15-11-2004 14:58									#451
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Pretty sure. My opinion is based on other posts here at poly(and some over at CFC), haven't done any testing myself though.

	16-11-2004 07:44									#452
	Suffering from ads?

I can easily imagine Firaxis taking care of some PBEM problems but not others, depending on the difficulty of coding them. If anyone can test and verify bongo's suggestion, great. I have no free time right now.

Otherwise it is a game mechanics problem that should be addressed.

Last edited by Rommel2D on 16-11-2004 at 07:57

	16-11-2004 13:07									#453
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Finally found the thread with the discussion:
http://apolyton.net/forums/showthre...threadid=121739

Here's another one at CFC about WW in general:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showt...?threadid=61628


Returning to the original question, if someone shows up in my territory heavily armed, war happiness is the least of my problems. Taking and defending territory is far more important than the care and well-being of your enemys population.

	18-11-2004 18:47									#454
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

It seems that the iron civ final is approaching. What about starting a new qualification round, starting 1/1/2005 for a new season? It wouldn't be that much of a problem to have the 2004 final run parallel to the 2005 qualification. (Or would we have to call it 2005 final, 2006 qualification?).

Up untill january we could have an evaluation on improvements.

A HUGE thank you to Rommel2D for keeping an eye on the games so far. It works to my opinion.

	18-11-2004 19:01									#455
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

I think McMeadows just volunteered to set up a new tourney

	18-11-2004 19:04									#456
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

I'n afraid I can't commit to what Rommel2D has been doing for the next year and furthermore I don't want to take over anything only he deserves credit for. I'm just eager to participate...

	18-11-2004 20:15									#457
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Should we discuss the tournament form btw? The winner of the final will still only be best of 16...

Does anyone know how to increase the number of players without increasing playing time too much?


Maybe add a pre-qualifier round? To compete in the semi-final you would have to win a qualifier game or be among the previous tournaments finalists?

	18-11-2004 21:34									#458
	Put an end to popups!

Iron b has decended into a slow-moving game with the outcome not in doubt

Bongo has been cautious, since he doesn't need to take any risks. And I've not been able to break out of our defensive positions, which are slowly narrowing in scope.

This might go on for awhile, although the Mongol's two AC armies can, with the impending help of bombardment from the mountain position shown, likely take down 3 pikes per turn, with a period of rest between turns. That seige will ultimately be enough to wear down the Russian numbers.

I don't think the near-term arrival of gunpowder will help. Muskets are pretty expensive and will be the first targets of the trebs.

So, we give up.

Well played and good luck to Bongo in the final.

Attachment: ironb.jpg
This has been downloaded 54 time(s).

	18-11-2004 21:39									#459
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by McMeadows I'n afraid I can't commit to what Rommel2D has been doing for the next year and furthermore I don't want to take over anything only he deserves credit for. I'm just eager to participate...

can't blame you there.

Perhaps Rommel's 4-person structure for the first round can be followed by a game with as many winners as there are finished first-round games. (We already have a couple of stranded winners from the c3c tourney )

And in place of one person trying to do all the supporting work, we could nominate a small team of people to monitor games, jointly make key decisions, and also particpate in games.

	18-11-2004 21:40									#460
	Increase the size of your Attachments

5 games with 5 players would also be an option. Or 6 in 6. With some carefull play order planning (as well as dividing the players over the games), should make it possible to make 5 turns a week. Maybe along the lines of the time slots in the 2 a day games, like:

player 1 - GMT 02:00-06:00
player 2 - GMT 06:00-10:00
player 3 - GMT 10:00-14:00
player 4 - GMT 14:00-18:00
player 5 - GMT 18:00-22:00
player 6 - GMT 22:00-02:00

I would be a player 2 or 5. It allows for regular play as I know when to expect my turn and be ready for it. Turns played over the weekend are just a bonus.

Thinking a bit more over the issue, to guarantee progression of the game when someone sees it coming he'll miss out on a session players can be paired with players from another game as their fixed stand-in. Like players A1 and B1 are paired, as well as say E3 and F3.
It can even be taken to the level that player A1 sends the save to player A2 and B2. If the game hasn't been (posted as) played (on Apolyton) at the moment the end time passes, B2 can play the game and send it to A3, B3 (and A2 so he/she can see what has been moved). This takes a bit more effort and I hope we can go with the first thought and everyone that sees it coming that he/she can't make it playing, sends his/her sub a notice to sub that turn.
Next to this, if someone doesn't leave a notice about not being able to play(to his sub) he can get a warning. 5 warnings and you're out (or something like that).

	18-11-2004 21:41									#461
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

An unexpected and surprising capitulation.....congratulations to Bongo, and commiserations to jshelr on a game clearly well strategised and fought from a difficult takeover position

	18-11-2004 21:48									#462
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Congrats bongo. Can't say I'm suprised. There's been one crucial battle. The aftermath of that battle allready made me think the game was done. Moreover the point has been proven that a very early SoZ does justify a 3-way alliance in every way...
Without wanting to do injustice to your strong play, you've been very lucky at some points. Or maybe we should say LzPrst has been very lucky. At least it has been rather an easy take over position rather than difficult...

	18-11-2004 21:48									#463
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by bongo Should we discuss the tournament form btw? The winner of the final will still only be best of 16... Does anyone know how to increase the number of players without increasing playing time too much? Maybe add a pre-qualifier round? To compete in the semi-final you would have to win a qualifier game or be among the previous tournaments finalists?

I'm fairly sure there was a lot of discussion before the tournament about how to do it, and 16 was the final agreed upon amount ... but I think there's a good solution.

Have the qualifier be an Elim game. 6 players on a small map, elimination style. You could accomodate say 48 players (up to) in 8 games, and qualify the top 2 from each game ... or 24 in 4 games, and qualify top 4, or out of 6 games qualify the top 2 in each game plus 4 more based on score when they finish or year, or whatnot. Elim games go pretty fast (i'm fairly sure ICAA will be over in a few weeks) and ICAA only took this long because of a long absence. Qualifiers would take on the order of 2 months (at most, i'd think, on a small map); you could end it when it broke down to the number of qualifying people, even, so you don't have to finish it out.

The other way to have quick qualifiers, of course, is a scenario. Rome for example is generally done in 3-4 months; some are faster (Mesopotamia for example could be very fast in the right circumstances - right, Rhoth? )

	18-11-2004 21:53									#464
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by McMeadows 5 games with 5 players would also be an option. Or 6 in 6. With some carefull play order planning (as well as dividing the players over the games), should make it possible to make 5 turns a week. Maybe along the lines of the time slots in the 2 a day games, like: player 1 - GMT 02:00-06:00 player 2 - GMT 06:00-10:00 player 3 - GMT 10:00-14:00 player 4 - GMT 14:00-18:00 player 5 - GMT 18:00-22:00 player 6 - GMT 22:00-02:00 I would be a player 2 or 5. It allows for regular play as I know when to expect my turn and be ready for it. Turns played over the weekend are just a bonus.

I suggest not having that large of a window. Why? Because you're only getting 1 turn per day anyhow, which you don't need slots to get (2 a day needs slots to ensure 2 turns, but 1 a day is easy to set up regardless of when people play - just get the order right.)

The problem is that you lose the ability to have blitz weekends or whatnot if you go with slots - and for 1 a day, that's giving up more than you get. Madness! for example is a fast moving 6p2ad, but for the fact that we're never all on at the same time so it's never going MORE than 2 a day. 4 players - or perhaps 6 even - could, if set up right, all play a bunch of turns on saturdays occasionally.

	18-11-2004 22:11									#465
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by snoopy369 The problem is that you lose the ability to have blitz weekends or whatnot if you go with slots - and for 1 a day, that's giving up more than you get. Madness! for example is a fast moving 6p2ad, but for the fact that we're never all on at the same time so it's never going MORE than 2 a day. 4 players - or perhaps 6 even - could, if set up right, all play a bunch of turns on saturdays occasionally.

You refer to a weekend twice... I stated that the weekend is a bonus anyway, therefore having a quick turn session over the weekend is more than welcome.

The reason I suggest time slots with 6 people is to have that 1 turn a day at least. Moreover it also allows for having people in the tournament that have but a bit of (regular) time available everyday.

For a 5 player game the night (2:00-6:00) could be left out and people from the same timezone could join a game, making it a bit more easy to arrange for a fast turn session.

	18-11-2004 23:01									#466
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

A big to slots from me.

From personal experience, they do make a big difference, as long as we get players to fill all of them.

	19-11-2004 02:18									#467
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by McMeadows Congrats bongo. Can't say I'm suprised. There's been one crucial battle. The aftermath of that battle allready made me think the game was done.

You're referring to the battle where I took out your entire army aren't you? I remember that I promised to give some more info at a later stage. I think now is a good time

I was lucky in that battle as I only lost one unit, a 'normal' result would probably be about 3-4 lost units. What I never told you was that I had more units available, so my luck was not decisive as I would have taken your army anyway(well, unless I got extremely unlucky). Of course, having lower losses than expected allowed me to advance faster and with more force, it also let me keep a reserve at home large enough to stop jshelr from doing anything 'funny', or to keep him at bay while my forces rushed home.

The only time my 'luck' has been decisive was in 570BC when I took the carthagian city of 'Kasba al Sud'. Not that my luck was exceptional that turn, apart from the fact that my fast units retreated rather than dying(and further delaying carthages golden age) it was more or less as expected (4 horsemen and an AC(totaling 22HP) vs 2 reg num.mercs, a catapult and a 1hp horseman) but losing that battle would have seriously screwed up my strategy against carthage. I may have succeeded anyway but winning there isolated the main forces of carthage inside Kasba al Nord and opened the path towards their capital(and Iron)

quote: Moreover the point has been proven that a very early SoZ does justify a 3-way alliance in every way...

I admit that SoZ haven proven to be stronger than I imagined. Still, an alliance is *not* required. You need to be both cunning and cautious but declaring an open alliance is in fact very stupid as it remove any incentive the owner of SoZ may have to remain peaceful. Having a secret alliance won't help much either as it is all to easy to find out what's going on when no-one wants to trade with you or only wants to give you one-sided deals ( 'There's 3 luxuries in that jungle between us, whaddayasay we share them?'...'NO I WANT THEM ALL'...'one for me and two for you then?'...'NO, I WANT THEM ALL I TOLD YOU, *MAYBE* I SELL YOU ONE OF THEM LATER' )

quote: Without wanting to do injustice to your strong play, you've been very lucky at some points. Or maybe we should say LzPrst has been very lucky. At least it has been rather an easy take over position rather than difficult...

Well, I won in the end but recieving a SGL is very dangerous. There are strong reminders of 'survivor' in this tournament, anyone who pulls ahead, be it by skill or luck is likely to become the target of a dogpile.



One thing has been proven beyond doubt though, SGLs have a tremendous impact on any game. This SGL totally dominated the game.


BTW, lzprst original plan was to rush the pyramids with the SGL, then build SoZ the hard way...

A pic from the front, 570BC

	19-11-2004 02:28									#468
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by jshelr ...This might go on for awhile, although the Mongol's two AC armies can, with the impending help of bombardment from the mountain position shown, likely take down 3 pikes per turn, with a period of rest between turns. That seige will ultimately be enough to wear down the Russian numbers.

I've got 12 trebuchets waiting for the road to finish, but that was only plan B.

See the pike on the hill north of the mountain? That's plan A In 5-7 turns I would have built a city there, getting access to the road on the forest, then being able to move into the core of your empire more freely. The plan was still under development but both your capital and 'banana fort' was possible targets. I may have done some pillaging first(3-move armies with free pillage are soo cool) to make internal movement of troops even more difficult

quote: Well played and good luck to Bongo in the final.

Well, thank you

	19-11-2004 03:26									#469
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

yea, that's what I meant by "defensive positions that were slowly narrowing in scope."

I was a bit higher on the page, out of the picture, getting ready to pillage the other end of that road on the next turn, painful as that would have been. there was no way i could let you have a road through the jungle and forests without splitting my pike stack in half or in thirds.

Essentially, you had three workable winning plans. Your plan A, which would have taken a bit more finnessing but would probably have eventually succeeded in splitting the pike stack. Plan B, simple and effective. Or, plan C, which is just build out the land with cities and gain domination.

Couldn't see any way of countering them so I kicked over my queen

	19-11-2004 06:13									#470
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by jshelr Couldn't see any way of countering them so I kicked over my queen

You don't play chess much, do ya? It's the King you kick over to resign ... the Queen would just confuse your opponent.

Unless that was your point ...

	19-11-2004 09:42									#471
	The Iron Civer Open Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

I'd been hoping to broach the subject as part of the opening ceremonies for a new PBEM discussion forum, but it seems the time is at hand and the forum is not.

Roughly coinciding with the start of the 30% ICT championship game, I'd like to initiate The Iron Civer Open Tournament. The qualifiying round will consist of 4-player, double-elimination games on tiny pangaeas, organized close to how the 30%er was. Assuming there is enough interest, the winners of the first 6 of these games able to declare victory will advance to the final. This is based on the general interest shown in the current tournament- much more or less than 20-some participants would require some number/format juggling.

In the interest of the 'open' spirit, the 24-hour rule will remain the time enforcement guide, unless everyone interested could commit to a slot. The next progression in the tournament cycle would be an 'invitational' for reliable slot players, but I wouldn't be organizing it until the 30%IC is complete...

	19-11-2004 13:07									#472
	Re: The Iron Civer Open Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Rommel2D The Iron Civer Open Tournament. The qualifiying round will consist of 4-player, double-elimination games on tiny pangaeas, organized close to how the 30%er was. Assuming there is enough interest, the winners of the first 6 of these games able to declare victory will advance to the final. This is based on the general interest shown in the current tournament- much more or less than 20-some participants would require some number/format juggling.

Do you suggest to play a different kind of game in the qualifications opposed to the finals? I would not be interested in participating in an elimination qualification round.

What's your comment on the proposal with 5 or 6 players in time slots? For all I care, you could go with 8 in 3 hour time slots. And why wouldn't you want to start a new tournament early 2005?

I respect you as the organizer and don't want to push you in any direction. Just wondering and it's up to me do decide if I want to participate in your format or not.

	19-11-2004 16:10									#473
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by snoopy369 You don't play chess much, do ya? It's the King you kick over to resign ... the Queen would just confuse your opponent. Unless that was your point ...

I looked around for my King, but she was a Queen, since I was playing Russia

	19-11-2004 17:35									#474
	Re: The Iron Civer Open Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Rommel2D I'd been hoping to broach the subject as part of the opening ceremonies for a new PBEM discussion forum, but it seems the time is at hand and the forum is not. Roughly coinciding with the start of the 30% ICT championship game, I'd like to initiate The Iron Civer Open Tournament. The qualifiying round will consist of 4-player, double-elimination games on tiny pangaeas, organized close to how the 30%er was. Assuming there is enough interest, the winners of the first 6 of these games able to declare victory will advance to the final. This is based on the general interest shown in the current tournament- much more or less than 20-some participants would require some number/format juggling. In the interest of the 'open' spirit, the 24-hour rule will remain the time enforcement guide, unless everyone interested could commit to a slot. The next progression in the tournament cycle would be an 'invitational' for reliable slot players, but I wouldn't be organizing it until the 30%IC is complete...

Sounds good to me. I like the "first 6" rule.

Would we be signing up en masse and then you'd make 4 player groups? Or would we be signing up as a 4 player group? Or both?

I assume double elimination means 2 city loss? Or do you mean 2 civs? (Which would make for QUITE interesting gameplay, if the other 2-civ games i've played and or seen are any indication...

To echo and restate McMeadows' question, is the Final going to be elimination as well? Or is it going to be a normal game? Personally I'd rather it be a normal game, but elimination is ok if that's how you're going. (I'm a big fan of the qualifier being elim. Just don't put me in a game with Arnelos. )

	19-11-2004 23:51									#475
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

I'll join, and either suits me (slots or 24hr rule).

	20-11-2004 02:06									#476
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

happy to play

especially when I finally get home to my own pc

	20-11-2004 03:37									#477
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

I think we can round up all the usual suspects for this one

	20-11-2004 07:29									#478
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

If there's another tournament, sign me up.

	20-11-2004 09:32									#479
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

I'd be interested in trying my hand at this.

	20-11-2004 09:48									#480
	Re: Re: The Iron Civer Open Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by McMeadows Do you suggest to play a different kind of game in the qualifications opposed to the finals? I would not be interested in participating in an elimination qualification round. What's your comment on the proposal with 5 or 6 players in time slots? For all I care, you could go with 8 in 3 hour time slots. And why wouldn't you want to start a new tournament early 2005?

It has been 7 months since the start of this tournament. Three qualifiers are complete and the fourth is just nearing it's end. My goal for The Open is to complete the qualification round at somewhere around six months. Assuming we have enough participants for six games in The Open, we will likely need to shorten the current format in order to count on the extra games to finish in less time.

One-a-day slots would seem an overall improvement over the 24-hour rule for inducing fast play, but I forsee three pitfalls: Hoping to make the tournament 'open' and grow the base of interest beyond the 20 player watershed, I have seen some shy away from a 'slot' commitment and so fear this might discourage participation; Also, some who do commit to the slot system have not accurately guaged their own ability to meet said commitment- witness the One-armed Bandits game; Finally, as has already been alluded to, the slot structure tends to inhibit game composures that are conducive to 'rapid-fire' sessions. All of the current tournament's games have benefitted from such sessions at one point or another.

One option for increasing the speed of games would be Accelerated Prodcution. I dislike this because it changes the fundamental mechanics of how the game is played. Much preferable to me is the elimination format which maintains the same basic gameplay, but changes the strategy one must use while applying one's forces. Double-(city-)elimination is based on the philosophy of 'Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.'

The final game will be more of a 'purist' Civ game. It will not be an elimination game.