forum.freeciv.org

Actually, maybe I would have played that one, but with four games going on and a few of them still being in the starting stages the fifth was really too much.

That said, someone should monitor the tech progress there because those four aren't really moving TOO fast and there are a few alliances sharing techs left and right. Without such exchange things may be moving way more slowly.

Also, since we're still in the testing phase (no games ended yet), maybe it would be ok to have a few games without tech trade, to see how it's going. But there too, techleak is essential.

longturn.org has disabled tech trading: lt38.serv. I would be interested in knowing why.

In the next Longturn games on Freeciv-web, I think the tech trading setting should be set to what the majority of players wants. How can we best setup a vote for this?

AndreasR wrote:longturn.org has disabled tech trading: lt38.serv. I would be interested in knowing why.

As far as I know, it was because they were afraid a large alliance would be in a bigger advantage over a small alliance (or a non-aligned player).

I think that both approaches have good and bad sides. I also think that tech leakage and tech upkeep significantly soften the bad sides. Tech leakage has been thoroughly tested in Longturn.org games and it doesn't have any bad effects. Tech upkeep can make the game unplayable if setup the wrong way, but I can't find the time to test it properly. Maybe start one game with the default value, simply to see how it goes? (That is, the one with tech exchange, because there is no point in having it in game where tech trade is disabled).

In the next Longturn games on Freeciv-web, I think the tech trading setting should be set to what the majority of players wants. How can we best setup a vote for this?

Well, like I said, neither solution is all good or all bad. Also, we (will) have many LTW games here so, even though I'd like to see this poll, I wouldn't want it to be binding. For example, if 2/3 of players says tehy want to trade techs, don't make ALL games with this setting. Make 1/3 of games without tech trade. Everybody has the right to enjoy themselves and, besides, I don't want all games to be exactly the same.


What I would like to have is more oceans, separated continents and actually some reason to use boats. With >50% land there is no need whatsoever to use navy and this aspect of the game is completely neglected.

Corbeau wrote:What I would like to have is more oceans, separated continents and actually some reason to use boats. With >50% land there is no need whatsoever to use navy and this aspect of the game is completely neglected.

This isn't quite true. In single player games, I've found the need to use boats when there are civilizations who I have an armistice with that completely block the path to the civilizations I'm at war with. I use boats to go around the people I can't go through.

Landmass has been reduced to 75% in the next LongTurn game. settings

Can you please make ONE game with less than 50% landmass?

Corbeau wrote:Can you please make ONE game with less than 50% landmass?

Yes, I can setup a new game with any settings you may like, if you make a significant donation.

AndreasR wrote:

Corbeau wrote:Can you please make ONE game with less than 50% landmass?

Yes, I can setup a new game with any settings you may like, if you make a significant donation.

Fair enough Actually, this isn't repeated enough, I'm sure 90% of the people playing aren't even aware that donations are welcome.

Some more up-to-date data about how much is needed would be helpful, though. Approximation is fine.

Please donate any amount you think is reasonable. 100 USD would be a minimum if you want to host a LongTurn game with your custom settings on play.freeciv.org.

Ok, but first, please let me know if this is a professional project, where you pay for a service, with fees for particular levels of service, or an open/free one, where you share the material costs of the community you are a part of (and possibly add in a bonus for someone who has spent a huge amount of his private time on developing and maintaining it).

If it's the latter, and if that money is really needed, I would probably end up donating even more than 100 USD, eventually, over time, but for that, more information would be very helpful. The only reason I haven't done so already is that it was completely off my radar and you guys should post way more signs that scream "DONATE! Servers aren't paid for by love!" everywhere.

If it's the former - and you make it sound like it is - I would have to spend more time weighing the cost and benefit of what I'm buying with the possibility of deciding that I can get a better service for less money elsewhere.

Or, if it's something third, can we know what it is?