forum.freeciv.org

I support this wait-time for units. Else this will be boring and slow for a long time with only 2 settlers and no tech sharing, but will probably continue playing it anyway.

I didn't read the boards first. Pungtryne told me about some of the rule changes in Game 5. I see it's rigged for players that want to be like North Korea and be loners. That would be like playing Battleship. I'm not interested in a duel. So I'll just stop playing Game 5. Good luck.

Thanks for the feedback everyone. In order to improve LongTurn support in Freeciv-web, I have to experiment with different game settings and listen to feedback from players. In LongTurn game #5, I have added three notable changes, which were also present in the LongTurn.org games: specifically 10 hour unit wait time, disabled tech trading and only 2 settlers (since the map will have 300 players, and to try to offset the disadvantage for players who joins late).

Please post your feedback about these changes, and suggest specific things that I should change in the next game. I'm willing to do changes based on your feedback in the next game.

Well, I'm standing by my "no starting late". 3-4 turns tops, people who start later than that are seriously disadvantaged and I'm not sure any amount of money helps. You can't buy population or techs, everyone has 60% anyway and it's still too little.

Corbeau wrote:Well, I'm standing by my "no starting late". 3-4 turns tops, people who start later than that are seriously disadvantaged and I'm not sure any amount of money helps. You can't buy population or techs, everyone has 60% anyway and it's still too little.

Thanks for this feedback. I definitively see your point. Can you perhaps help me find other ways to reduce the disadvantage of joining the game late?

New players joining game #5 now, will get 210 gold extra to compensate. This is not insignificant, in my opinion.

Something very important is to make it very clear what rules and what settings the a new game has. Sure, it's posted on the forum, but I doubt many goes in here to check it out. I have talked to many players that thinks the same. Most want to stop playing, or has stopped game5 because of no tech sharing. This are going to become idlers that could so easily be avoided. We really want to minimize the idlers.

I support a lot to have different longturn games, not the same ruleset/topology all the time. One idea I had, that would need som care to work, is to start with maybe 4 cities already with defending units in them, maybe even starting as monarchy. To make it fair cities would need to be built on same kind of tile for all players, and have a same kind of secondary tile too. This could speed up the game a lot, and also be a lot more newb friendly as you wouldn't start off in despotism maybe with no idea of how bad it is and that u need to change it asap.

Compensation for late starters is really tricky. I think easiest thing to do would be to prioritize to get more to join before starting the game. First turn lasting 48-72 hours could be something to try, but it could go the other way that people get bored of waiting and forget about the game.

What's sure is if you take over an idle player that has all his units on foreign territory, you are almost guarantueed to lose. When players took over idler inside my borders, or very near, I must admit that they probably didn't have very much fun. Maybe after 10, 15 or 20 turns, the idlers that hasn't founded any cities (or not founded all4) should be "dead" and not possible to take over, so that new players only take over empires that are founded.

If there is founded at least 4 cities, then the gold bonus is pretty decent as you can buy city improvements quite fast. If you take over 4 settlers inside someone elses borders, it would take a lot of gold to make it even.

Discussion gone to the topic about game in general so I replied here.