbeau » Tue Dec 05, 2017 10:32 pm

Nope. I copied it from Statue of Liberty.

Code: Select all

[effect_statue_of_liberty]
type    = "No_Anarchy"
value   = 1
reqs    =
    { "type", "name", "range"
      "Building", "Statue of Liberty", "Player"
    }
   


And when I changed "genus" of Provisional Government from "Improvement" to "SmallWonder" it started working, but that's not what I need because there already is a wonder that does this.

wieder
Hardened
Posts: 165
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2017 10:43 am

Re: Corbeau's ruleset (2.5)

Postby wieder » Wed Dec 06, 2017 12:17 pm

Coo! A new ruleset. Is it already public? I usually put the stuff to git as soon as possible. That way everyone can see the iterations and the process. It's also nice to be able to save each change with a comment. The github client is easy to use and also installs on a windows computer. Somehow I assume you are a windows user.

Maybe you will run that on longturn.org one day? I suppose you are designing it to be played as a multiplayer game?

User avatar
Corbeau
Elite
Posts: 622
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2014 11:13 pm

Re: Corbeau's ruleset (2.5)

Postby Corbeau » Wed Dec 06, 2017 2:08 pm

Wieder, you didn't check the first post in this thread? :)

And the attachment isn't completely up to date. About Github... I'm planning to. Need to learn how it actually works and find the appropriate location.

wieder
Hardened
Posts: 165
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2017 10:43 am

Re: Corbeau's ruleset (2.5)

Postby wieder » Wed Dec 06, 2017 2:47 pm

Looks like I always forget to check the previous posts :)

Now when I checked it, what do you mean with city radius sqr(1) in the start? Doesn't that prevent the city from working on any tiles outside the city tile? I didn't test that really... too bad there was not enough time to make the city working radius to be increased incrementally for LT40 but increasing it with one improvement is at least a start and we will soon know how that works out.

Lots of veteran levels. I like that. However, as someone asked, why less than 100% for the early V levels? Wouldn't it be easier to decrease the power of the units? Then of course it's probably not possible to change power or 3 to 75% or 90%...

There is actually some gov in LT40 where the corrption+waste is not on the same level as with other govs but I forgot which one that was :)

Did you plan to keep the partisans appearing when the cities are conquered? There was an abuse to that and it's the reason why the partisans are now very different kind of units on LT40. No home city, cost population and stuff like that. There is probably a better way to do that but that's how it was dealt with there.

Add to city limit with 16 is bold... Could have been more than 8 on LT40. Maybe 12... This didn't occur to me. Then again there you get the additional defense bonus of 50% with size 9 instead of size 8.

When you get this ready, I'm sure we could play it on longturn.org. Would be nice to have there a new ruleset designed by you :)

User avatar
Corbeau
Elite
Posts: 622
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2014 11:13 pm

Re: Corbeau's ruleset (2.5)

Postby Corbeau » Wed Dec 06, 2017 4:47 pm

wieder wrote:Looks like I always forget to check the previous posts :)

Especialy when the topic is so old :) Life is a nuisance whose sole purpose is preventing people from playing Civ :)

Now when I checked it, what do you mean with city radius sqr(1) in the start? Doesn't that prevent the city from working on any tiles outside the city tile? I didn't test that really...

As we just checked in LT40 chat, sqr(15) gives you 3 tiles away which means sqr(1) would give you 1 tile away, or four adjacent tiles, to be more precise.

too bad there was not enough time to make the city working radius to be increased incrementally for LT40 but increasing it with one improvement is at least a start and we will soon know how that works out.

Indeed. And I'm so stealing it from you and I won't even be embarrassed.

Lots of veteran levels. I like that. However, as someone asked, why less than 100% for the early V levels? Wouldn't it be easier to decrease the power of the units? Then of course it's probably not possible to change power or 3 to 75% or 90%...

Well, it's a matter of perspective. Firstly, it seems it isn't possible so it will come down to either reducing power or just leaving is as it is, (removing the less than 100% entries) because, in the end, it all boils down to ratios, not exact numbers.

The idea to have a "negative bonus" came from Alpha Centauri, it also slightly simplifies bookkeeping, but, like I said, it all boils down to the same thing. And the *exact* values are not that relevant, give or take a few percent, what matters is that effect is more or less cointinuous and not so drastic as the 50% for Barracks. And also, the abuse of deliberately letting units be killed so that an ally can practice, is made slightly harder.

Did you plan to keep the partisans appearing when the cities are conquered? There was an abuse to that and it's the reason why the partisans are now very different kind of units on LT40. No home city, cost population and stuff like that. There is probably a better way to do that but that's how it was dealt with there.

Well, it's still in the phase of the idea and far from plan. But the idea is, like I said, to have them lose strength as they move away from cities, but I guess then they will simply be used as city defence which is still a problem. So I think I may give that one up. Unless I change my mind or come up with something else.

Add to city limit with 16 is bold... Could have been more than 8 on LT40. Maybe 12... This didn't occur to me. Then again there you get the additional defense bonus of 50% with size 9 instead of size 8.

Well, that's how migration works. People come from smaller cities and move to bigger ones. Yes, abuse is possible, but what exactly would be the biggest problem here?

When you get this ready, I'm sure we could play it on longturn.org. Would be nice to have there a new ruleset designed by you :)

Thank you, this is exactly what I was planning from the start :)

wieder
Hardened
Posts: 165
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2017 10:43 am

Re: Corbeau's ruleset (2.5)

Postby wieder » Wed Dec 06, 2017 5:57 pm

It's a very good idea to "steal" stuff from others. One of the best ways to improve the game :) I have also stolen most of the good ideas I have seen on the other rulesets.

I agree that the units gain a surprising amount of power with the first veteran level. It's both good and bad. Easy to understand with less veteran levels but with more levels and easier upgrades there would be more reward for fighting wars. And surviving.

Somehow it sounds weir that the partisans would lose strength when outside the cities. As I understand partisans they are quite self sustaining as they are now in LT40. Then again they do need resources from someone...

The automatic migration might prove interesting but the old players would probably be lost when everything can't be calculated and controlled that easily. That's how world works, of course :)

Good to hear you planned to run it as a LT game :D

Caedo
Elite
Posts: 376
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2013 10:21 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Corbeau's ruleset (2.5)

Postby Caedo » Wed Dec 06, 2017 8:03 pm

Corbeau wrote:And when I changed "genus" of Provisional Government from "Improvement" to "SmallWonder" it started working

Well, that's just downright weird. I notice that I am confused.
BRB, checking if I can find anything in the source about this.

EDIT: Alright, apparently building requirements at player range are only supported for wonders (source: 2.5, master). I'm assuming this is because it's easier to simply store what wonders a play has built, rather than iterating over all cities a player has in order to see if it's somewhere there. However, judging from the fact that the method is called num_player_buildings, I'm assuming that it was originally intended to do exactly that, it was just never implemented for performance reasons.