07-12-2004 13:07									#31
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

The first three tribes have been selected. Bongo, the ball's in your court. Any more questions?

Ship Chaining will be allowed

For combat reports, we have two for Level 2, one for Level 3, and one for 0/2. Alexman and Bongo: would you like to make an attempt to persuade the others to agree to 0 or 3, or should we just go with Level 2?

Diplomacy restrictions look like they will be a sticking point. I have a hard time understanding what could be difficult about them beyond the learning and development process. To me, that is half the reason for putting the effort into organizing this...

	07-12-2004 13:17									#32
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by snoopy369 Perhaps a "PBEM Version AU-like MOD" would be interesting - one that modified the annoying things in PBEM, but left alone things that were only intended to aid the weaknesses in the AI?

The idea keeps coming up, but no one wants to pick up the ball and run with it as a-man has with the AU mod. I might end up postponing the IC Open to develop this...

	07-12-2004 14:59									#33
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

I'll read up on tribes/traits/UUs when I get home. Unless you will let me have my feared Bongolians You can except a PM from me in less than 12 hours

Level 2 combat reports then?


Some more on diplomacy:
With all parties involved having embassies and map making, how much coordination is OK between allies if we are to follow the etiquette?

During colosseum B, I felt that one of the biggest factors contributing to my victory was that my enemies didn't seem to coordinate their movement. There was coordination of course, but it seemed rather 'loose', giving me enough room to operate and pick favourable battles.

If the etiquette hampered their cooperation it is perhaps time to loosen it up a bit?

	07-12-2004 20:18									#34
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by snoopy369 It's intended primarily to be a mod that makes SP more challenging / effective, and it changes so much that it's not as much of a fair test of PBEM ability but rather of AU Mod knowledge.

I disagree completely with this statement (take a look at the AU mod's philosophy), but this is not the place to argue about it.

	07-12-2004 23:56									#35
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Rommel2D Does anyone have concerns about The Worthingtons Manourve or the lack of a 'leave or declare war' ultimatum in PBEM? The first is an exploit of questionable benefit; for the second, we have yet to confirm how the game mechanics work for war happiness in PBEM...

Wasn't the The Worthingtons Manourve outlawed for tournament games? I think it should btw, even if its use are somewhat limited.



As for the second point. I did some testing with an old ptw-pbem earlier today and the result was clear: He who start a war will not recieve war-happiness, no matter how many units your foe has within your borders. My last test was done with 25+ trespassing units on a standard map. This was done with a medevial save btw, so no spies or nukes involved


As I lack a save to work with(and don't have the patience to play 30+ turns with myself) I haven't tested this on c3c.

Oh, I would be happy if anyone could send me a suitable save to play/test with. It needs to be a c3c save, latest patch, stock rules, human players only, with the possibility for conflict within 3-4 turns. And I need the admin password

	08-12-2004 10:29									#36
	Four out of Four PBEM Experts Prefer Ag Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Selections have been made for the Tournament's Final clash of civilizations:

Aqualung71 will play the Celts, led by Aquallywelyn
Alexman will play the Sumerians, led by Zander
Bongo will play the Maya, led by Fate
Moonbars will play the Iroquios, led by Moonbars

	08-12-2004 11:28									#37
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by bongo With all parties involved having embassies and map making, how much coordination is OK between allies if we are to follow the etiquette?

It depends on what you mean by 'allies'. If this is an Alliance against a third party declared in the F4 screen, anything goes (except that map trading would be required for screen shots).

If there is no formal alliance declared, simply don't discuss information about battle plans. If two tribes have a common enemy that both decide to declare war upon, they needn't be explicitly allied- if they wish to coordinate tactics to fight more effectively, they should be.

[Another point to consider is that any agreements made via email but not backed up in the diplomacy screen are not binding. Sure there is no way to enforce a code that prohibits 'secret alliances', but neither is there a way to enforce such an alliance between it's members.]

quote: During colosseum B, I felt that one of the biggest factors contributing to my victory was that my enemies didn't seem to coordinate their movement. There was coordination of course, but it seemed rather 'loose', giving me enough room to operate and pick favourable battles.

The ability to coordinate is readily available for the cost of an embassy, along with the possible consequence of giving the alliance's target a bit of war happiness. Do you believe they were hampered by the nominal embassy fee or the vagueness of the etiquette?

	08-12-2004 11:39									#38
	Re: Four out of Four PBEM Experts Prefer Ag Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Rommel2D Aqualung71 will play the Celts, led by Aquallywelyn Alexman will play the Sumerians, led by Zander Bongo will play the Maya, led by Fate Moonbars will play the Iroquios, led by Moonbars

Exactly the civs I expected, and in the same order too

The ground will tremble under the combined strength of these daunting tribes!

	08-12-2004 11:43									#39
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by alexman I disagree completely with this statement (take a look at the AU mod's philosophy), but this is not the place to argue about it.

Although Snoopy may have waxed a bit hyperbolic there, I do have a relevant example of what he mentions.

The first time I tried the Tarzan mod, I tried to cut across a shallow bay with my currack and lost it because it stopped after 1 move onto the sea tile. I had read about the change in advance but still had to learn the hard way to adjust my habitual movement patterns. If this happened in a PBEM and the player was conscientious enough not to reload the turn...

Since this was an AU change primarily made to prevent the player from forming an early communication monopoly over the AIs, it would place someone like Bongo at an unfair disadvantge with little benefit.

	08-12-2004 11:48									#40
	Re: Re: Four out of Four PBEM Experts Prefer Ag Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Aqualung71 Exactly the civs I expected, and in the same order too

From what I've read recently, I'd have expected the Iroquois higher, if not at the top.

(I sure hope someone remembered to bring iron and horses to the island... )

	08-12-2004 12:01									#41
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Moonbars I think in all cases, any war weariness would have been suffered by Me, not Sabre, and any happyness benefit would have been enjoyed by Sabre, not France.

I'm not sure what you're getting at with this. You're admitting that by bypassing F4 diplomacy, you improved your position and screwed Sabre over?

quote: I don't understand your last sentance, is that something PtS says as well?

I understand if you didn't get the US political reference (ever hear of Dan Quayle?), but haven't you played a game with Paddy yet? Maybe he was just more talkative back when he only had a few dozen games to contend with...

	08-12-2004 13:33									#42
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Rommel2D It depends on what you mean by 'allies'. If this is an Alliance against a third party declared in the F4 screen, anything goes (except that map trading would be required for screen shots). If there is no formal alliance declared, simply don't discuss information about battle plans. If two tribes have a common enemy that both decide to declare war upon, they needn't be explicitly allied- if they wish to coordinate tactics to fight more effectively, they should be.

Ah, good to get that one cleared up, not that I've ever been allied to someone in this tournament

quote: [Another point to consider is that any agreements made via email but not backed up in the diplomacy screen are not binding. Sure there is no way to enforce a code that prohibits 'secret alliances', but neither is there a way to enforce such an alliance between it's members.]

I don't view a secret treaty as less binding as a treaty made in the diplo screen. It is less visible of course, so proving treachery is harder.

quote: The ability to coordinate is readily available for the cost of an embassy, along with the possible consequence of giving the alliance's target a bit of war happiness. Do you believe they were hampered by the nominal embassy fee or the vagueness of the etiquette?

AFAIK, all had embassies with each other. Apart from my appearant freedom of movement, there was also a comment by jshelr after I made a post showing the approaching armies, where he said something along the lines of "thanks for showing me the exact position of mcmeadows army". I don't know really, maybe they just didn't talk much?

quote: Since this was an AU change primarily made to prevent the player from forming an early communication monopoly over the AIs, it would place someone like Bongo at an unfair disadvantge with little benefit.

I didn't quite get that one, are you referring to my 'information denial' strategy or what?

	08-12-2004 13:46									#43
	Re: Re: Re: Four out of Four PBEM Experts Prefer Ag Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Rommel2D From what I've read recently, I'd have expected the Iroquois higher, if not at the top. (I sure hope someone remembered to bring iron and horses to the island... )

Well they WERE my first choice. Only becuase I figured some of those others would be gone already, lol.

	08-12-2004 13:48									#44
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Rommel2D I'm not sure what you're getting at with this. You're admitting that by bypassing F4 diplomacy, you improved your position and screwed Sabre over?

Um, no. Rather the opposite. I am saying that Sabre would have been the beneficary of any odd game mechanics caused by the war. What makes you think he was 'screwed' over? In any event, it's all good.

	08-12-2004 20:11									#45
	Support Apolyton

Ok, so when does the game start.

We have a majority, if not a consensus, on all etiquette issues I believe, don't we?

	09-12-2004 10:11									#46
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Moonbars Um, no. Rather the opposite. I am saying that Sabre would have been the beneficary of any odd game mechanics caused by the war. What makes you think he was 'screwed' over? In any event, it's all good.

When you write 'would have' I read it as 'would have if all alliances had been formally declared'. Apparently by 'would have', you mean 'was'?

	09-12-2004 10:47									#47
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by bongo I don't view a secret treaty as less binding as a treaty made in the diplo screen. It is less visible of course, so proving treachery is harder.

Sorry, I guess I'm applying 'fuzzy logic' to this. I've never actually been in a PBEM alliance. I can't even recall the details of any SP alliances. Do they have the same 20 turn basis in PBEM as in SP? Are there consequences in SP for ending an alliance early? Just a rep hit?

quote: I didn't quite get that one, are you referring to my 'information denial' strategy or what?

By "someone like Bongo", I'm referring to someone unfamilliar with the AU mod.

	09-12-2004 11:20									#48
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Aqualung71 Ok, so when does the game start. We have a majority, if not a consensus, on all etiquette issues I believe, don't we?

When its ready. I think I'll have time to do a bunch of stuff this weekend;

Alexman, are you Ok with level 2 reporting?

Is the alliance stuff clear and Ok by everyone?

Are the 1-2 a) and b) options agreed to by everyone?

Is Worthington's Manouvre an exploit that belongs in the code or do it's consequences balance out any benefits?

I'd like to test the War Happiness mechanics in Conquests also...

	09-12-2004 18:10									#49
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Rommel2D Are there consequences in SP for ending an alliance early? Just a rep hit?

Logic dictates that it's just a rep hit....which is irrelevant in PBEM games with only human players

	09-12-2004 18:13									#50
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Rommel2D Is the alliance stuff clear and Ok by everyone? Are the 1-2 a) and b) options agreed to by everyone?

Fine by me

quote: Is Worthington's Manouvre an exploit that belongs in the code or do it's consequences balance out any benefits?

I don't really care....anyone who wants to sacrifice enough workers to make it worthwhile is welcome to try in order to beat the other 3 confirmed pro's in this tournament

	09-12-2004 18:22									#51
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

So Rommel, are you proposing that prior to Nationalism, I can't say for example to Alexman, "how about we don't trade horses to Moonbars cos we don't want him to produce Mounted Warriors"? (or our excess Spices cos we don't want to make his happiness position any easier)?

	09-12-2004 19:53									#52
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Rommel2D Alexman, are you Ok with level 2 reporting?

I'm fine with whatever the majority decides. I just think that battle reports should include enough information for the defender to see if he was lucky or unlucky. Location of the attacking unit is often part of that information.

The alliance stuff is clear and OK by me. It's basiacally to encourage embassies and to provide the attacked party with some early warning and happiness. No big deal if there is no in-game penalty for breaking an alliance.

The 1-2 a) and b) options should not be options, if you ask me.

quote: Is Worthington's Manouvre an exploit that belongs in the code or do it's consequences balance out any benefits?

If you go the trouble to set it up, you deserve all the benefits you get from it, IMHO.

quote: I'd like to test the War Happiness mechanics in Conquests also...

I just did a quick test and it seems that the attacked party gets war happiness and the attacker gets none, no matter where are their units. I believe that the location of your units matter only for AI attitude, not WW.

	11-12-2004 22:16									#53
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by alexman I just did a quick test and it seems that the attacked party gets war happiness and the attacker gets none, no matter where are their units. I believe that the location of your units matter only for AI attitude, not WW.

This was in PBEM? In that case I think we should consider some sort of 'leave or declare war' rule to be sent through email and verified by an administrator, or posted in the thread. Otherwise, it really becomes a no-brainer that a player will try to move their SOD up to the city of someone they wish to attack in order to gain some ground and/or happiness as an agressor, right?

	11-12-2004 22:22									#54
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Aqualung71 So Rommel, are you proposing that prior to Nationalism, I can't say for example to Alexman, "how about we don't trade horses to Moonbars cos we don't want him to produce Mounted Warriors"? (or our excess Spices cos we don't want to make his happiness position any easier)?

Yep, until you are a true Nation, you don't exert that level of control over the merchant class. Nothing can force you to trade with Moonbars, but the embargo of any sort of luxury or strategic resource can't be discussed with another player before that.

	11-12-2004 22:48									#55
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Rommel2D This was in PBEM? In that case I think we should consider some sort of 'leave or declare war' rule to be sent through email and verified by an administrator, or posted in the thread.

Yes, it was PBEM. I did the test in 5 minutes, so perhaps someone else can verify. It's easy enough to set up a quick scenario.

By the way, I will be gone for 2 weeks, starting the 19th of December. If you want to delay the start of the game by 1 week, you will get 2 extra weeks free to set up the game.

	11-12-2004 22:56									#56
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

I will be away for two weeks starting jan 21st - seems like a good idea to hold start of game until after Xmas, as I bet all of us will have other commitments.

Any of you live near Jackson Hole???

	11-12-2004 23:19									#57
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Moonbars I will be away for two weeks starting jan 21st - seems like a good idea to hold start of game until after Xmas, as I bet all of us will have other commitments.

Beginning Jan 21st? We're talking almost two months here... This does bring up another issue we need to decide on- quality of play should be emphasized over speed for the final. I propose we use the same system as the first round , a 24 hour limit with exceptions for freeze time, only with no limit on total freeze time.

In other words, your turn will be played for you if it's over a day since the turn was sent. The exception to this is when you give advance warning of being unable to play, which you can do as often as needed.

quote: Any of you live near Jackson Hole???

Sounds like a bad Michael Jackson joke...

	12-12-2004 00:13									#58
	Got spare money?

no mate, you have misread me again - I have no problem with starting now, but I will be away from the 21st of jan.

	12-12-2004 22:41									#59
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Rommel2D Yep, until you are a true Nation, you don't exert that level of control over the merchant class. Nothing can force you to trade with Moonbars, but the embargo of any sort of luxury or strategic resource can't be discussed with another player before that.

*Not* trading horses to moonbars really is a no-brainer, unless you want his help in a war of course

	13-12-2004 00:35									#60
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Even if Aqualung doesn't have iron and Moonbars is the only one with a source to spare? Sounds like a tough decision...