 |
|
Googlie
|
 |
Commanding Officer, CRYPTEIA
Apr 1999
time: 21:35
|
|
Edited by Googlie as this version of the midturn was not used
Last edited by Googlie on 10-08-2004 at 06:37
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zeiter
|
|
We're not in vendetta with anyone, so the only way that we'd lose a base is by a mindworm, or I guess if an AI got a wild idea and surprise attacked us, but that seems unlikely. So, a former or probe team sounds good for OA. Once we get a road network in place, our rovers will be able to defend multiple cities at once.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Maniac
|
 |
Gent, Belgium
Jul 1999
time: 06:35
|
|
Edited by Googlie as this version of the midturn was not used
Last edited by Googlie on 10-08-2004 at 06:36
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zeiter
|
|
Well, in case the redo isn't allowed, here are some upsides to our previous course of action:
*We have 20 extra ECs.
*We have a good shot at getting Lal's commlink next turn.
*We still have a shot at selling Lal's commlink to Yang for 25 ECs (if Zak and Yang haven't traded already)
*If the Morganites get Zak's commlink through Yang and trade something like IA for gene splicing, that means that all we have to do is probe IA (and gene splicing) from Zak instead of having to try that with a human faction.
*If Yang gets Lal's and Deidre's commlink, then he'll call elections, and then the fun will really start!  With us being the #1 human team in the powercharts right now, we might have considerable leverage and intimidation power towards the other factions that we might not have had later.
It didn't seem like Zak or Lal were going to be willing to trade much to us exclusively anyways, so I guess the lost opportunity to be the "tech broker" wouldn't really be a big deal. And if we contact Lal next turn, we can still trade plan nets for ECs.
So, there would still be a lot of positives, and actually, we can't say that this scenario is any worse. It would appear to be slightly worse, but you never know how things will play out.
This is all in case the redo is overturned, of course.
It's been nothing but smooth sailing for the mods so far. It's about time we give them a test, make sure they haven't fallen asleep at their posts. 
Edit: BTW, I noticed the rule thread has been topped in the general forum. That's sure gonna make the other teams wonder.
Last edited by Zeiter on 09-08-2004 at 04:34
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Googlie
|
|
Commanding Officer, CRYPTEIA
Apr 1999
time: 21:35
|
|
well, we did execute a "trade" of sorts in the midgame I advanced when we chatted in the Command center - Yang's commlink to Zak in exchange for 20 ec's (although it's in a slightly different category as regards "trades" in that the AI will never volunteer a human's AI as a trade in a PBEM (we, the human players, have to ask the AI for it)
If popping the rover clone is contentious, I have just replayed from the original midsave on my laptop, and mirroring every move, popped a minerals special instead of that original monolith. I'd regard that as a "worse" pop (in that the original healed our rover to 100% efficiency)
So it's available as an official turn if Method is uncomfortable with allowing that rover to continue (of course he could just rule that Maniac disband the cloned rover, and then it wouild be the same save as I have).
G.
Last edited by Googlie on 09-08-2004 at 06:06
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zeiter
|
|
Ah, okay, didn't know that. So that means that the AIs all have what amount to infiltration on every faction. Well, they could use all the help they can get.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zeiter
|
|
Cool. Thanks for clearing this up, mods. Now I can have a clear conscience.
Now we can continue. Let's see, have we had anyone else vote in the switching to planned poll yet? Yes, it seems that MY 2127 is leading with a whopping 2 votes!  It seems that generally, the team prefers to switch within the next 4 years, allowing for when we have enough money after other expenses, and after it starts to really benefit us after our cities grow to size 2. So, how about we postpone the switching for this turn at least?
Is there anything else to consider? I believe we got the base production things worked out:
SC1: former
*SC2: probe team and/or 2-1-2
SC3: CP
GH: transport foil
*OA: former and/or probe team and/or 2-1-2
*It seems these are the ones for which we must finalize decisions.
Also, do we want to start thinking about a university invasion? I'd say we'll have a good shot at pulling it off after we get NLmath. Certainly a better chance than going up against Yang. And we know that Zak probably has loads of tech. A next priority, then, should be to establish a base on the east coast so that we can start probing/invading Zak. Any good spots? Unfortunately, there aren't any rainy tiles on the eastern side of the mountain range, but we could run the former from SC1 over there to terraform a 2-1-0 tile, perhaps. Or we could plant a forest over there. But this base isn't going to be so much a population and production center. It's mainly just a staging base for transports headed Zak's way, so it doesn't need to be extremely well-terraformed and well-developed just yet.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Maniac
|
|
Gent, Belgium
Jul 1999
time: 06:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Method
right then, give me a little while on this one. I think that if repopping a pod is necessary to redo communications, then not redoing communications would be the best way to avoid this kind of situation. |
quote:
the clone gives an unfair/illegal advantage, so if you wanted to recommunicate with zakh, take the min resource instead of the monlith. |
The rules state this:
quote:
It is allowed to build a turn simulator, where you can test out battle results or strategic plans years in advance. It is also allowed to use parallel turns of the official game to test out AI diplomacy (with the exception that you can't accept AI world map offers or trades) or some innocent internal affairs orders (crawler & former movements etc). |
That rule - perhaps it could be phrased better - was specifically included for situations like this: the AI offering a deal, and the turnplay unable to present the deal to the team if he was not allowed to replay.
IIRC in the previous ACDG for example the Angels offered us (the Consciousness) to declare war on their enemies the Hive and sign a pact with the Angels. Because I wasn't sure what the team would want, I chose the "declare war" option, but then posted a poll what to do: declare war or keep peace with the Hive. The poll showed we wanted to keep peace, and therefore I replayed the turn from the Angel negotiations onwards, this time not declaring war.
As I knew such situations could arise again in ACDG3, I specifically requested to include these extracts about AI diplomacy in the ACDG3 rules.
And now a very similar situation has arisen. Zakharov made us an offer. It was of course impossible for the turnplayer to know what the team would want, so he had to choose something. Then there came comments from other team members, and they pointed towards choosing the other option in the deal. So the turn was replayed, with everything the same as in the original turn, except for the AI negotiations.
So with the reloading for renegotiating with Zak there isn't any problem at all as far as I can see.
Thus the only problem is that not everything was exactly the same as in the original turn, namely because we had to pop a unity pod.
Personally I can see two solutions to this:
Tell the turnplayer that he has to reload until he gets the exact same pod pop result. In this case a monolith.
Or do what Googlie ruled in the ACDG2:
quote:
In ACDG-II I used a reverse discrimination rule. If the original podpop had been a bad event (eg a mindworm) then I ruled that they had to try as often as would give them the same result.
However if the original had been a goodie (like a monolith, or facs completiion) then I ruled that only 1 replay was allowed, and if the result was worse, then so be it |
In my replay with the new Zak negotiations, the pod happened to result in a mineral resource and a rover clone.
With all the above in mind, could you please elaborate what is so unfair or illegal about it?
I hope the legality has been proven: the reload was allowed according to the ACDG3 rules - at least the way I meant them to be interpreted when I proposed that rule. 
So then the question remains why we would have gotten an unfair advantage? The first replay resulted in a better result pod pod result than the first. So what? That's what unity pods are partly about : lots of random chance and luck. Some times we get bad results, but this time we happened to get a good result. Is it forbidden to have some luck? The pod pop result was obtained fair and square with the first replay.
Personally I would see a logical ruling to be, that we
a) have to replay until we get a monolith again,
b) can keep our first replayed pod pop result (mineral + clone)
However having to disband a rover we popped fair and square doesn't make any sense at all as far as I can see. We just had some luck, nothing unfair about it.
Last edited by Maniac on 09-08-2004 at 18:32
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Maniac
|
|
Gent, Belgium
Jul 1999
time: 06:35
|
|
Hmm, on second thought thoroughly reading this rule indicates it makes no sense:
quote:
It is allowed to build a turn simulator, where you can test out battle results or strategic plans years in advance. It is also allowed to use parallel turns of the official game to test out AI diplomacy (with the exception that you can't accept AI world map offers or trades) or some innocent internal affairs orders (crawler & former movements etc). However it is NOT allowed to use the official game turns to play ahead by eg testing out battle orders, scouting with units, or for example moving your probe units to check the probe cost of something and only then decide whether or not you're going to probe it.
In clarification:
Any exploring, military trials or probe actions, is not allowed. Testing former orders and AI diplomacy (without accepting any deal) is allowed. For anything else, check with Drogue before hand. |
These bolded text could be interpreted to contradict each other. 
IIRC the part before the "In clarification" was written by me. The "In clarification" by Drogue IIRC, but now I reread it, it doesn't really clarify the AI dip part.
Is it ok if I in the general forums suggest a rewritten version of this rule to make it more clear?
quote:
[*]It is allowed to build a turn simulator, where you can test out battle results or strategic plans years in advance. It is also allowed to use parallel turns of the official game to test out some innocent internal affairs orders (crawler & former movements etc). However it is NOT allowed to use the official game turns to play ahead by eg testing out battle orders, scouting with units, or for example moving your probe units to check the probe cost of something and only then decide whether or not you're going to probe it.
[*]Regarding AI diplomacy. If an AI faction makes the turnplayer an unexpected offer and the turnplayer doesn't know for sure what the team would want, it is allowed to make some random reply to the offer, close to the game and post the AI offer in the private forum for discussion. Once a decision on what to do has been reached, the turnplayer is allowed to replay the turn starting from the moment right before the AI negotiations.
It is also allowed to make in parallel turns hypothetical offers to AI factions to see what they would reply, if they're interested etc. For example propose a map trade or technology exchange. However it is not allowed to actually accept the deal, as that could lead to information one couldn't know without actually accepting the deal in the real turn. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drogue
|
 |
Omnipresent conscience
Oct 2002
time: 05:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Maniac
So then the question remains why we would have gotten an unfair advantage? The first replay resulted in a better result pod pod result than the first. So what? That's what unity pods are partly about : lots of random chance and luck. Some times we get bad results, but this time we happened to get a good result. Is it forbidden to have some luck? The pod pop result was obtained fair and square with the first replay.
Personally I would see a logical ruling to be, that we
a) have to replay until we get a monolith again,
b) can keep our first replayed pod pop result (mineral + clone)
However having to disband a rover we popped fair and square doesn't make any sense at all as far as I can see. We just had some luck, nothing unfair about it. |
The rover isn't fair and square. I believe Method is exactly right. Using Googlie's rule, which seems the best method, IMHO the mineral and the clone is a better result than a monolith, and as such, disbanding the clone means you have a mineral instead of the monolith.
There is no problem with the AI replay, just with the pod pop, that was repopped and gave a better result. If you wish to replay the pop and diplomacy until you get another monolith, or until you get something worse than a monolith (using Googlie's rule), than that will be acceptable, or you can disband the rover and keep the mineral resources, as at the moment you are in a better position (IMHO) than you were with just the monolith.
Unity pops are about chance, as you say, but the replay must not result in a better pop. Going directly by the rules, we could state that no replay that involves replaying a pod pop is allowed, however since the AI changign is allowed, and there is no other way to replay it, we have to allow you to repop the pod, and as such, will use Googlie's rule that only an equal or worse pop as the original one is allowed to stand. At the moment your pop is better, but by replaying until it isn't, or disbanding the rover, it will be ok. Personally I'd favour the latter, as it doesn't mean multiple replays.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drogue
|
|
Omnipresent conscience
Oct 2002
time: 05:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Maniac
Hmm, on second thought thoroughly reading this rule indicates it makes no sense:
These bolded text could be interpreted to contradict each other.
IIRC the part before the "In clarification" was written by me. The "In clarification" by Drogue IIRC, but now I reread it, it doesn't really clarify the AI dip part.
Is it ok if I in the general forums suggest a rewritten version of this rule to make it more clear? |
Actually, they do mean the same thing. Without accepting any deal means refuse all the AIs offers, and ask people in the forum, before trying again. The same as what you said, about not accepting anything that can give you information. IMHO, the rule is clear, and is what others are working on. I could change the "without accepting any deal" to "without accepting world map offers, trades or anything that can give you information". I did what I did to make it seem more succinct and easier to follow - as long as you don't accept any deal, you'll be fine. Otherwise there's some leeway, and possible rule breaking, in terms of what actually gives you information.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Maniac
|
|
Gent, Belgium
Jul 1999
time: 06:35
|
|
Just for the record, AFAIK Googlie's rule doesn't say one has to get a worse pod pop result than the first time.
quote:
In ACDG-II I used a reverse discrimination rule. If the original podpop had been a bad event (eg a mindworm) then I ruled that they had to try as often as would give them the same result.
However if the original had been a goodie (like a monolith, or facs completiion) then I ruled that only 1 replay was allowed, and if the result was worse, then so be it, but if the result was better, then so be it too. |
Googlie is of course the one to ask, but when I read that, it seems most likely IMHO to interpret it as with the black text added. Otherwise it would say :
"However if the original had been a goodie (like a monolith, or facs completiion) then I ruled that only 1 replay was allowed, and the pod pod result had to be worse than the first one."
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zeiter
|
|
A mineral bonus is good, nothing to sneeze at.  Let's see...a CP from OA could make it over to that spot relatively quickly. Perhaps that should be the build priority for OA immediately after it finishes what it is building now.
And what is it building now? We could build a probe team there, and build a 2-1-2 at SC2. They'd both get finished at about the same time (about 7 turns), and the 2-1-2 would be elite. Or, we could build the 2-1-2 at OA and the probe team at SC2. The probe team would be higher morale, but the 2-1-2 wouldn't be as experienced. And, the probe team would take 10 turns to build, and the 2-1-2 4 turns.
Edit:
quote:
So then the question remains why we would have gotten an unfair advantage? The first replay resulted in a better result pod pod result than the first. So what? That's what unity pods are partly about : lots of random chance and luck. Some times we get bad results, but this time we happened to get a good result. Is it forbidden to have some luck? The pod pop result was obtained fair and square with the first replay. |
Googlie stipulated that if the pop result was "bad", then the pod had to be popped until that result happened again, right? Well, getting a monolith could be thought of as a "bad" pop when compared to a min resources and a cloned rover, or getting a facs completion, could it not?
It's like, what if someone popped a mind worm on the first try, and then popped 25 ECs the second time. Would this be allowed? No, the pop would have to be replayed until the worm was the result again, because it would be seen that the player should have gotten a "bad" (meaning, of mind worm badness) pop. Now, what if someone popped 25 ECs the first time, and then popped 200 ECs the second time. Even though these are both considered "good" pops, the first one is clearly a "bad" pop relative to the second one. The player should have gotten a "bad" (meaning, of 25 ECs badness) pop, so it could be argued that the pop had to be replayed until a pop of similar "badness" resulted. Did that make sense? Well, it's the same in our situation. Disbanding the rover and continuing with the min resource seems perfectly fair to me. Anyway, just my musings, sorry if I am interfering. 
Last edited by Zeiter on 09-08-2004 at 23:17
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:35.
Apolyton Time is 00:35. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
08-08-2004 11:12
Hmm...I guess it's all right, though. I assume the mods are aware of all of this.
|