25-08-2004 08:40									#301
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

excellent stuff old chap

	30-08-2004 10:03									#302
	Battle Reports Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I haven't stressed the issue of battle reporting in the games up until now and this has resulted in a disagreement in the B coliseum.

A brief summary of the discussion so far:

quote: Combat reports were brought up at the beginning of the thread, so I'd say they are part of the ground rules agreed to for this game. A brief list of lost hitpoints and units should do...

quote: In that case I must decline. The blindness between turns have been part of PBEMs from the beginning and was also integral in my planning prior to the attack on your forces. Forcing you and your allies to guess how much strength I have left is an advantage I will not part with easily.

quote: The other stuff isn't the information I've requested. I play this game in its spirit and I think it's in its spirit to know the outcome of a battle. It doesn't make me angry in any way that I lost that battle. I had to smile at my own suprise when I was trying to find my troops. Good job, . What does irritate me by now is your reluctancy. Battle reports on every battle is too much work to my opinion and in the field one is able to see the damage on either party by themselve. Therefore my request over this case, where nothing can be seen.

quote: It all boils down do a simple question: Are combat reports part of this games rules? If it is, I will of course abide and give you it to you. The reason I'm asking is that I checked the first few pages of this thread and couldn't find an answer. Rommel2D asked about that and galley chaining in one of the first posts. While there was a consensus to allow galley-chaining, no decision was made about combat-reports. Flandrien said yes(at least I think he did, his post was somewhat ambigous), but he was the only one voicing an opinion. Here's from the rules btw: 4-2 If players agree to it in advance, the offensive player in a battle must send a combat report listing the resulting details to the defender 25% Aye and 75% quiet isn't exactly a clear answer...

quote: In going back, I'd have said one yea and no nays or objections would mean that battle reports were expected. I understand someone's reluctance to go through the extra work of keeping track and reporting, but using this flaw in the game design as part of a battle strategy reeks of exploitation to me...

Again, I wasn't very insistant on explicit responses, but as it was brought up, recieved an affirmative response with absolutely no negative comments until this came up, it looks to me like battle reporting was part the the accepted ettiquette for the game. As long as a resolution is reached and the game continues, I'm not insisting having them included however.

I'll be expanding on the relevant point in the ettiquette/exploit section, but I think it should be discussed some more first...

	30-08-2004 10:24									#303
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: originally posted by Bongo: You can tell people get emotional when they are referring to 'how the game should be played'. Several of the rules here(city gifting to mention one) are made to restrict peoples choices, and in my eyes force them to behave more like AIs.

Only so far as AI programming does not require any means to limit actions they are not programmed to take. Everything on the etiquette/exploit list covers instances where natural intelligence produces strategies that subvert general consensus on how the game should work, that game designers never considered because the AI cannot implement them.

quote: To me, PBEM is to do all the things an AI would never do. Some rules needs to be observed of course, but the fewer the better. The in-between-turn blindness may be a flaw in the game(more like a not implemented feature) but it is a flaw that affects everyone in the same manner. And like any other game mechanic, I will take advantage of it when I see fit.

The game is Civilization and loosely based on an objective concept. If we're going to disregard the basic consistency of the game's idea and use programming shortcomings to enhance strategies, I'd rather play Chinese Checkers. I think there are endless opportunities to improve on AI performance simply within the confines of how players build their cities and maneuver their units without exceeding the intentions of the game's design...

	30-08-2004 10:28									#304
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

personally I find them a waste of time and effort

we all know the many faults in the system and play the game anyway

	30-08-2004 10:33									#305
	Increase Your PM Length

To ME, PBEM is about playing Civ against other people. As such, there are several strategies that i'd never consider using in a PBEM that i happily use in AI games (such as freely making and breaking treaties at will, or building flipper cities). It's not about abusing rules or exploiting flaws. That's just childish.

The in between blindness is a flaw in the game *that makes it less playable*. If there were a 'flaw' in the game that made (for instance) settlers die instead of bulid a city when you push "b", would you be ok with that? Admittedly an absurd instance, but a valid comparison. It makes the game harder to play to not know what the results of a battle are -- so we use battle reports to solve that problem.

Rommel, I personally think you should include battle reports in the IC rules. This exploit -- which is exactly what it is -- is more harmful in many ways than a lot of other exploits you mention here to gameplay.

	30-08-2004 10:38									#306
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Paddy the Scot personally I find them a waste of time and effort we all know the many faults in the system and play the game anyway

But we know how to fix some of those faults, and it's a lot more fun to play a game with less faults than with more. It takes a very short time indeed to write up a battle report, whether it be super-detailed or just "Four horsemen attacked three spearmen; spearmen dead, one horseman left with 2hp".

Civ is a game of *strategy*. Knowing your opponent's strength is a key element of strategy, and given the lack of espionage options in Civ, pretty much your only way to know how many units your opponent has is to keep track of the ones that he or she lost in battle, and the number that he or she used in battle. Given the hours and hours we devote to each game, is an extra minute to add what you killed onto your turn post too much to ask?

	30-08-2004 10:49									#307
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

I think a defender has every right to know what units were used in an attack. If you don't want to reveal part of your military strength to your opponent, then don't attack.

Besides which, the number of units attacking at a particular point in time can hardly be used to extrapolate into a statement about one's entire army.....unless of course Bongo has Cavalry for example, and doesn't want the others to know yet

	30-08-2004 11:02									#308
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by snoopy369 But we know how to fix some of those faults, and it's a lot more fun to play a game with less faults than with more. It takes a very short time indeed to write up a battle report, whether it be super-detailed or just "Four horsemen attacked three spearmen; spearmen dead, one horseman left with 2hp". Civ is a game of *strategy*. Knowing your opponent's strength is a key element of strategy, and given the lack of espionage options in Civ, pretty much your only way to know how many units your opponent has is to keep track of the ones that he or she lost in battle, and the number that he or she used in battle. Given the hours and hours we devote to each game, is an extra minute to add what you killed onto your turn post too much to ask?

well said - and good points

	30-08-2004 13:25									#309
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

The in-between-turns blindness may be a flaw in the game, but it is one that makes the game get *closer* to reality, not further away from it. One of the things that always struck me as highly unrealistic is that you could send units on suicide missions which they never returned from but you would still be able to get all kind of info in return.

I fail to see why an army that is completely destroyed deep into enemy territory should bring back any info at all. After all, none survived to tell the news.

But that's just unfocused rambling from someone who learnt to play PBEM *before* he was introduced to the combat report concept.



Is combat reports required in cososseum B then? From my PoV no. To be required either of the following would have to had taken place.
1) A consensus among the players
2) An admin statement saying yes or no.
One 'yes', one 'don't care' and two silent votes is not a consensus, but the one 'yes' would have been enough had the admin formally closed the matter in some way. He didn't so I can only assume the base rule holds(no combat reports).

	30-08-2004 15:23									#310
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Bongo, you where subbed in for somebody, yes? When you jonied, did you state your opinion on combat reports? That's the rub for me.. if you didn't intent giving any, and it is mentioned in the rules as something the players need to agree on, then if there are no negative responses and one positive followed by a "I'll go along with that, I am flexible" then I feel you should have stated you didn't intend giving reports when you joined.

	30-08-2004 16:36									#311
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

I did not explicitly state my opinion on anything when I joined. But joining in the first place more than suggest my willingness to follow the rules.

Combat reports are *not* part of the basic rules, and the vote to include them in colosseum B were never closed. One more 'yes' vote would've been enough, or a simple 'combat reports required' statement from Rommel2D.

We briefly discussed combat reports on page 14 of the turn-tracker. Some of the other players gave reports when they attacked my troops, but after a brief exchange of views(I was against it) the reporting stopped. I have not made any reports so far in the game, and until now, noone has asked me to do so.

Unless the admin tells me otherwise, I will not write any either.

	30-08-2004 20:49									#312
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by bongo The in-between-turns blindness may be a flaw in the game, but it is one that makes the game get *closer* to reality, not further away from it. One of the things that always struck me as highly unrealistic is that you could send units on suicide missions which they never returned from but you would still be able to get all kind of info in return.

The game's units are represtative of large combat forces. It's hard to think of any large scale battle where disgnated messengers, a spattering of retreating forces, scattering civilians, or even a grapevine on the victorious side doesn't convey the gist of the battle back to the opposing generals. A small group attacking deep into enemy territory might be one such instance, but wasn't the case in question your attacking of a very heavily defended enemy city? McMeadows himself said he wouldn't have otherwise asked for a report...

	30-08-2004 22:16									#313
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

I was marching (2 tiles) into his territory with 10 units, when lightning struck. Battles of the Ancient time are nowadays made into spectacular movies, because they were reported. The biggest army the Vikings had ever known was evaporated like a drop of water in the scorching sun.

I don't like the rules & guidelines around a game that is there to enjoy and is particularly outside the true world. Nevertheless I have strong feelings on what's fair and what's not (to me). This great battle, where all the tactical honour goes out to bongo and which most probably has decided the game, was not a battle that was decided in on attack. At least 9 units of bongo were required to stop my men. The first sightings of the horror of this slaughter has, without doubt, the general of the Viking army to decide that Scandinavia should be warned for the might of the Mongolian army and he must have sent a messenger home. If this messenger was caught by the Mongolians, I would like to appeal to the Convention of Apolyton,.. release my PoW.

In other words. In every civ game I played (SP), I've been watching my troops win or lose in every participating battle and due to a flaw in PBEM I have not been able to do so now. I'm no fan of having to report every battle, but I think if one requests, it should be honoured.

	30-08-2004 22:37									#314
	Inflate your Upload Space

My humble opinion: This is not about realism, it's about a set of rules you agreed upon before the game started. It looks like the initial players agreed to all optional rules except ship chaining, which would include battle reports.

By the way, I like battle reports because you get to see how lucky/unlucky you were. I gain some consolation when I lose a battle because of a bad RNG, instead of of bad tactics.

Also, in such tournaments where we go to the trouble to make it harder to cheat (by having Rommel set the passwords, for example), battle reports are another element that discourages cheating (a player who is always lucky on the attack is suspicious, for example).

	31-08-2004 01:48									#315
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by McMeadows ... Battles of the Ancient time are nowadays made into spectacular movies, because they were reported...

Don't worry, like the bloodshed of old it will eventually be reported. I am more than happy to write an AAR when this game is over

quote: ... Nevertheless I have strong feelings on what's fair and what's not (to me)...

Ah, fairness. Tough subject that is, depends heavily on the eye of the beholder. That's why we have rules...

quote: ...If this messenger was caught by the Mongolians...

Maybe he was, I had several armed scouts positioned between your invading army and your closest friendly position. Getting home in a situation like that could be very difficult indeed.




Game mechanics(or lack thereof) and ethics aside. To me this boils down to two subjects. Preferences and rules. (rules being the key issue)

I prefere to play without reports. I have learnt to use the blindness to my advantage and I expect others to do the same to me.

If I take part in a game where players agree on reporting, I will of course give it to them. My point is that combat reports are optional, and no decision was made to include them in colosseum B. Therefore, I have played under the assumption that combat reports were not required. I am not happy when someone wants to make 'changes' to the rules midgame that will be to my disadvantage.




Oh, I didn't make a full turn-report for my own use either. But I am pretty sure losses/promotions/HPs can be deducted by comparing the saves before and after.

	31-08-2004 02:03									#316
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by bongo My point is that combat reports are optional, and no decision was made to include them in colosseum B.

Actually, from what I can see from the turn thread, the initial players agreed to follow all optional rules, with the exception of ship chaining.

	31-08-2004 03:35									#317
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by alexman Actually, from what I can see from the turn thread, the initial players agreed to follow all optional rules, with the exception of ship chaining.

That was my reading as well.

	31-08-2004 05:37									#318
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

I just reread the turn thread and i quote the following:

quote: originally posted by Flandrien I suppose you refer to ship chaining and combat reports. I would say yes to both.

quote: originally posted by Conqueror I also declare my agreement on all things mentioned on etiquette/exploit list If anyone has other things in mind that need to be agreed on before the game starts, or you dont agree with the exploit list , now is the time to speak Let the games begin

quote: originally posted by LzPrst I agree with the exploit list, except ship chaining, I feel this should be allowed... but if there is consensus among the rest I'll give in to the will of the majority.

quote: originally posted by McMeadows I have accepted the invite and just read the rules. I'm ok with them. Most of the exploits I wasn't even aware of. ...snip... (a question about another game)

That's the original four posters. Not only did all four agree to all elements of the etiquette/exploit list, except for ship chaining, but Conqueror's post is pretty clear: If you don't agree with the exploit list, now is the time to post. All four in agreement, plus nobody making any statements otherwise, makes it crystal clear to me that Iron Civer Colliseum B is playing with combat reports as mandatory.

	31-08-2004 12:21									#319
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by snoopy369 ...All four in agreement, plus nobody making any statements otherwise, makes it crystal clear to me that Iron Civer Colliseum B is playing with combat reports as mandatory.

Please read the rules and thread again.


4. Options

4-1 Naval chains are allowed unless players agree otherwise in advance.

4-1.1 Chaining naval transports to quickly move land units across water

4-2 If players agree to it in advance, the offensive player in a battle must send a combat report listing the resulting details to the defender.

Combat reports are optional. Optional means 'if you want it'. For combat reports to be required you need an explicit statement saying they are in. No such statement was made.

	31-08-2004 12:34									#320
	IC e/e Clarification Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Here's my tentative clarification of the Iron Civer etiquette/exploits on combat reporting:

There are 4 basic levels of combat reporting;

Level 1>
(The default level to be used unless there is a consensus to use one of the other levels.)
A summary of combat results is required to be sent to the defender if, and only if, they make any sort of inquiry soon afterward.
['soon' should allow for a few turns to realize a unit is missing, but could only be one turn cycle for simplicity if the attacker wants to be a hard-ass about it. :-]

Level 0>
No reporting whatsoever, unless the attacker feels like gloating.

Level 2>
A player making any attack must indicate to the defender that it has taken place and provide a brief summary of units involved, along with damage taken.

Level 2.5>
Same as level 2, except any unit moving into and out of another player's fog of war on the same turn must be reported.

Level 3>
A player making any attack must indicate to the defender that it has taken palce and provide a detailed account of each unit's location and resulting damage status.

Level 3.5>
Same as level 3, except any unit moving into and out of another player's fog of war on the same turn must be reported.

All information need only pass between the affected parties. Post it in the turn thread only if you wish to broadcast results to the world (or are too lazy to make a seperate email )

From what I've seen, most players would choose to play with either level 1 or 2, although 0 and 3 would appeal to some players on occasion. 2.5 and 3.5 I threw in because they seem like glaring ommisions to date in the reporting I've seen, but important nonetheless.

Last edited by Rommel2D on 31-08-2004 at 13:18

	31-08-2004 12:34									#321
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by bongo I prefere to play without reports. I have learnt to use the blindness to my advantage and I expect others to do the same to me.

In my estimation, most players won't make this assumption when playing the game. When I started reading up on Civ III PBEM here a year and a half ago, the combat visibility problem was one of the fist and most consistant complaints about the game and I've continually come across it since. PBEM is essentially a multiplayer version of the SP game and as such, the 'average' player who doesn't put much thought into improving or exploiting the system, would expect combat feedback somewhat equivalent to what is experienced in SP.

Since it seems the game has come to a halt pending a decision on this, I'll say the game should progress using Level 1 reporting as outlined above, starting with a summary of the battle in question. If everyone agrees to continue from here at a different level, the change would take effect next time McMeadows plays his turn.

(As others have indicated, I read the set-up thread to indicate something closer to level 2, but since no one has shown much interest in active reporting, level 1 seems more appropriate. The old wording simply said 'agreement', it did not discern between explicit or implicit. I took the conversation to be implicit agreement.)

	31-08-2004 13:09									#322
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

The decision is not totally to my liking but I am nonetheless glad it was made.


Any guidelines on the level of detail on level 1 reports? Lost units? Lost HPs? Bombard results? Retreats? Promotions? Promotions among defenders? Leaders? Composition of attackers?


Problem with reporting movement in and out of enemys fog-of-war is that on occasion(armies, subs, fortified ships) you will be unaware that you have been inside his range of vision.

	31-08-2004 13:15									#323
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by alexman Also, in such tournaments where we go to the trouble to make it harder to cheat (by having Rommel set the passwords, for example), battle reports are another element that discourages cheating (a player who is always lucky on the attack is suspicious, for example).

I'll reinforce this idea. In my first PBEM I played before I even had a notion of combat reporting, two of the other players were eliminated and/or halfheartedly quit, telling me they thought the eventual winner was reloading because his attacks were so successful. After the game, I asked him about it and it sounded like he used information denial tactics similar to Bongo's. Perhaps admirable in retrospect, but at the time it made the game a miserable experience, with the 'cheat' possibility constantly lingering...

	31-08-2004 13:30									#324
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by bongo Any guidelines on the level of detail on level 1 reports? Lost units? Lost HPs? Bombard results? Retreats? Promotions? Promotions among defenders? Leaders? Composition of attackers?

I'm thinking a summary of all units taking part in the combat, lost or surviving, with resulting HP levels. No need to recount each individual combat result. Promotions would already be evident, but GLs should be noted.

	31-08-2004 13:30									#325
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

It still feels like I'm being punished because the majority of players are unable to cope with the blindness like I do.


'Information denial' huh? Good name for a strong concept

	31-08-2004 16:05									#326
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by bongo It still feels like I'm being punished because the majority of players are unable to cope with the blindness like I do. 'Information denial' huh? Good name for a strong concept

well here's looking forward to all these action reports...

certainly hope you don't have to many units in a war at any one time...

	31-08-2004 16:26									#327
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by bongo It still feels like I'm being punished because the majority of players are unable to cope with the blindness like I do. 'Information denial' huh? Good name for a strong concept

Bongo ... you're not being punished, and it's not that the majority of players are 'unable to cope with the blindness'. We all *could* play with blindness.

The majority of players do not WANT to cope with the blindness, do not feel like it is either fair or fun.

And each and every one of the four initial players (well, counting mcmeadows as an initial player) agreed with reports. Read Rommel's statement at the top of the iron civer B colliseum , not the general one in this thread, and then read the wording of each player's agreement. Only McMeadows, in fact, is remotely vague about it (and i think it's pretty obvious how he clarifys his agreement here ).

edit: More specifically, it's pretty obvious to me that each player that said "agree with the ett/exp list" meant by that "agree with combat reports" based on Rommel's wording of that initial post (well post #2 really), but i suppose i could see how you'd not read it that way. Nonetheless, the fact that none of the players did anything that could be remotely construed -- at all -- as disagreeing tells me that my reading is probably correct. Rommel ... next time i suggest a more ... affirmative statement for people to agree with though, one way or the other...

	31-08-2004 16:51									#328
	Put an end to popups!

In a way we're all beta testers of the tournament set-up. Rommel2D's aim was to set a guideline for PBEM. I have proclaimed before that I don't like too many rules, but I'm nonetheless acting according to the standard set here in other games as well. The importance of establishing an embassy with another civ has gone up quite a few notches for me.

As Paddy likes to say, it's all good...

	31-08-2004 16:52									#329
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by snoopy369 ... Rommel ... next time i suggest a more ... affirmative statement for people to agree with though, one way or the other...

That's what I've been missing all the time.

The initial wording in the etiquette/exploit list indicate that were will be no reporting unless players agree to it in advance. I still can't see such agreement was made in the turn-thread for colosseum B. Their agreement was to the list in general, not to the optional points. Ah well, a moot point now the admin finally decided to intervene

	31-08-2004 20:58									#330
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by bongo Problem with reporting movement in and out of enemys fog-of-war is that on occasion(armies, subs, fortified ships) you will be unaware that you have been inside his range of vision.

I'd guess this would still cover > 95% of the cases, as these units are rare, and once encountered, the moving unit would likely end it's turn in site of them anyway.