15-06-2004 13:14									#121
	Inflate your Upload Space

actually, additionally to the 2 lost swordsmen, i had 2 further units redlined outside your city... aka. cannonfodder

and the abandoning cities, i already explained it in the tracker thread: i had no chance against 3 people allied against me. my iron source had been pillaged and there were 3 stacks of doom from 3 corners of my land.

so i had the choice of losing within 20 turns and giving you my nice cities or losing in 10 and pillaging my own lands. my policy is that liars and backstabbers don't deserve cheap cities


rommel: i just googled (subsection images) for "sword" and looked at some in more detail... there are probably better icons around...

	15-06-2004 15:57									#122
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

The Sabrewolf has been taken out

	15-06-2004 20:10									#123
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Paddy the Scot The Sabrewolf has been taken out

Just read trough their tracker thread - some hot action and heated emotions in that game ! I wonder what happens next there Got to read those other threads once in a while too, it seems, to not miss out the action.

	15-06-2004 23:58									#124
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Sabre - Next time you'll know not to try and blackmail nations with whom you have agreed to "be friends with in the early game" You call me a liar and a backstabber - I am rubber, you are glue.. Anything you say bounces off me and STICKS TO YOU!!!! :-)

	16-06-2004 01:18									#125
	Suffering from ads?

hmm. Perhaps it's time to jot a few lines on that particular 'episode'..

The reason we banded together to take Sabrewolf out was because otherwise he have won the game. It's as simple as that.

He had iron when none of us did, a primo start position with nice surrounding land, he had the tech lead and a free city thanks to expansionist goodie huts. He scored a SGL and built the pyramids. He was first to Philosophy and used the free tech to go republic when we were all miles off any other form of government. He had more cites, but worst of all, he was using his power to bully.

It was clear that our only chance was to band together and attack him on 3 fronts. It was a tactical decision, nothing more. The agreement was that after the war we'd spilt the world into 3 such that all land and resources were fairly equal and we'd stay at peace for at least 20 turns before turning on each other. This would leave us all fairly even after the war and would make for an interesting middle age.

As we were nearing completion of our war preparations, Sabre went ahead and attacked France anyway. We then announced our alliance, he lost a good chunk of his stomping force against Moonbars' rabble, and so he then proceeded to kill himself off.

I think he could have held us off if he had decided to battle it out. I had bugger all forces, 3 arches, 2 cats and some other defensive bits and bobs, England and France didn't have a lot more. If he'd withdrawn and built up his defences in the time it took us to approach his cities, things could have been quite different.

I know it sucks to be on the end of a 3-way alliance, but that's the game. It was nothing personal - I'm playing with Sabre in a few other games and quite like the guy to be honest - but in this game we did what we had to do. I don't regard myself as a backstabber because I didn't have any agreements in place with Sabre. I did pillage his iron rather sneakily but then you need to be sneaky to win wars (I’m sure that a world leader or two had said that before! )

PBEM is all about human diplomacy. You can know the game inside out, thrash the AI on any level at will, but it’s a totally different kettle of fish against other humans…

That’s it. Time for a beer.

Aaaahhh… that’s better.

	16-06-2004 10:54									#126
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Andydog PBEM is all about human diplomacy. You can know the game inside out, thrash the AI on any level at will, but it’s a totally different kettle of fish against other humans…

I think you need to explain this theory to alexman.

	16-06-2004 14:28									#127
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Rommel2D I think you need to explain this theory to alexman.

Ouch.

But nevertheless stunning! I'm glad I won't make the final

	16-06-2004 20:01									#128
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Rommel2D Ok, how about : MFCamillus (pacific) richthur (pacific) Arnelos (eastern) snoopy369 (central) for the turn order in the replacement elimination mode game? If no one objects, I'll start up the game and send it out later tonight or sometime tomorrow...

Did this game ever get off and running????

	16-06-2004 20:24									#129
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by conmcb25 Did this game ever get off and running????

It's off but it's not running anywhere. The turn was lost a few times and with richthur not posting in the tracker thread, I've been unable to determine where the problem is.

I'm booting him from the game. If you'd like to play, we can drop you in his place or start over depending on what the others would prefer...

	16-06-2004 20:37									#130
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Rommel2D It's off but it's not running anywhere. The turn was lost a few times and with richthur not posting in the tracker thread, I've been unable to determine where the problem is. I'm booting him from the game. If you'd like to play, we can drop you in his place or start over depending on what the others would prefer...

Sounds good to me it looks like the other tournament game I was in has died.

email is: conmcb25NOPSAM@bluemarble.net

Remove the NOPSAM of course.

Thanks

	29-06-2004 10:43									#131
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Discussion continued from Game D :

quote: Originally posted by alexman I think you can post something here as long as you could have e-mailed the same information to each player individually.

This is what I had in mind with the etiquette/exploits. The optional embassy rules are meant to hinder tech alliances and slow the pace of discovery some. General discussion/rumors of conflict are for anyone willing to listen. Of course there's no guarantee any of the information is accurate or truthfull...

The gray area I've discovered is a matter of what level of cooperation constitutes an alliance which must be declared on the diplo screen. When propositioned for an alliance in one of my games, the agreement hinged on commiting troops to a future conflict. We ended up deciding we could agree to commit troops, but not with any specifics such as number, type, or location of, without a formal alliance declaration.

Is this clear and sensible? Would it perhaps be simpler and better to forbid any email/forum discussion of third party tribes until an alliance against them is accepted in the diplo screen?

	29-06-2004 10:48									#132
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Rommel2D Is this clear and sensible? Would it perhaps be simpler and better to forbid any email/forum discussion of third party tribes until an alliance against them is accepted in the diplo screen?

no, i don't think so. if it's just discussion what is wrong about having it, in email or anywhere. besides without discussion, there wouldn't be much to lead players to an alliance right? unless we're supposed to act like the AI, player 1 gives player 2 one tech and 100 gold to declare war... instead of actually discussing and conspiring about a possible war first

	29-06-2004 10:50									#133
	Put an end to popups!

The plotting and planning is the fun part..

	29-06-2004 10:54									#134
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Maybe for the plotter, but what about the plottee?

	29-06-2004 10:56									#135
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

he should be plotting as well!

	29-06-2004 11:32									#136
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by smellymummy no, i don't think so. if it's just discussion what is wrong about having it, in email or anywhere. besides without discussion, there wouldn't be much to lead players to an alliance right?

As Andydog pointed out earlier, alliances are far and away the most powerful tool available in PBEM games (putting aside alexman with boatloads of GSs for now ;-), so I don't think there's any need to 'lead' players to them.

Not allowing alliances to be lined up in email would extend the logic of the other optional etiquette rules. Alliances would still be formed, just not as quick and easily as before.

The down side would be less interesting discussion in the tracker threads. But the down side of not having this is the bad blood that can be generated when one person's power advantage is evicerated by a diplomatic alliance against them. Unfortuantely, since Sabrewolf didn't stick it out til the end, we'll never know how truely hopeless his situation was...

	29-06-2004 11:40									#137
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

what is meant by leading to alliances is how at first players will discuss about the game, other civs, techs, the land.. whatever. this can devellop into mutual trust and friendship within the game, and then that would eventually lead to an alliance.

or like moonbar posted, plotting and planning is the fun part

	29-06-2004 11:47									#138
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

A regular FDR and Churchill, you two are.

	29-06-2004 11:59									#139
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

if you say so

i just wouldn't like to see discussions w/o an alliance forbidden. and then if that washes into general posts about whats happening in the game

btw, england is out in Game D

	29-06-2004 12:27									#140
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Not to get anyone too bent out of shape, this wouldn't be anything that would be forced upon players in this round of the tournament.

I'm basically talking about something similar to what Beta started with the 'silent' games, only with the eventual option of open discussion once an alliance is signed.

Maybe we could keep an open information flow by allowing open discussion only within the tracker thread, as sort of an Associated Press. Just no private email discussing third-party tribes without an alliance.

Personally, as a strategy game, I find the fun in the uncertainty and technical aspects of the game. Plotting and planning alliances seems more like roleplaying to me and loses it's lustre after playing multiple 540-turn games spanning dozens of months. IMO, the game should be more about plotting and planning wars and battles.

Last edited by Rommel2D on 29-06-2004 at 12:33

	29-06-2004 16:30									#141
	Support Apolyton

I suggest that a middle ground is best. For example, I'd say that your original example of an 'alliance' with commitment of troops but no numbers, should have been a declared alliance. But, there's no reason you couldn't have discussed it prior to forming it -- just once you've committed troops, even without numbers, then you have to be allied.

	29-06-2004 18:29									#142
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Individual Coliseums may well have agreed to a set of rules regarding alliances, and we should probably leave those as is. I would suggest that after the 4 games have been completed, we get a summary of how these factors played out and the course designer (Rommel) in conjunction with the 4 finalists agree on the preferred etiquette.

	29-06-2004 18:49									#143
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

A good way to define it would be that embassies are required for initial plotting and planning, while Alliances are required to coordinate military operations (where are you going to attack next, where are the enemy troops, etc).

I think it works well that way.

	29-06-2004 22:06									#144
	Increase the size of your Attachments

This is precisely how we played it in Coliseum C. It does work well.

	29-06-2004 22:37									#145
	Support Apolyton

it worked too well

	30-06-2004 10:26									#146
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

This still leaves the original issue I raised- where do we draw the line between 'military coordination' and plotting and planning permissible without an alliance? In the game I mentioned earlier, a simple agreement to 'commit foces' on a certain turn brought about a huge military benefit. Exactly what kind of 'plotting and planning' can be done without military implications?

	02-07-2004 10:43									#147
	Progress Report Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: With nine grueling weeks in the drives, the games are progressing as follows: Coliseum A was at 690BC, slipping to 1.5 turns per day. Coliseum B was at 1900BC, still struggling along with .7 turns per day. Coliseum C was at 590BC, jumping into the lead with 1.6 turns per day. Coliseum D was at 1275BC. They're keeping pace just ahead of the base TPD barrier at 1.1. Sabrewolf was the first contestant to yield to the IC challenge, surrendering in the face of a 3 against 1 alliance. Trip was the next to falter, citing Egyptian meanies picking on him as cause for an early withdrawl. Who will be the next to right click on their empire, and who will go down with both hands clutching the blade of an enemy's sword? Stay tuned for further updates...

Scoring update to follow soon in a news item...

	02-07-2004 18:48									#148
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Rommel2D This still leaves the original issue I raised- where do we draw the line between 'military coordination' and plotting and planning permissible without an alliance?

Of course this is up to each Coliseum to decide, but I think a well-defined line is the war declaration.

You can plot and plan all you like before war breaks out, including military operations (but remember that some games agreed to no screenshots or map exchange before navigation). After war breaks out, if you coordinated your military forces before the war, or if you plan to coordinate your foces during the war, you better sign an alliance.

If you agree to attack a neighbor, but have not coordinated your attacks and don't plan to do so during the war, you can get away with no alliance.

That's how I have been thinking about it anyway.

	03-07-2004 06:59									#149
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

I'd definitely think that an agreement to attack a neighbor is the dictionary definition of a military alliance. "Discussions" about attacking would not constitute an alliance, but an agreement to attack is absolutely an alliance ...

	03-07-2004 07:29									#150
	Remove this text

The problem is that you can't sign an alliance before declaring war.