I've never run Unciv! First i'm hearing of it honestly. I'll have to check it out.

I can say from this experience, the first 24-72 hours of the game was people just complaining in our group chat that the FreeCiv client sucks (it really does). I'm very tempted to jump in and make a few improvements, there's a really awful bug that impacts the ability to move stacked units - and if the diplomacy state changes while units are in the territory of a previous ally, they are unable to move whereas in Civ2 (legit Civ) they just get auto-pushed back to the borders immediately.

▲

karmakurtisaani 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> whereas in Civ2 (legit Civ) they just get auto-pushed back to the borders immediatly.

Maybe you're thinking Civ 3? Civ 2 doesn't have borders. If you have units close to other civ's city, they will demand you to withdraw. If you agree, they're teleported to your nearest city.

	▲	verelo 11 hours ago \| parent [-]
		ah yes you're right! Regardless, i don't think they're mean to get stuck haha. The more offensive element of this issue to me is that the UX gives no feedback, it just doesn't work and gives an audible buzz.

▲

senkora 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You may know this already, but the different FreeCiv clients are pretty different from each other. It's been a couple of years since I've played FreeCiv, but IIRC the QT client was the nicest at that time.

	▲	verelo 11 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Yeah, so that's another lesson I learnt during the early phases. I've been using the gtk4 client personally, but someone else suggested the QT client. I do think the QT client is a bit better, but it is broken in different ways too. It's really confusing to me why there's so many frontends for this one app. I'm tempted to switch to the web interface next time, but figured for now figuring out how to mange the server was enough of a problem without taking on the responsibility for the client people were using at the same time.