03-08-2004 19:37									#241
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Cheeky young lady...

interesting that most of the actual fighting was conducted by yellow horsemen and swordsmen

now, I wonder who is the yellow peril in this game

oh, and thanks for a good game Masuro

	03-08-2004 19:44									#242
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Hmmm, now that's strange....I seem to recal (as I'm sure rickety and Masuro would too) that most of the fighting was conducted by your stack of about 13 Purple Archers who marched 3/4 the way around the world to satisfy their blood lust! How else would you end up with a town next to my lands?

	03-08-2004 19:47									#243
	Support Apolyton

You haven't seen the last of me!!!!!!!!

	03-08-2004 19:47									#244
	Increase Your PM Length

ahh that sure is an interesting point

yes my lads were on the hunt and the journey was long

	04-08-2004 08:41									#245
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Krill Trust me, you have no idea how screwed up my empire is. Gold is the only thing I have in any amount, so I thank the guys for showing me why to cut iron

And I have to thank you for indirectly teaching me the same thing ^^ Although it took me a long while to figure out what you were doing ... I must have looked at that for at least ten minutes trying to figure out how Rommel had managed to pillage your iron from halfway around the globe, before i realized the strategic reasons... ^^

	04-08-2004 10:01									#246
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Rommel2D On the general issue of 'dogpiles' and massive alliances, my perception is that without limits on diplomacy (player communication), PBEM games tend to degenerate into Survivor-esque cutthroat popularity contests. Skill at playing the game is relegated a small portion of the winning formula, much like 'challenges' in the TV show. (Has this show been distributed to most media markets by now?)

Does this not simply test a different skill, namely that of laying low and not being a target (all the while planning victory, of course)?

In a 4 player game, the one that gets powerful enough for all three opponents to team up against him/her is indeed deserving a quick end: he/she broadcasted his/her superiority, and failed to apply diplomatic tactics to mitigate the backlash.

If all players are relatively on the same footing, all other things being equal, the game should default to a 2 versus 2 scenario. The teams on the side that get the upper hand then need to contend with a possible backstab from their "ally", because only one of them can run away with the title. This leaves makes the 2 weakest civs suddenly very important (for counter-alliances).

The point of my going through all that is to demonstrate how 4-player games can be interesting and skill-testing. It's just that they test diplomatic skills far more than Civ3 skills, and players need to be prepared for that.

Now, please, take all this with a grain of salt, since my MP experience is surely inferior to most everyone here.

	04-08-2004 10:16									#247
	Increase Your PM Length

Cutting your iron when you have lots of gold and not a lot of sheild production is a great trick

	04-08-2004 11:03									#248
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Now, please, take all this with a grain of salt, since my MP experience is surely inferior to most everyone here.

Not at all, my in-game MP experience can't be much more than yours.

Yes, not using any diplomacy limitations still produces a fair game- everyone has the same opportunities to win from the beginning. I wasn't making a point of belittling other 4 player games, but my thought was to shift as much empahsis as possible to the gameplay aspects because this was a tournament setting. Alliances are still very much alive and relevant, just hopefully not entirely overbearing.

Ideally, I'd like to see each player presented with the strategic option to forgo the delicate diplomatic dealings to "shoot the moon" and take the other three on directly, given particularly fortunate starting conditions...

	04-08-2004 21:50									#249
	Increase Your PM Length

we could perhaps organise some 2v2v2 games for all the people who like diplomacy and team-wrok

	04-08-2004 22:16									#250
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Diplomacy is a fact when more than one human is playing.

It is an inherent part of MP unless you make rules to limit diplomacy.

And that kind of ruins at least part of the reason to play humans in the first place.

	04-08-2004 22:23									#251
	Remove this text

Try the demogames then

	04-08-2004 22:25									#252
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Moonbars we could perhaps organise some 2v2v2 games for all the people who like diplomacy and team-wrok

that sounds cool!

locked alliances and possibly locked war


but the problem: 4 against 2 isn't much fairer that 3 against 1

	05-08-2004 04:14									#253
	Full PM-box? Change here!

I say we organize a 2v2v2 game immediately. Anyone with me? ^^

	05-08-2004 05:03									#254
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

me! me!

	05-08-2004 05:08									#255
	Put an end to popups!

Just make locked alliances.

I think there is some way to do that.

We tried to do that, or something like that at MZO.

It was a 3 vs 3.

Three liberals vs three conservatives. If it would have survived it would have been trash talk heaven

But a couple of guys disappeared and OCT_X screwed up the map somehow where nothing could move. So it died

	05-08-2004 05:15									#256
	Remove this text

2v2v2 sounds great

it is very easy to setup in the editor

	06-08-2004 19:29									#257
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Ethical Question submitted for iron civver judgment.

Civ A and B form an alliance to battle for continental supremacy. The alliance includes a RoP agreement and a no-attack agreement that extends for 30 turns after victory in the alliance battles. That end point turns out to be turn 195.

A random number generator is used to determine right of first attack, which falls to civ A.

Civ B determines (correctly) that civ A has modestly superior production capability and will likely have the stronger army after turn 195. Civ A is also ahead in the race to MT.

Civ B uses the RoP to cover and fortify troops on Civ A’s iron deposit. No pillage occurs.

Civ A ends the RoP when it runs its full 20-turn course.

Civ A asks Civ B to leave it’s land or declare war.

Civ B asks for clarification and then goes silent. Civ A’s clarification was that Civ B has a choice between leaving or breaking the no attack agreement. (Civ A has the save and will still get to attack first.)

So, finally, the question: Can Civ A honorably attack Civ B and free the iron deposit?

	06-08-2004 19:51									#258
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Absolutely. Even the AI would agree with Civ A on this one. Civ B has committed an act of war by setting troops within Civ A's borders w/o a ROP agreement, particularly by setting them on top of an obviously vital resource. Civ B is clearly trying to maneuver into a position of advantage by doing so.

Heck, most alliance-ending agreements should automatically include a requirement to leave each others' territories ... i'd think ...

	06-08-2004 19:52									#259
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

More specifically I'd say that it's 100% ok for Civ A to attack the iron deposit *and no more* ... it's maybe 80% ok to continue the attack from there (unless Civ B counterattacks in which case Civ A should continue of course).

	06-08-2004 19:53									#260
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

After ending the RoP any unwanted presence in the others territory is an act of war and therefore violation of a non-attack agreement in my opinion.

	06-08-2004 19:59									#261
	Inflate your Upload Space

Civ A has every right to treat the actions of Civ B as a violation of their agreement, and therefore be justified in attacking if B refuses to leave.

However, the Iron PBEM etiquette doesn't say anywhere that deals need to be honored, so Civ B is not breaking any rules - just their word.

	06-08-2004 20:03									#262
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Alexman is right in my opinion. I just wanted to make sure the community believes Civ A (who could that be ) is not breaking his word.

The other thing is that civ B simply shut up, he did not refuse to leave.

	06-08-2004 20:24									#263
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

eh, but not leaving after a request is a de facto refusal, just like ignoring a trade offer is a de facto refusal of the trade (albeit with generally less severe consequences ^^)

	06-08-2004 20:42									#264
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Civ B has clearly conducted an act of war. Civ A should have no qualms in delcaring war, and continuing such war at its leisure.

	06-08-2004 22:18									#265
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

to me, ocupying an iron source is already an act of war. RoP doesn't mean "right to posess" or "right to pillage"...

but anyway... i'm looking forward to all AAR (i hope they are mandatory )

	06-08-2004 22:35									#266
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

And what if, hypothetically speaking, an unit is occupying an iron source that is unclaimed and while sitting there another nation builds a city next to it, claiming the iron source as being in its territory?

	06-08-2004 22:37									#267
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

who has broken their word so far?

	06-08-2004 22:43									#268
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by McMeadows And what if, hypothetically speaking, an unit is occupying an iron source that is unclaimed and while sitting there another nation builds a city next to it, claiming the iron source as being in its territory?

good question...

it's not an invasion, so i can't really say. probably depends on the situation. if that iron is right near the core territory of the settling civ, then the claim is doubtless (*cough* ptw *cough* :lol. but if it's far away, you probably can't blame anybody...

	06-08-2004 22:52									#269
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by sabrewolf good question... it's not an invasion, so i can't really say. probably depends on the situation. if that iron is right near the core territory of the settling civ, then the claim is doubtless (*cough* ptw *cough* :lol. but if it's far away, you probably can't blame anybody...

I would think there should be a reward for the unit that was asked to leave, even if it was just a mere wandering warrior taking a rest.. (*cough* ptw *cough* )

More seriously, it does have strageic significance, as the settling civ is not able to use the resource, and as a result can't upgrade its units. The very upgraded ones that would have been able to kick that unit off the mountain.

haha, I'm still enjoying that one..

	06-08-2004 23:49									#270
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Thanks for the help guys. The civ "breaking its word" in this instance is 99% of the time an honest broker. I think there was confusion about 1) whether the rop was still in effect and 2) what an act of war is.

Anyway, war has now started and I hope there will be no hard feelings about the unfortunate communications problems that led to the tragic conflict.

This happened in the c3c tourney. I'm not sure it merits much attention, but an account is here
http://apolyton.net/forums/showthre...371#post3201371

Last edited by jshelr on 06-08-2004 at 23:54