 |
| |
|
|
germanos
|
|
behind a firm ****, Rotterdam, NL
Apr 2002
time: 06:22
|
|
The players are (in order of the game-cycle)
Hittite = Tanelorn
Babylonia = SlowThinker
Assyria = Germanos
Egypt = Kull
Persia = Stefan Haertel
Greece = Steve Clarke
Minoan = La Fayette
I'll send you my e-mail via the PM
For Diplomacy: I encourage it, its a large part of the fun of playing MP/PBEM
I would say that practically all is allowed, except diplomacy if you haven't met in game, and/or the MapMaking issue as adressed by SlowThinker.
Alliances are allowed, tech-trading is allowed (in fact, quite some techs have been traded as we speak)
Unit gifting?
If allowed, only via MP mode. (meaning players will meet online to give units)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SlowThinker
|
|
homeless, Praha, Czech Republic
Jan 2000
time: 06:22
|
|
La Fayette, I see you prefer a no-diplomacy game, but this game has run from the beginning as a diplo-game, so I think a change in the middle would not be a good idea.
But I can agree with you that a diplo-game don't show who is a good Civ2 player: even a super-player will be blown away easily if 6 civs attack him simultaneously. So you must be very polite to others  . And keep cities on size 1-2 so that others know they would gain nothing from a conquest 
BTW sneak-attack doesn't work in PBEM games played in .net mode, because only human defenders are affected by the sneak attack.
Your sentence about lying is leading me to add it in the text:
Rules:
All diplomatic arrangements (alliances, tech, unit, gold, city trading, trade agreements = to allow caravans to be delivered etc.) are allowed, but any agreements can be broken when advantageous (unlike barters).
Any info may be offered during diplomatic talks (except restraints related to Map Making), but any info may be false.
Please send objections if any.
quote:
Originally posted by germanos
Unit gifting?
If allowed, only via MP mode. (meaning players will meet online to give units) |
maybe I should be more concrete in rules:
Rules:
Description of allowed ways for implementing barters/gifts:
Maps (see restraints related to Map Making): online connection, AI diplomacy (F3 key), screenshots, YaroTool;
Techs: online connection, AI diplomacy (F3 key), YaroTool (current version don't count with GL - the given tech must be passed also to the owner of the GL some way);
Gold: online connection, AI diplomacy (F3 key), YaroTool
Units: online connection; Yaroslav is preparing unit exchange in new version of YaroTool; AI diplomacy is forbidden because units are teleported
Cities: YaroTool (warning: you must clear the city from units and unit support before a transaction), agreed capture (warning: 1 citizen and some improvements may be lost)
Warning: AI diplomacy (F3 key) can bring problems - for example some unwanted info about opponent's civ may be revealed.
Both gifts and barters and way of their implementation must be agreed by both sides before the realization.
Please send objections if any.
quote:
Originally posted by tanelorn
I think that when you are gifted a unit for which you don't have the tech, you get it automatically, but I haven't checked. |
Maybe this happens in the AI diplomacy only, but we should know (test) it ...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kull
|
|
El Paso, TX USA
Mar 1999
time: 22:22
|
|
My internet connection has been totally hosed for the last 3 days, so I've missed a lot of the recent discussions:
1) SlowThinker:  Very nice listing of the rules. Once we've agreed on the final set, I'll post a copy in my opening post so people can find it without hunting around (I keep an updated list of players there, too).
2) A few thoughts on some of the proposed rules:
- Unit Gifting. Don't like it. If anyone can cite historical sources in which, for example, the Assyrians permanently "gave" an army to some other civ, than maybe i'd agree to this. It just does't seem to have any basis in historical reality.
- Map Gifs. You know my opinion, but it's not that big a deal. I would like to hear from some of the other players, tho.
- Auto-settler irrigation. I think we all agree this is not a good idea.
- Reloading. I agree with your list of exceptions.
- Time Limit. Having played some other PBEMs, its safe to say that 48 hours is a VERY short period, especially now that the empires are growing. Given that we have international players in multiple time zones, and none of us want to be checking 'poly every other day, I'd propose going with a "no-notice" 72 - with time exceptions granted only to those who request them. The reality is that the fastest way to move this game along is via the PM system that germanos constantly (and rightly) begs us to follow. I wouldn't want to MANDATE the use of "it's your turn" PMs, but it's definitely the polite and courteous thing to do.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SlowThinker
|
|
homeless, Praha, Czech Republic
Jan 2000
time: 06:22
|
|
.
 Attachment: bab_b3100.net
This has been downloaded 2 time(s).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SlowThinker
|
|
homeless, Praha, Czech Republic
Jan 2000
time: 06:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kull
Unit Gifting. Don't like it. If anyone can cite historical sources in which, for example, the Assyrians permanently "gave" an army to some other civ, than maybe i'd agree to this. It just does't seem to have any basis in historical reality. |
1. Concerning history
I think we cannot try to copy historical facts to Civ2 diplomacy. Imagine that you find out that in history Greeks never payed or gifted any gold to Babylonians and Greeks got only pottery from Hittites ... and you want to force these rules in our game...
 We simply write a new history.
2. Concerning gameplay
Unit gifting looks as a similar action to gifting of gold, techs, cities...but...
The most different item is Tech gifting: unit or gold is 'moved' to another civ, but techs are 'copied'. So first I would question Tech gifting.
I can agree that Unit gifting AND City gifting is different from Gold gifting in one aspect: it allows a civ to get a position in a very far part of world without need of moving there. Although I don't think this is a problem, I could imagine an additional rule: If civ A pass a city or unit to civ B then the submission must occur besides an existing city or unit (it takes the new unit or city over) of civ B. The game might look a little bit more natural, but on other side any additional rule means a complication...
I agree with La Fayette that we can play a diplomacy game or a non-diplomacy game but nothing between. I think Unit giving is part of Civ2 diplomacy and I would consider strange to exclude a part of diplomacy without a good (gameplay-related) reason.
Conclusion: I think Unit giving should be preserved. But I could vote (or be neutral) for the rule that requires to take units over.
I perceived that there might be some strange things with city giving: for example a city could be 'lent' to a civ with Pyramids before growth and then taken back. Or it could be lent to a civ with Sun Tzu before new unit is finished.
Your opinions?
Last edited by SlowThinker on 24-08-2003 at 06:18
|
|
| |
|
|
|
germanos
|
|
behind a firm ****, Rotterdam, NL
Apr 2002
time: 06:22
|
|
My city workers have been replaced as well, like SlowThinker described…
In this case, the change has taken place during the Babylonian turn 
Fiddling around, I have been able to restore production in one of my cities, but not in another. To do so, I have exploited a bug in the game.
Doing so, I was able to restore production in Nineveh, and thus the unit that was supposed to be finshed this turn, gets indeed finished.
With your permission, I would like to play from the 'restored' save, instead of the messed up one.
My Civ is not passworded, as far as I'm conceirned everybody is free to check Assyria's production in my 3110BC save against the Assyrian production in Babylons 3100BC save., if you feel something fishy is going on. Preferably ask a friend to check.
For those playing in this game, who want to see what devestation this weird worker-allocation problem can cause, feel free to check my saves in the imperialism game at CFC.
It's only now that i'm experiencing this bug in this game as well, I've discovered the F1 bug as described above, in a desperate effort to find ways to bypass this problem.
I'm curious if SlowThinker and/or Steve have used Yaroslav's Utility (or any other) during their turn that might have had any influence on the save.
I'll post as soon as I've had some feedback on the issue of '(partially) restoring' my production orders.
Yours, germanos.
Last edited by germanos on 24-08-2003 at 17:09
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SlowThinker
|
|
homeless, Praha, Czech Republic
Jan 2000
time: 06:22
|
|
It looks the AI changed workers after I loaded Hittite save and the AI 'finished' Hitite turn...
In 3110 I set password with Yaroslav's utility. But I didn't use it in 3100. I don't use any other tool that writes in a save or memory (I think also a hypothetical bug in Lazy Civ might cause this). I use only Civ2Beakers - it reads file only.
I think my relocation occured during La Fayette's move, not Steve's.
Imperialism 1870 - can you post a link to the correct page? I suppose thread is long...
Test
germanos, I will play again my turn - in one test I will replay my turn, in other test I will just Ctrl-N and not to move. Check your e-mail.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SlowThinker
|
|
homeless, Praha, Czech Republic
Jan 2000
time: 06:22
|
|
I didn't manage cities. I will try to produce more saves.
I suppose you tried to reload repeatedly that 'bad' save?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SlowThinker
|
|
homeless, Praha, Czech Republic
Jan 2000
time: 06:22
|
|
It is the same file.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
germanos
|
|
behind a firm ****, Rotterdam, NL
Apr 2002
time: 06:22
|
|
ST,
the save here on Poly is as 'bad' as the one I received by e-mail, so we can rule out a 'screw-up' while transfering the file.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SlowThinker
|
|
homeless, Praha, Czech Republic
Jan 2000
time: 06:22
|
|
I found how it happened:
In my turn I did partial saves. The last partial save is OK, but the final save has changed workers in Nineveh.
It is because I pressed F11 (Demographics window).
I tested also other special keys, but none affected Nineveh workers. But they might affect other cities!
La Fayette, did you press F11 during your turn? Could you try a new turn without F11 and e-mail me the save?
Anyway I ask all players not to press F11 in main game. Do it in a side-load.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SlowThinker
|
|
homeless, Praha, Czech Republic
Jan 2000
time: 06:22
|
|
This is the corrected file.
Attachment: bab_b3100 no f11.net
This has been downloaded 0 time(s).
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
germanos
|
|
behind a firm ****, Rotterdam, NL
Apr 2002
time: 06:22
|
|
Dear Hatte neighbours,
We apologize for any inconvenience caused to oxen-carts on the road our scouts have been crossing. They have moved on. Maybe you could give them some directions in their quest for the fabled lands of Greece?
Your Charioteers have indeed been staying on a border for quite a while: the Assyrian-Egyptian one that is .
They have chosen voluntarily to rest after their battles fought in Canaan. As far as Assyria is conceirned, they can move into Egypt, but alas our troops will not.
Our borderguards have been ordered, as a sign of goodwill, to move south to Egyptian territory to allow your Charioteers to move into Egypt. The Guards' room to manouvre is very limited however, so we want to give you some directions, in order to avoid future blocking of your now fully recovered Charioteers, currently pickinicking with the Egyptians: To enter into Egypt, your Charioteers will have to move a little straight south, and then head for the forest to the south-east. From there, you will have no problem moving further south later on.
Your skirmishers in the Syrian desert are indeed advised to leave the barbarians in their fortresses alone: they will be utterly crushed by the defenders  . There is no need to harden the defenders in a futile attack. We don't understand all the hassle though: you have more Skirmishers in the region, and they move freely. Moreover, your units had encountered Assyrian borderguards way up north of your current position. You shouldn't be surprised you encounter more and more Assyrian troops when you penetrate deeper into Assyrian lands
We do have a request for you, o noble people of the North:
Hittite Farmers have been spotted near the north-western city limits of the Assyrian city of Ishkanderoun. We assume they will work the fields of Iconion, as local roumors tell us this Hittite city is near. They are asked to respect the city limits of Iskanderun however, which are defined as the southernmost region downstream of the Seyhan river. The spot is easyly recognized as there is a large colony of Game Birds present. Further east, the hilly lands, rich in Olives and Sheep, mark the north-eastern city limits. Would you travel further east, you would arrive in the wellknown city of Karkemish (previously known as Harada).
NB: I'll post my turn as soon as I have received word from SlowThinker it is OK to do so.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SlowThinker
|
|
homeless, Praha, Czech Republic
Jan 2000
time: 06:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by germanos PS: do you want to replay your turn SlowThinker? |
Did you try the 'corrected' file? Are there any problems?
In fact this is a 'replayed' turn. I took a partial save and didn't press F11.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:22.
Apolyton Time is 00:22. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
20-08-2003 19:27
. And it happened between Greek and Minoan turn 
|