04-03-2005 02:56									#121
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Aqualung71 This goes to the core of PBEM strategy [...]

i absolutely disagree with this! with this you are implying that firaxis and breakaway actually intended these features.
but looking at all the bugs, exploits and other specialities of multiplayer modus (including PBEM), it becomes pretty clear that MP is merely built on top of SP and only partly some things were corrected (like asynchronous diplomacy).

quote: Remember also, that human players don't tend to like aggressors....so provoking an attack simply to give yourself war happiness is likely to have wider-reaching consequences for your longer term health in the game

social war disadvantages have nothing to do with it. after the REXing there often already are first alliances which forgive player A attacking B. and not always are there any other players around to hold this grudge...

but anyhow, it's a completely seperate point. the fact is that the PBEM exploit gives the attacker a clear advantage that he would not have in the regular rules. the whole idea of war happiness is that when your country gets attacked, the people feel more united and forget their personal problems!

the simplest solution to this exploit would be like alexman proposes: if you have the intent of fighting a war, declare war first, during the turn you enter the defender's territory.

	04-03-2005 02:56									#122
	Increase Your PM Length

Ouch, exactly the kind of discussion i need to work up a headache


Personally I feel it is PBEM that got it right this time, not SP. LoDW is a mechanism introduced to deal with AIs swarming all over your territory.


Also, being good at civ(and any other game) is very much about knowing the mechanics of the game. Even Napoleon or Alexander would be trashed by the regulars in the PBEM-forum until they got the game-mechanics right.

	04-03-2005 03:15									#123
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by bongo LoDW is a mechanism introduced to deal with AIs swarming all over your territory.

no, i believe it was introduced so a player couldn't just march through enemy territory and attack the capital directly.

LoDW iirc already existed in the very first versions of civ3 vanilla...

	04-03-2005 03:50									#124
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

There is a mechanism, introduced in ancient history, that forces an enemy to declare war before reaching your capital. It is called "Fortify units along the whole border". Of course, it is easier said than done, with the REX going so nice without defenses. And it would be suuuch a shame, if you actually had to build units (imagine that ) in the Ancient Age already. Sooo unrealistic, right?
[/sarcasm]

	04-03-2005 10:36									#125
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

that would be an option if we'd get back civ2-ZoC

	04-03-2005 12:53									#126
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Rommel2D I'm reading the arguments here as essentially "I've learned to use this exploit to my advantage, I should be able to benefit by playing against someone who hasn't".

This is certainly not what I was saying, nor do I believe it is something most players would concern themselves with. Going to war with a human opponent is a major decision, and often one that leads to the destruction of one or other player. If you are entering an opponent's territory for the purposes of war, then there are larger issues at stake than who gets the war happiness. However, the defending player certainly can choose not to attack if he prefers to win the war happiness battle....just make sure the intruder is shadowed with sufficient units.

quote: I'm extemely skeptical of the claim that since the situation is the opposite of how the SP game works, it adds any "strategic depth". There is a difference between deep strategy and cheap tricks. If there was an argument that this wasn't an exploit based purely on PBEM's poorly designed mechanics, I'd be inclined to just drop it...

No, the argument is not that it adds strategic depth because it's the opposite of SP....that would be an inane assertion. I do believe it adds some strategy however, simply because it adds another implication to the "to war or not to war" decision.

quote: That's not the proposal. The hard-and-fast rule would be that if you have multiple units in a given enemy's territory, only one of those units may attack on the first turn in order to initiate war.

That proposal is absurd. It would totally take away the ability to surprise attack in strength. If I move my stack of 15 Swords from the fog onto a hill next to another player's city, he has a limited ability to move sufficient defenders into the city in one turn. You seem to be suggesting that next turn I am only permitted to say "Here, my one Sword will attack your defending Spear as a warning, but watch out for that stack sitting there because they will really try next turn". Meanwhile, his defenders have reached the city. Not only that, he can actually attack my stack!

Simply ridiculous!

quote: This is not as powerful as the LoDW option (agressor units may still trespass unhindered all they want), but it addresses what seems to be the most harmful exploit: The defender is not forced to make a pre-emptive strike and send what should be their War Happiness to the aggressor just to avoid having a number of his/her cities wiped out before s/he can get a single round of combat in.

In practical terms, this would almost never happen. Firstly, no half-decent PBEM player is going to risk moving his stack slowly through another player's territory in order to approach a juicy target. As a defender, I am quite happy to lose my war happiness in that situation. As an attacker, I would be attacking an outer-lying city anyway, and am moving my stack into his territory not to attract war happiness, but to do him some damage.

	04-03-2005 12:57									#127
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by alexman Still, I would prefer an honor code of declaring war when you are trespassing with intent to attack.

...as you have so graciously demonstrated in our Iron Civer Final

Using this as an example, do you think this pre-war delcaration changed the outcome at all, besides notionally giving the war happiness to me instead of you (though largely irrelevant due to tiny populations)?

	04-03-2005 13:02									#128
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by bongo Even Napoleon or Alexander would be trashed by the regulars in the PBEM-forum until they got the game-mechanics right.

You'd have to make a distinction between simply learning the game mechanics and learning the game mechanics that change because of the PBEM problems sabrewolf describes. As far as we can preserve the SP functionality in PBEM, we make the learning curve a number of days to know the mechanics. PBEM then becomes an extention of SP, only against more challenging opponents that learn and adapt. Allowing asynchronous irregularities to be the basis of tactics and strategy makes the learning curve span months instead, as PBEM becomes essentially a different game from SP.

At this point, I doubt many newcommers are going to be willing to invest months of learning Civ3 PBEM to get up to speed. If I can promote a second tournament as newbie friendly, maybe we can entice a few more regular SPers to join the fray...

	04-03-2005 13:52									#129
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Aqualung71 That proposal is absurd. It would totally take away the ability to surprise attack in strength. If I move my stack of 15 Swords from the fog onto a hill next to another player's city, he has a limited ability to move sufficient defenders into the city in one turn. You seem to be suggesting that next turn I am only permitted to say "Here, my one Sword will attack your defending Spear as a warning, but watch out for that stack sitting there because they will really try next turn". Meanwhile, his defenders have reached the city. Not only that, he can actually attack my stack!

It would not affect your ability to attack to any degree. If your plan is to attack with those forces the next turn, simply declare war the same turn you move them into place. The following turn your entire force can attack. The only difference is the defender will get the war happiness and the first opportunity to strike at the encroaching forces, instead of being forced to choose between the two (essentially what LoDW does). Would you seriously consider that moving a Stack of Death next to an opponent's city without first declaring war qualifies it as a 'surprise' attack?

Why would you be "quite happy to lose [your] War Happiness" in such a situation? Feel the need to handicap yourself?

An honor system like alexman and sabre mention would probably be a straight-forward solution, but it seems like using a tournaquet to deal with an infected digit- better than nothing, but it goes a bit in the other direction by restricting attackers much more than in SP. The rule above would deal with the WH mechanism exploit, but still allow an agressor to 'probe' the enemy and test their resolve to tolerate infiltration without taking the mood hit- exactly the sort of strategy the exploit mongers seem to be defending...

	04-03-2005 14:14									#130
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by alexman It's true, that isn't strategy for the attacker, although there is some strategy involved in the defender's response.

And played well, I think the best a defender can hope for is to approach as good a situation as they would be in the same SP circumstances. This is just a matter of personal opinion, but PBEM games are less enjoyable by being geared to favor aggressors, which is why I'd consider an honor-code solution to LoDW to be better than nothing.

	04-03-2005 14:28									#131
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Modo44 There is a mechanism, introduced in ancient history, that forces an enemy to declare war before reaching your capital. It is called "Fortify units along the whole border".

I can't think of an example, in game or in RL, that even comes close to approximating this statement. Ok, the Great Wall of China is in the neighborhood, but from what I've ever heard its only practical use was to prevent barbarian raiders from escaping imperial lands with booty they had already aquired.

	04-03-2005 14:33									#132
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Ever heard of Hadrian's Wall?

All medieval countries had castles all over the place, not only on borders. In the Civ3 scale, that was a Fort with a garrison on nearly every tile. If someone wanted to get in, he had to conquer those forts one by one - openly declaring war.

	04-03-2005 14:36									#133
	Inflate your Upload Space

I have become an 'Exploit Monger'


Sorry but I simply don't see this as a problem in need of fixing. The war-happines is in most cases hardly noticable when compared to the war itself.

Forcing players to declare war when they cross the borders cause more problems than it fix as it forces players to reveal their true intentions prematurely.

Besides, your 'true intentions' may not be valid next turn anyway. It is not unheard of to change plans on very short notice when opportunities arise. The Fourth Crusade is a nice historical example of that.

	04-03-2005 15:54									#134
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Modo44 Ever heard of Hadrian's Wall? All medieval countries had castles all over the place, not only on borders. In the Civ3 scale, that was a Fort with a garrison on nearly every tile. If someone wanted to get in, he had to conquer those forts one by one - openly declaring war.

I've heard Hadrian's Wall described as basically the same as the Chinese- a porus structure yielding primarily economic benefits because it's only effective use was to deter barbarian raiders.

If we're moving from the ancient to medieval era, I can't comment on the relative density of their placement, but forts and castles are even more porus arrangements- they cannot restrict enemy movement in and of themselves, just cut off supply lines and deny them a secure front for retreat.

Defending an entire border with a solid line of units would be prohibitively expensive in any PBEM I've been in. A line of forts and barricades might be feasible after a point, but doesn't seem to address the WH exploit with much scope...

	04-03-2005 16:03									#135
	Remove this text

Bloody Information-Denying Exploit Mongers...

quote: Originally posted by bongo Sorry but I simply don't see this as a problem in need of fixing. The war-happines is in most cases hardly noticable when compared to the war itself. Forcing players to declare war when they cross the borders cause more problems than it fix as it forces players to reveal their true intentions prematurely. Besides, your 'true intentions' may not be valid next turn anyway. It is not unheard of to change plans on very short notice when opportunities arise.

...which is the point of the 'single unit attack' proposal, as it would allow everything you mention while preventing a War Happiness reversal. Do you at least recognize this is a problem that could use fixing, even if you don't like adding out-of-game rules?

	04-03-2005 16:21									#136
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Rommel2D I've heard Hadrian's Wall described as basically the same as the Chinese- a porus structure yielding primarily economic benefits because it's only effective use was to deter barbarian raiders.

The Romans had fortifications against what they called barbarians, yes. However, those were pretty advanced, organized tribes at that time, so keeping them away is exactly the kind of defense I mean - having the whole border shut.

quote: Originally posted by Rommel2D If we're moving from the ancient to medieval era, I can't comment on the relative density of their placement, but forts and castles are even more porus arrangements- they cannot restrict enemy movement in and of themselves, just cut off supply lines and deny them a secure front for retreat.

In medieval Europe, effectively every 1 in 2 tiles would have a Fort on it. The ratio would be 1:1 if you took a world map. Porous they might seem, but even basic military strategy requires to kill any resistance behing one's lines. In that era, the enemy needed no fuel or ammunition, so they could do really bad things if left alone. Meaning, castles had to be taken if you wanted to effectively conquer. So no, effectively the defenses were not porous.

Closer to our times, you have WWI, where basically whole borders were trench lines, all manned with troops. In WWII, there were things like the Maginot Line or Stalin Line.

Yes, a mobile defense can be organized. But, most countries still rely on troops that protect the whole border. Those might be crap units (like Stalin had when Germans invaded), but they are still big enough to force the enemy to do the first attack. It is not a new invention, and it always worked more as a deterrent, than as an impenetrable defense. And somehow, advanced civs often thought it necessary and worthwile to do.

Civ3 breaks it, and I agree with the assession, that it was done to help against the crazy AI amarching things to weird places.

quote: Originally posted by Rommel2D Defending an entire border with a solid line of units would be prohibitively expensive in any PBEM I've been in. A line of forts and barricades might be feasible after a point, but doesn't seem to address the WH exploit with much scope...

You need not defend it against all ttacks if you lack the power. You only need to force the attacker to kill one or two units in order to get inside your borders. Yes, I mean using expendable units, which simply block access. That is not very expensive, is it?

	05-03-2005 01:17									#137
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Modo44 So no, effectively the defenses were not porous.

Effectively they weren't porous, but physically they were, so they don't compare to lining every tile along a border with units. A sizable, well-equipped army could march to any geographic point they wished unless they were actively attacked, no? The World Wars had some examples that would accomplish this, but now your talking about late industrial age.

quote: Yes, I mean using expendable units, which simply block access. That is not very expensive, is it?

The earlier in the game you are, the less expendable units you have. It is a situational solution that doesn't address the flawed game mechanic much of the time. In game terms, I don't see how this could be even as cost effective as dealing with the shift in citizen mood unless you have a huge empire with very tiny borders. Even then you'd have to blockade the entire coast somehow...

	05-03-2005 03:39									#138
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Rommel2D Effectively they weren't porous, but physically they were, so they don't compare to lining every tile along a border with units. A sizable, well-equipped army could march to any geographic point they wished unless they were actively attacked, no?

Well, yes and no.

Yes, one could march through without getting attacked. However, chances are high tht you will get clobbered. As Civ3 is only a model (and not a very precise one in this regard), the in-game equivalent of an active harassing force is having fortified units on all border tiles. It is not very good, but forcing people to attack with one unit out of ten to be "honourble" is even worse in my opinion.

quote: Originally posted by Rommel2D The earlier in the game you are, the less expendable units you have. It is a situational solution that doesn't address the flawed game mechanic much of the time. In game terms, I don't see how this could be even as cost effective as dealing with the shift in citizen mood unless you have a huge empire with very tiny borders. Even then you'd have to blockade the entire coast somehow...

Now this is just whining. One can make walls of units and it is doable in most cases without that much of a cost. Fact is, facing the AI you can easily get used to neglecting defensive units, which is an exploit of itself. Guess what, real nations quickly became extinct if they neglected defenses. You have to learn to not to make a Settler/Worker, but a defender every now and then. It is a simple lesson, really.

One more thing. While the War Happiness is nice to have for the defender, it was just as often the attacker who was getting some. People are dumb, and can be moved to accept a war quite easily (Iraq, anyone?). Meaning, you can treat this "exploit" as good propaganda, and be perectly ok with human history.

	05-03-2005 06:51									#139
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Modo44 the in-game equivalent of an active harassing force is having fortified units on all border tiles. It is not very good, but forcing people to attack with one unit out of ten to be "honourble" is even worse in my opinion.

No, the game equivalent is pretty clearly forts and the ZoC mechanism. Yes, if you have well manned forts (castles) in a FxxF (FxF?) arrangement around your land, an invading force is going to suffer if it bypasses them. But you're talking about one specific play style available late in the ancient age at the earliest. This does very little to address a broken game mechanism that would have a noticeable impact between two otherwise equally matched forces.

The "honor system" was a different suggestion, and I'm not sure what the details of it would be. The 'single trespassing unit attack' would be a distinct rule 100% enforceable as far as I can tell. Although I don't like adding more rules to the list, it seems like the best way to allow would-be agressors freedoms similar to SP without causing WH to be assigned backwards.

quote: One more thing. While the War Happiness is nice to have for the defender, it was just as often the attacker who was getting some. People are dumb, and can be moved to accept a war quite easily (Iraq, anyone?). Meaning, you can treat this "exploit" as good propaganda, and be perectly ok with human history.

I have little idea what how your local media has portrayed the situation, but my first hand experience is that the WTC/Pentagon attacks stirred US patriotic fervor, and it began to disappear soon after the present administration spun the circumstances into a reason to conquer Iraq.

The game is of course a gross simplification of reality, but I think the designers did an amazing approximation of citizens' moods in general, at least in SP.

	15-03-2005 13:09									#140
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

So where are we headed for the next Iron Civer?

	15-03-2005 14:00									#141
	Tired of ads?

Instructions for applying to the tournament are back here. So far I have one entrant, two players to test the scenario, and five responses to the poll- march madness hasn't quite struck yet...

I'm waiting to hear from the powers that be on some tournament details. After that I will make posts in other forums and try to have a news item posted ASAP...

	19-03-2005 13:21									#142
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

I've just entered. I'm sure interest will pick up once the new tournament is publicised.

	29-03-2005 06:37									#143
	Inflate your Upload Space

Well it's a month since Rommel said a new tournament may be ready to start in a few weeks.

Rommel, where are we at?

	29-03-2005 14:26									#144
	Are birds free from the chains of the sky-way? Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

I just received clearance on the format from the owners a few days ago [edit: actually over a week ago]. I'm still undecided whether to go with the scenario as is or what- the test games have gone nowhere fast.

Right now, I'm trying to iron out some wrinkles with my new hard drive. I'm also starting a new job this weekend and am looking for a new apartment in a more convenient location to coincide. At the same time, I have to finalize plans for re-enrolling at a university and sign up for classes for next fall. Tomorrow night is the first night of our Ultimate spring league and I'm captian of a team (which basically means I'm supposed to be one of the last people to leave the bar... ;-) As soon as I have a spare couple hours, I'll make up a news item to request more sign-ups and clarify some format details. Hopefully I don't have any problems establishing an internet connection at the new place...

I expect to have the first round of games up and running this Friday.

Last edited by Rommel2D on 29-03-2005 at 15:18

	30-03-2005 17:14									#145
	Re: Are birds free from the chains of the sky-way? Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Rommel2D ... Tomorrow night is the first night of our Ultimate spring league and I'm captian of a team ...

Cool

I'm a disc golfer m'self.

	31-03-2005 02:51									#146
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by ricketyclik I'm a disc golfer m'self.

I avoid drinking and driving.

BTW- did you get the IC2 test game save last weekend...?

	31-03-2005 10:27									#147
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Yes, and played and sent it.

	08-04-2005 11:06									#148
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

So far, I only have 5 completed entries for the second tournament:

Krill
ricketyclik
Paddy the Scot
Andydog
Platypus Rex

I need the information requested above submitted before you will be added to the list.

Last edited by Rommel2D on 08-04-2005 at 11:24

	08-04-2005 11:14									#149
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

re-applied. then if my application is not sucessful, just say so...

	08-04-2005 11:14									#150
	Inflate your Upload Space

dp