Page 4 of 9

Re: Ideas for better online game experience

Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2017 6:30 pm
by Corbeau
wieder wrote:On longturn.org games there is restrictinfra on .

This. I thought about this many times and missed to shout about it. This is a must for multiplayer games.

Re: Ideas for better online game experience

Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2017 8:53 pm
by pungtryne
Corbeau wrote:
wieder wrote:On longturn.org games there is restrictinfra on .

This. I thought about this many times and missed to shout about it. This is a must for multiplayer games.


How is it a must?

I can see arguments for restricting rails, even though I'm against it but restricting roads would be terrible!

Re: Ideas for better online game experience

Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2017 9:13 pm
by Corbeau
Firstly, no way to separate thise two. SecondlY, ask Americans what use they had from roads in Vietnam.

Re: Ideas for better online game experience

Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2017 11:16 pm
by JTN
Corbeau wrote:Firstly, no way to separate thise two.

There is if you can edit the ruleset; set the "UnrestrictedInfra" flag on one but not the other.

Re: Ideas for better online game experience

Posted: Wed Aug 16, 2017 11:33 am
by pungtryne
Corbeau wrote:ask Americans what use they had from roads in Vietnam.


In freeciv, you can't pass roads if there are troops on it. I would assume that if there were no vietnamese troops defending vietnam it would be no problem using these roads. If the road is undefended, why shouldn't the enemy be able to use it?

Re: Ideas for better online game experience

Posted: Wed Aug 16, 2017 8:31 pm
by Corbeau
Because ther is no such thing as "enemy-free terrain" unless it's in your rear. An army just doesn't rush headlong into enemy territory, even if it is semingly free. When an invading force moves along the road, it mostly moves off-road at an off-road speed.

Re: Ideas for better online game experience

Posted: Wed Aug 16, 2017 9:16 pm
by pungtryne
Corbeau wrote:Because ther is no such thing as "enemy-free terrain" unless it's in your rear. An army just doesn't rush headlong into enemy territory, even if it is semingly free. When an invading force moves along the road, it mostly moves off-road at an off-road speed.


Hitler rushed headlong into Denmark (seemingly and facutally undefended) in WW2. It took him 6 hours with minimal losses. Maybe you should go back in time and tell Hitler he was wrong, that an army "an army just doesn't rush headlong into enemy territory, even if it is semingly free"? They even used the rails into Denmark, that's how undefended they were.

Re: Ideas for better online game experience

Posted: Thu Aug 17, 2017 8:29 am
by wieder
Then again Hitler wasn't able to make all the moves of his troops while the defenders were not connected to the war :)

It's about game mechanics. Using the restrictinfra will avoid sudden death situations while not completely preventing them. You also need to do more strategic planning instead of just moving the units when you have restrictinfra on. It allows the defender to build natural fortifications and plan the defenses.

In real life you don't have killstack on but on most freeciv games all the units die if one of the units in the tile die. Without this setting there would be stacks of doom moving all around the map, killing everything not protected by another stack of doom. It's kind of same idea for restrictinfra.

Re: Ideas for better online game experience

Posted: Thu Aug 17, 2017 12:23 pm
by pungtryne
wieder wrote:Then again Hitler wasn't able to make all the moves of his troops while the defenders were not connected to the war :)


I don't understand what you mean, and neither does two other people I asked. Can you rewrite this?


For me this discussion seems like a question about if we want sudden death situations or not. For me it's absurd to build road or railroadnetworks without defending it, then complaining about sudden death. Roads and railroads are huge advantages not only for own troop movement but also for trade and later production. Therefore I think it's natural a very nice balancing element that if you are going to build them, you also have a cost in the form of having to defend it.

For planning strategic defence, I think you get more of that without restricting infrastructure, than if you do. As I said, without it it's just to build roads eveyrwhere, but without it, you will have to carefully consider the beneifts against the potential costs, think of choke-points, fortresses and all kinds of scenarios. Even pillaging will be done.

More strategic planning when attacking with restrictinfo is in a way true. Because you need more turns to move, and assuming you will use equal time strategizing each turn, then just by taking longer, there will be more strategizing. To me this isn't really more strategizing, just extending the duration of the game, and because of that, having more strategy. It's not more strategy pr turn.

It's really easy really. If you don't like rails, don't make them. You will avoid sudden death situations, but there will be a price. That's life! You have to take the good with the bad.

Re: Ideas for better online game experience

Posted: Thu Aug 17, 2017 12:28 pm
by Corbeau
pungtryne wrote:
Corbeau wrote:Because ther is no such thing as "enemy-free terrain" unless it's in your rear. An army just doesn't rush headlong into enemy territory, even if it is semingly free. When an invading force moves along the road, it mostly moves off-road at an off-road speed.


Hitler rushed headlong into Denmark (seemingly and facutally undefended) in WW2. It took him 6 hours with minimal losses. Maybe you should go back in time and tell Hitler he was wrong, that an army "an army just doesn't rush headlong into enemy territory, even if it is semingly free"? They even used the rails into Denmark, that's how undefended they were.

Oh, cool, you've found one example and won the discussion because I'm lazy to pull twenty others that prove you're wrong. Sure, let's base the game mechanics on exceptions because that is more logical than basing it on more common cases.

Wieder, I prefer the games to be realistic because that's what the games are all about ;) The main reason we don't want "sudden death" is because it repels players, and one of the reasons it repels players is that it isn't based on reality.

When in doubt, always ask one question: is it realistic / does it make sense ?