Accounts e-mail HP

Genral discussion about game setup

A hex-based game organized by Morphles

Genral discussion about game setup

Postby morphles » Mon Feb 24, 2014 6:09 pm

First and foremost, be sure to use hex tileset when connecting to this game (or set it in client options after connections)! Topology will not be isomeric, so hex2t tileset is recommended.

Second, most likely this will be fractal map, with specifics to be decided. I can almos guarantee that this game will not be scenario game. :)

Third I would like to incorporate more "information warfare" into the game. But I'll leave this to polls. Also since I intend to draw some inspiration from gt9 I'll waite untill some turns have passed there before posting serious polls.

Edit: I'm thinking of keepings all polls open till 5-7 days before game starts, though exceptions might be likely. I will clearly state if/how the poll passed/results were interpreted by me and thus what effects it will have on game.

So much for now, I'll try to keep this post updated with progress.
morphles
Co-Admin of GT10-Hexmap
 
Posts: 446
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 4:43 pm

Re: Genral discussion about game setup

Postby morphles » Sat Mar 01, 2014 9:27 pm

I'm very strongly considering significantly lower special count for this game. Likely 25, maybe 10 (default is 250). Though I should probably try playing couple of games with bots with such settings, but from tons of maps I gennerated while experimenting with rulesets rare specials seem jus so much better. Thoughs? Maybe someone here tried playing games with low specials settings? Any thoughs on 0 specials games? (Though I'm not proposing/supporting this for this game, but mind can be changed)
morphles
Co-Admin of GT10-Hexmap
 
Posts: 446
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 4:43 pm

Re: Genral discussion about game setup

Postby monamipierrot » Mon Mar 03, 2014 3:12 pm

morphles wrote:I'm very strongly considering significantly lower special count for this game. Likely 25, maybe 10 (default is 250). Though I should probably try playing couple of games with bots with such settings, but from tons of maps I gennerated while experimenting with rulesets rare specials seem jus so much better. Thoughs? Maybe someone here tried playing games with low specials settings? Any thoughs on 0 specials games? (Though I'm not proposing/supporting this for this game, but mind can be changed)

It could be interesting if we also modify the special bonus to be higher than default. Anyway, 10 is very low.
Also interesting could be a insanely high bonus for remote specials, such as glacier specials. Say the ivory special means 2food+12prod+2trade or something like that! Providing that there will be just some 10 of them in the whole map, There could be a hurry for pole exploration. Even better if we live in a doughnut world (poles are bigger and even more "remote")
Peoviding that we live in a wet and hot planet with big and hostile jungle areas, some insane special could be also given to gems (12trade) or fruits (12food).
monamipierrot
Co-Admin of GT01, GT10-Hex.
 
Posts: 444
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2012 8:43 pm
Location: Barcelona, Spain

Re: Genral discussion about game setup

Postby morphles » Tue Mar 04, 2014 5:33 pm

Yes 10 is kidna low, but I see no real problem with that, though I guess 25 might be better, maybe 50.
Big bonuses are quite troublesome as if someone ends up near one he will have that big advantage. Very nice alternative thoug is to give significant, maybe even huge bonus, but that could only be utilized in later part of the game, due to bonus requiring some tech or improvement.

Another thing that I think could be nice (and by the way all these things go for more than just this game) is resources that are a bit more special in different ways :). Consider civ3, it had strategic resources, for now this is not implementable (might come in 2.6, thats not soon) and would require significant work. However civ3 also had another kind of resource - luxury resources, those would give happines to city/ies if they were in your teritory and connected. Connected part is not implementable in freeciv for now (and as I understood from talks on irc one should not expect such stuff too soon:) . But we still can give some resources luxury bonus, if only for the city that is working the tile (alternative ajacent city could also get the bonus). As happines is quite important (and somethat annoying thing to fight) this might add quite a nice variaty to the game. Though first I have to try to implement it in ruleset to see if I can get it working.
morphles
Co-Admin of GT10-Hexmap
 
Posts: 446
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 4:43 pm

Re: Genral discussion about game setup

Postby morphles » Tue Mar 04, 2014 5:37 pm

I'm also thinking about "channel" bases dual, bridge base(more like mega bridge I'd guess, still). Build in water adjacent to land, allows land units to cross water, while still allowing ships to pass. Realisticly though considering the scale such things should be quite advanced (think at least adv flight level tech). But maybe it could be better to have them earlier.

Regarding channels I would prefer cities to not channel, and to create channel that you would need to build that channel, though that is non resolvable. So...
morphles
Co-Admin of GT10-Hexmap
 
Posts: 446
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 4:43 pm

Re: Genral discussion about game setup

Postby Corbeau » Wed Apr 16, 2014 12:22 pm

Would anyone be interested to see some change with tech sharing and diplomacy? For example, GT09 has: contactturns=0, unlimited tech sharing and no trading of cities. I'd like to see at least some of it change (preferably all, but that's just me). Anyone else? Thoughts?

Also, a general question: is it possible to separate making treaties from tech/money/other exchange? For example, if I make contact with someone, I'd like to be able to make peace with him, but nothing else?
User avatar
Corbeau
 
Posts: 505
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2014 1:23 am

Re: Genral discussion about game setup

Postby morphles » Wed Apr 16, 2014 12:41 pm

I'm definetly unwilling to change contact turns.

For tech trading, even though I'm starting to dislike current tech situation very much, there are no sane ways to limit that, and excluding it (if possible) is also undesirable.

Considering that cities can be traded anyways, I'm thinking that it might be possible to enable that.

Peace, war, alliance, they realistically mean very little in game, actions are what matter, so I wouldn't worry about it much. And there does not seem to be a way to separate that. For what is worth I would probably like game drop such concepts entierly.
morphles
Co-Admin of GT10-Hexmap
 
Posts: 446
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 4:43 pm

Re: Genral discussion about game setup

Postby monamipierrot » Wed Apr 16, 2014 12:50 pm

morphles wrote:I'm also thinking about "channel" bases dual, bridge base(more like mega bridge I'd guess, still). Build in water adjacent to land, allows land units to cross water, while still allowing ships to pass. Realisticly though considering the scale such things should be quite advanced (think at least adv flight level tech). But maybe it could be better to have them earlier.

Regarding channels I would prefer cities to not channel, and to create channel that you would need to build that channel, though that is non resolvable. So...

I think one great thing about hexes is that a ship and a land unit CAN'T cross paths UNLESS on a city, a city that controls a isthmus (or a "channel" if yo prefer). This enormous importance of those cities should not be spoiled allowing players to build many similar and much cheaper means to bypass the few natural "city channels".
monamipierrot
Co-Admin of GT01, GT10-Hex.
 
Posts: 444
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2012 8:43 pm
Location: Barcelona, Spain

Re: Genral discussion about game setup

Postby Corbeau » Wed Apr 16, 2014 12:50 pm

Not much difference betwen war and peace, but alliance is definitely special because it allows moving units more freely. And creating alliance is technically made harder by the "war/peace" limitation.

Any way to remove the "at war" default?
User avatar
Corbeau
 
Posts: 505
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2014 1:23 am

Re: Genral discussion about game setup

Postby Corbeau » Wed Apr 16, 2014 12:52 pm

monamipierrot wrote:I think one great thing about hexes is that a ship and a land unit CAN'T cross paths UNLESS on a city, a city that controls a isthmus (or a "channel" if yo prefer). This enormous importance of those cities should not be spoiled allowing players to build many similar and much cheaper means to bypass the few natural "city channels".


Why exactly is this a problem? City still "outranks" the channel because it's easier to defend. If you build a channel, someone can just land some units and stop you from using it. If you build a city, conquest is much harder.
User avatar
Corbeau
 
Posts: 505
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2014 1:23 am

Next

Return to GT10-Hexmap

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron