Accounts e-mail HP

Genral discussion about game setup

A hex-based game organized by Morphles

Re: Genral discussion about game setup

Postby morphles » Wed Apr 16, 2014 1:21 pm

@monami:
as Corbeau says, cities are easier to protect, but there is even more important problem. From my experience narrow 1 cell wide isthumses are quite rare on hex, and even on squares, they might be quite hard to come by, and they get progresively rarer as the map grows. With chanel base (at least my implementation) you can cross 3 squares wide if one of them is city, and it avoids (what I consider nonsense) adjacent cities. Also channells can be pillaged if left undefended for even one turn.

@Corbeau:
I doubt you can remove it from game withoug code modifications. I would rather freeciv had "right of passage" agreement from some civ game. Then all alliance would do is allow entering same square for different nations. To be fair, how does war peace have any limitation on alliance? As far as I can remember you can enter alliance immediatly, so its hard to see your point.
morphles
Co-Admin of GT10-Hexmap
 
Posts: 446
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 4:43 pm

Re: Genral discussion about game setup

Postby ifaesfu » Wed Apr 16, 2014 1:22 pm

Corbeau, see the sociological tab of the game settings. You can set tech, gold and city trading there.
If diplomacy is enabled, you will always be able to change maps, vision, make treaties... But those 3 settings can be set separately.

As it's known, to disable tech trading has little impact on the game, as it can be very easily overtaken by stealing or conquering.
Gold trading isn't a big problem, in my opinion.
I don't like the concept of city trading itself and even less their "hidden" effects. Anyway, you can always change cities if you are in war and you leave them empty.
User avatar
ifaesfu
 
Posts: 242
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 1:03 pm
Location: Huelva, Spain

Re: Genral discussion about game setup

Postby morphles » Wed Apr 16, 2014 1:27 pm

ifaesfu, exactly, I have seen that happen some times (at least twice in gt8, not sure exactly on how many cities). So in effect all city trade disabled does is make it a bit harder. If city trading has its problems (and arguably there are some), this does not seem like a good way to solve them.
morphles
Co-Admin of GT10-Hexmap
 
Posts: 446
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 4:43 pm

Re: Genral discussion about game setup

Postby ifaesfu » Wed Apr 16, 2014 1:35 pm

morphles, the problem of war/peace for an alliance is that you can't enter one if you are in war with any of them. If you want to ally with player A, and player A is already allied with player B, you need to be at peace with B too before being able to ally with A.
Anyway, it is good. I wouldn't like to start the game at peace with the rest of the nations.
User avatar
ifaesfu
 
Posts: 242
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 1:03 pm
Location: Huelva, Spain

Re: Genral discussion about game setup

Postby Corbeau » Wed Apr 16, 2014 1:42 pm

ifaesfu wrote:Corbeau, see the sociological tab of the game settings. You can set tech, gold and city trading there.
If diplomacy is enabled, you will always be able to change maps, vision, make treaties... But those 3 settings can be set separately.

Yes, you can, but only for a whole game. You can't set it so that, for example, you can make peace with a player immediately (to remove the "forbidden alliance" effect), and then trade stuff only after you exchange embassies.

As it's known, to disable tech trading has little impact on the game, as it can be very easily overtaken by stealing or conquering.

I think this is the third time since I got here that someone mentions this. Why is the idea of disabling tech stealing/conquering so hard to comprehend?

I don't like the concept of city trading itself and even less their "hidden" effects.

Like what? Thise "hidden effect" are either not a problem or can be remedied.

Anyway, you can always change cities if you are in war and you leave them empty.

Messy, complicated and limitation-imposing. I don't like limitations.
User avatar
Corbeau
 
Posts: 505
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2014 1:23 am

Re: Genral discussion about game setup

Postby ifaesfu » Wed Apr 16, 2014 2:56 pm

Corbeau wrote:Yes, you can, but only for a whole game. You can't set it so that, for example, you can make peace with a player immediately (to remove the "forbidden alliance" effect), and then trade stuff only after you exchange embassies.

Of course, you can't. Contactturn setting is general. You can't set a different contactturn for making peace and another one for trading gold. Anyway, I don't see it is bad. Games are long enough to make peace. What's the rush?

I think this is the third time since I got here that someone mentions this. Why is the idea of disabling tech stealing/conquering so hard to comprehend?

What do you mean?

Like what? Thise "hidden effect" are either not a problem or can be remedied.

One of the thing I don't like is to be able to transfer all cities in the borders to democratic nations to prevent a diplomat from inciting a revolt. But it's not too bad compared with some things I have heard that can be done. I can't detail nor even name them, because I read about the tricks a long time ago, but it seems there are many annonying tricks regarding this setting.

Messy, complicated and limitation-imposing. I don't like limitations.

All the contrary for me. The more complications for bigger group of players (alliances), the better for the gameplay.
User avatar
ifaesfu
 
Posts: 242
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 1:03 pm
Location: Huelva, Spain

Re: Genral discussion about game setup

Postby Corbeau » Wed Apr 16, 2014 3:59 pm

ifaesfu wrote:
Corbeau wrote:Yes, you can, but only for a whole game. You can't set it so that, for example, you can make peace with a player immediately (to remove the "forbidden alliance" effect), and then trade stuff only after you exchange embassies.

Of course, you can't. Contactturn setting is general. You can't set a different contactturn for making peace and another one for trading gold. Anyway, I don't see it is bad. Games are long enough to make peace. What's the rush?

No rush for peace, but yes rush for an alliance ;)

I think this is the third time since I got here that someone mentions this. Why is the idea of disabling tech stealing/conquering so hard to comprehend?

What do you mean?

A bit harder to explain when you remove the original quote: "As it's known, to disable tech trading has little impact on the game, as it can be very easily overtaken by stealing or conquering."

So, in order to make "no tech trade" have more impact on the game, why not disable - or make harder - stealing or conquering.

Like what? Thise "hidden effect" are either not a problem or can be remedied.

One of the thing I don't like is to be able to transfer all cities in the borders to democratic nations to prevent a diplomat from inciting a revolt.

Hm, yeah, that is a problem. Dwell on that, I will.

Messy, complicated and limitation-imposing. I don't like limitations.

All the contrary for me. The more complications for bigger group of players (alliances), the better for the gameplay.

Well, it depends what kind of complication. Suppose you simply want to pass on a town to your alliance mate. Simply, some territorial consolidation. (Let's ignore the abuses for a moment.) You need to:
- break the alliance
- declare war
- however, declaring war creates problems for your alliances with other people who are in alliance with both you and your alliance mate
- take over the town (which, BTW, loses 1 population and, possibly, some buildings)
- make cease-fire an then alliance, patch up all the diplomatic mess that was created around you.

And all of that simply because you wanted to streighten out your borders. (Again, let's ignore the abuses which dwell on, I will.)

Definitely not the kind of complication I'd enjoy.
User avatar
Corbeau
 
Posts: 505
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2014 1:23 am

Re: Genral discussion about game setup

Postby monamipierrot » Wed Apr 16, 2014 5:44 pm

Corbeau wrote: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.


Why there's only one Queen in Chess? Cause we need something that not only outranks, but that it also is "Special". If we allow Bishops to move orthogonally (althou under some limited conditions) then Queen would not be, how can I say... a Queen! It would be an enhanced Bishop.

What I really really really miss in longturn games is the importance of single topology features which concentrate in a few tiles (or one tile) the whole result of a campaign, or of a war. I miss tiny "Iron bottom" straits, thin stripes of blood-red beaches, forgotten mountains whose swiss-cheese holes are the tomb of generations of soldiers. I miss those kind of otherwise uninteresting geographical features whose name passed to history only for some awful battle which decided the life or death of millions.

I will always strongly support any feature that enhance the importance of that very few tiles. E.G. I will strongly support the x3 movement (which enhance importance of terrain type), the generation of fractal maps with nearly-earth feauteres, the review of river bonuses etc. etc.

I will strongly disagree with everything which make it easier to "domesticate" the map: terraforming ("transforming") above all. (I would leave the transforming abilities to some "modern" tech, but I would like multiply x10 the cost of the work. Want land over sea? WORK HARD!!!!)
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 » Wed Apr 16, 2014 6:18 pm

These things are something I can mostly agree. But channel base, esp the one I suggested with limits of placement. Make chances of that happening much bigger. If map has no 1 tile isthmuses, well there are no 1 isthmuses by definition, if it has couple, and they are controlled by strong alliance or player (which is quite likely), you can almost forget about any action there, hard to take hard to keep, well defended and surrounded. Now if you make them more common they have more chances of ending up in more wild territory where stuff can happen. There some caveats, but having unique location there nothing happens due to geopolitical situations does not add much.
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 6:58 pm

monamipierrot wrote:x3 movement (which enhance importance of terrain type)

What do you mean?
User avatar
Corbeau
 
Posts: 505
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2014 1:23 am

PreviousNext

Return to GT10-Hexmap

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron