View Full Version : great no-AI PBEM
Socrates
26-06-2004, 19:23
Hello PBEM freaks !!! :D
I'm coming with an idea for a great PBEM that could interest many of you. It would be a PBEM game that would feature many human civs and no AI civs. The map will be heavily customized, so as every player has fair chances. I hope that with CDZ players, the game could go at a fast pace, though featuring many players.
Beam and I are currently setting this up. We're thinking of using C3C 1.22 of course. Some settings that we think will make it to this game include :
- Demi-God or Deity level (remember there is no AI) ;
- possibility of having 2 or 3 settlers at the start ;
- a rather symetrical archipelago map, with almost or exact same starting positions for everyone ;
- maybe a rather large starting island, a few smaller ones, and many small ones ;
- a standard-size map ;
- maybe little tweaks like no Statue of Zeus and Knights Templar, no SGL's, and so on...
This list is subject to debates between interested players.
We're thinking of having at least 4 players, and no more than 8. This could depend on other settings... About civs, it may be obvious that the seafearing trait will be a must-have, so we're thinking about tweaking civ traits : players' input may help here. Maybe the map will be like it is not so strong after all. Beam is currently searching a mapmaker for this.
Well that's it. I may edit this post if I forgot something.
We're waiting for strongly motivated players for this game, that could last a good while. And don't hesitate even if you feel you don't usually play on Deity level : no AI but many human players will change the course of the game so much that it won't look like a typical 1v1 game.
I'm in of course! :)
Player preference:
If a Civ has Expansionist as trait it will be replaced with Seafaring. Banzai requested Industrious for Portugal.
Akots:
1) Carthage
2) England
3) Russia (Exp. replaced with Seaf.)
Banzai:
1) Portugal (Exp. replaced with Ind.)
2) Spain
3) France
Krys:
1) Byz
2) Dutch
3) Vikes
anar:
1) Dutch
2) Byz
3) Carthage
Arghis:
1) Scandinavia
2) Carthage
3) Arabs
Kemal:
1) Dutch
2) Inca (Exp. replaced with Seaf.)
3) Arabs (Exp. replaced with Seaf.)
Killer:
1) Liechtenstein ;)
2) Andorra [:p]
3) Vatican City [evil]
Beam:
1) Hittites (Exp. replaced with Seaf.)
2) Dutch
3) English
quote:Originally posted by Aggie
I can make the map.
[kiss]
Socrates
26-06-2004, 21:36
quote:Originally posted by Beam
quote:Originally posted by Aggie
I can make the map.
[kiss]
Unlike what would look like to be obvious, I'm not the 2nd kissing drag-queen !! :D I instead give you a good [thumbsup], dear Aggie.
Well, any interested player is welcomed to post here.
I'm very interested as well.
IMHO, the main problem for the game would be an ability to play the turn every day. And warn others if unable to so that the choke point is easily identified. No holding of the saves....
Also, even player strength would be of great importance for the balance.
It will be difficult to have a 1 turn a day rythm. We can agree on some time period to help. For exemple, i'm usually in front of my computer nearly half a day (these times - morning and evening).
Also we can ask for some kind of replacment player, in case someone have an unexpected problem.
a good archipelago, yes, but why a symetrical one ? i would prefer a map where the surroundings are not clear. exploration is always an interesting phase. i don't mind having a start loc less this than another, as long as there is only human player.
I would like to participate too, but as said it may require quite some tweaking to get a right balance, especially regarding the civ traits. I do think giving everyone the same traits takes away some of the fun of the game, but obviously some traits are just way more useful than others.
Lt. Killer M
29-06-2004, 09:03
I'd be very interested too, but I also understand if you do not want me in the game, krys!
I'll do my best to make it a fair map and therefore will follow your discussions closely. I agree with Kemal that everything the same makes it less interesting. I also want to warn that a very specific request for a map (like 21 island, everyone their own resource, etc... etc...)takes away from the fun as well. At least imho.
The main topic for discussion is what to do with the traits imo. It is quite easy to give all Civs Seafaring as 3rd trait, but that also implies that the Civs with Seafaring out-of-the-box should get a different 3rd trait.
We couldn't do anything about traits of course, then I fear a run on Seafaring civs.
Socrates
29-06-2004, 12:35
quote:Originally posted by Lt. Killer M
I'd be very interested too, but I also understand if you do not want me in the game, krys!
Lol. I don't think anyone knows about it, but Killer and I had a discussion about not playing against each other again, due to out-of-the-game issues (but nothing important !). From my part, I never say "never", and I'm not one of those who stick to stupid decisions. And BTW this game WON'T be my baby nor Beam's, at least once the game has started. It will be CDZ's baby (we will only allow CDZ members here, to ease communications, like in Diplo). [cool] So Killer, you're welcome to take part in the game, all the more if you're "very interested". And as I had said, I understood things, and I'm open to changing, and so can play you again in the future if you feel like it (maybe not now, but why not in some months). [discussion closed here]
It looks like our game is going well. I really feel we need to reach an excellent balance in every area. Once the game has started, there will be no way to change anything without losing a lot of time. Since this will be a more or so pelago map, I assume everyone would like to have the seafearing trait. But what to do with seafearing civs ? Would all these changes make the game less interesting ?
People, this topic if for discussion about how to build this game. Use it extensively.
Lt. Killer M
29-06-2004, 13:11
krys, thank you very much.
About civ choices..
The Vikings will be extremely powerfull in this game, so I vote for banning this civ..
Unless the Viking player wants to play always war with all players ;)
Banzai!
Lt. Killer M
29-06-2004, 15:08
I'd say SGLs should stay in - all can get them. But the SoZ sucks too much, so I'd vote to take it ou. Also, Viks are extremely powerfull indeed, and I second Banzais move to ban them. In human hands they are such an über-civ that they unbalance the game.
Socrates
30-06-2004, 13:18
Well, as for SGL's, I really don't know ; I don't mind at all if they stay in, because they are part of scientific civs' benefits, and maybe in a game with no AI it can make the tech pace pretty intense, as every new tech acquired will generate a RNG number for a SGL. [fdevil] So the tech pace could be really important, and you might not want to go for 50-turn gambits all the time (even if the tech pace will be slower than with AIs in the beginning), nor wait for other players to discover techs. I'd like input from players who have already played such C3C games.
As or the SoZ, I don't mind too, the only thing is that having ivory is a real game-breaker ; so ivory should be available to everyone (maybe spread 8 ivory luxuries in the 8 regions, at equal distances from the starting positions (either close or far away), or maybe just put 4 ivory luxuries, in the middle of 4 super-regions combining 2 civs [evil] ).
As for traits, well I don't know how many we will eventually be (4 to 8). But, if we're 7 players (why not ?), then we could all agree on being one of the 7 seafearing civs, so that we don't have to choose a 3rd trait for our civs. If we are 8 players, then I believe someone would have to be a non-seafearing civ, but we could think about it and tweak something.
That leads me to this : we should now be sure of how many players we are for this game. No need to delay things any further. From what I read in this topic, people who are motivated for this game (and I hope you REALLY are motivated, this is a game that will last for months and maybe years ?) :
1. kryszcztov
2. Beam
3. Arghis
4. anarres
5. akots
6. Banzai
7. Kemal
8. Lt. Killer M
That means we are 8 players so far ! We won't be more than that, but if anyone suddenly doesn't think he wants to take part in the game, then please say it quickly ! And we could welcome a new player of course.
P.S. : Vikings... I'm not into banning a civ. Maybe Vikings are more deadly in humand hands than other civs. But then, it could lead other players to ally against the Vikings, and the player behind the Scandinavian civ would have to face difficult turns. It's all about being too weak or too strong. Being too strong can lead you to some difficult moments, and please wonder what happened to Napoleon. [cry]
Lt. Killer M
30-06-2004, 17:04
I am definately in!
I am also for free civ choice with free trait choice - this WILL make things more interesting.
or we disable civ abilities totally, that's another option.
Also, we should pull random numbers for player order ;)
Since there is no AI, the Emperor level might be sufficient. Further increase in difficulty would just increase corruption and research time without altering essential game features, IMHO.
Regarding traits: Saefaring is a must to have, so should be enabled to all players. IMHO, two other traits can be either selected from the existing combination or adjusted by the individual player requests for a total of three unique traits. Viking indeed are overpowered not because of traits but because of berserks and longships. Removing either of these or banning the Viking completely would be a good idea. Another solution would be to have amphibious assault ability for MDI and knights like it is in AoD Conquest scenario. It would be then a very gory and messy game!
However, if only two traits per civ are permitted, it would be not so easy to balance the eight human players. IMHO, three traits of choice can be better. These can be all the same for all players, like industrious and commerical to speed up the movement through the turns. Or may be make all civs industrious and seafaring and add a third trait of choice? Or make it even four: three default traits would be seafaring, agricultural, and industrious with another one to choose from based on personal preferences? Or give all traits to everyone? [lol]
Regarding the game speed point. Just wanted to discuss a possibility of accelearted production turned on. And if I may suggest to have high landmass. This might be a major pain in the neck for the mapmaker however. Then, increased ship movement would not be that important but still cheap harbors are essential. Don't know, this might really unbalance the game.
Last and very important question. How to handle players who are holding the save and not playing within 24 hours without warning the others? Yellow card for 10 turns; if another yellow card within these 10 turns then the player gets red card... :) What then? Two red cards and the player is skipped for a turn or is replaced? Or something else? Also, posting in the game thread after mailing the save is a must IMHO. RL is sometimes rude to people but the game has to move. It cannot continue for years, the players would just lose interest.
Socrates
30-06-2004, 22:31
I'd rather not have accelerated production turned on, I just don't feel like playing with it. Don't wanna feel in a online MP game.
About warning people, well, I think it's best to have a game master, who will have to receive a mail from each player each turn : each time you receive a turn, send a mail to the GM (preferably player #1), and then play your turn, and send it via mail to the next player. If the save is lost at some point, then the GM will deal with it, but I hope we won't have much of that, because after all, this is THE place for PBEMs...
I wouldn't want the game to be really tweaked, it's a pain to remember the little different details in each game, so I'd rather not tweak too much. I prefer to see how people feel about civ choice and civ traits. So people : if you could tell your preference for your civ, and what you think about traits and tweaks. I need everyone's input !!
As for me, I'd like to play as the Byzantines or the English or the Dutch, which wouldn't need any tweak.
I'll take Portugal - I've never played them before.
Although the expansionistic trait is not very usefull in an archipelago game, I still want to give it a shot.
At least I will be able to beat the Spanish and the Dutch.. ;)
Banzai!
I will play any civ, but if everyone else is seafaring I want to be seafaring too ;)
The problem with 8 players is that there are only 7 seafaring civilizations and if Vikings are out this leaves 2 players for non-seafaring civs which would be a great disadvantage on this kind of map IMHO. Hence was the idea of having 3 or even 4 or all 6 traits or no traits at all.
Well, how about if you choose a non-seafaring civ you can swap an existing trait for seafaring?
It is obvious there is an issue with Civ-traits, but as Kemal said removing them takes away a very charming aspect of the game. It is also obvious that Seafaring is by far the strongest trait on a pelago map and we can go either way:
- Give all Civs Seafaring as a 3rd trait, which means that some Civs need a different 3rd trait because they already have Seafaring OR eliminate those Civs from the game.
- Eliminate Seafaring from the game and either replace Civ with Seafaring with another trait or reduce all Civs to one trait not being seafaring.
Easiest is to remove Seafaring Civs as a choice.
Otherwise I'd say focus on giving all AI Seafaring as 3rd and discuss what the 3rd trait could be for Civs that already have Seafaring.
Also, expansionist seems to be the most useless trait in this kind of map unless map makers deliberately throws in some huts for expansionist players.
Re 3 traits, for example, Spain can be religious and commerical (like in PTW), and seafaring. Carthage can be industrious and commercial and England expansionist (rather useless IMHO) and commercial plus to seafaring. But what about Dutch, Byzantine, and Portugal? Just make them all commercial as a third trait? Which they indeed are at least to a certain extent. I'd like to take seafaring Ottomans or Persia then with Industrious and Scientific traits. :)
I have also another question: Do we all get iron? And/or horses? And equal number of luxuries in the vicinity? And more or less balanced start in terms of food?
Socrates
02-07-2004, 00:57
As already said, I wouldn't want a game that is too tweaked. There is a problem for people with a foreign version (but I think I'm the only one in this case). I first have to find out to what extent I can have the game tweaked. I would like someone to mail me a few saves with successive modifications, so as I can know if I can play without any problem.
I think we would like to have different starting locations, but all in all the same balance of food, shields and commerce, and this also goes for strategic and luxury resources. Aggie will do an excellent job, I'm sure of it. :)
Well, no need to brainstorm more if we can solve the problem quickly. Maybe someone wants to pick a non-seafearing civ, in which case there is no problem at all. It all depends on people's choice ; after all, someone may have a unique strategy for this game, which doesn't require a strong naval presence... I don't know (hey, heard about OCC, 5CC, agricultural and industrious Mayan enslavers, Sumerian enkidus ?...). I don't want anyone to be fooled by this : you can all pick your civ as you wish. But if we can hear from the rest of the future players, particularly on this issue, it would help the debate.
Non-seafaring civs that can build curraghs can be an OK choice I'd say (needing Alphabet). The curraghs will be slower, of course.
I still think my idea has merit, if krys' PC can handle the customisation.
quote:Well, how about if you choose a non-seafaring civ you can swap an existing trait for seafaring?
@krys, the only mod we are considering is related to traits isn't it? I'll do some edits with traits and sent you the sav so you can check if your version handles it. Not sure I have your e-mail so please PM it to me.
If all of us see expansionist as useless we could replace Expansionist with Seafaring and have more Seaf. civs to choose from than there are players. Exp. Civs are:
- Russia - Sci
- America - Ind.
- Zulus - Mil.
- Arabs - Rel.
- Mongolia - Mil.
- Incans - Agri.
- Portugal (has Seaf. as well, could be replaced by an other trait).
- Hittites - Comm. (thnx krys)
quote:Originally posted by Beam ... If all of us see expansionist as useless we could replace Expansionist with Seafaring ...
Cool, it should work well IMHO.
Here is the testsav for krys, all listed Exp. Civs have modified traits and are in the game as is Rome who got Seaf. as 3rd trait.
All pw's are Beam
Download Attachment: icon_paperclip.gif h of the Romans, 3950 BC.SAV (http://www.civ3duelzone.com/forum/uploaded/Beam/200472202141_h of the Romans, 3950 BC.SAV)
76.57KB
If we go this we the following mods are necc. as well (did not do that in this testsav):
- Assign the modified Civs with the starting techs that come with their new traits.
- Remove the Scout assignment for the formerly Exp. Civs.
This makes total of 12 civilizations to choose from. If possible, I'd like to book Carthage. NM is expensive but good for defense. Even might attack if really desperate.
This makes total of 12 civilizations to choose from. If possible, I'd like to book Carthage. NM is expensive but good for defense. Even might attack if really desperate.
Little greedy akots? ;)
I really like to get feedback from most if not all of the players krys lists in his post, no polls pleaz.
I also like anars variant btw.
Also we need to keep the game moving, Aggie is still recovering from the EC and preparing for the Tour de France as he told me ;) so I'd like to set two targets:
- Close the Civ trait discussion by midnight Sat-Sun Dutch Summertime (akots, you're the only one having to make some timezone calculations, Houston-Moscow suggests you have a lot of experience in this however).
- Submit a list of your Top 3 Civs to play by midnight Sun-Mon Dutch Summertime. I propose dice rolls if Civs are choosen by multiple players. I can do the dices, if you think I might bias the dices I will find someone who isn't playing to roll.
Ok!
First choice is Portugal (Sea / Exp). If we remove the Expansionistic trait please replace it with Industrious.
Second choice is Spain (Sea / Rel)
Third choice is France (Ind / Com).. yes.. France! not seafearing, but starting with alphabet too.
btw.. are we really going to start with 3 settlers?
Banzai!
quote:Originally posted by Beam
Little greedy akots? ;)
[lol] I'd like to win... but will play anything.
1. Carthage (Industrious)
2. England (Commercial)
3. Russia (Scientific)
Numbers 2 and 3 suck indeed. However, England appear to be the only commercial (with Spain) and Russia is just the home country, so ought to be there. But I really would like to play Carthage.
Since I'm the only one in the USA, I've got to be the last one to play or somewhere in the middle if we are planning to move at 1 turn/2 days.
Socrates
03-07-2004, 00:54
@ Beam (my mail is the same as my MSN address) : Tested the 1st save. It runs well, with that mix of English key-words inside French text (normal). About expansionnist civs, you forgot the Hittites. ;) Both Portuguese and Incas had the same purple colour. [blush2] Maybe we should edit civ colours, so as they only get their (new) default colour (we could each pick our colour). All civs seem to have the seafearing trait (the capital cities have 4 gold when by the sea), and surely have lost the expansionnist trait (no scout), but Portugal didn't have any scout ? But starting techs do not match this change, and I really think it should. The game will be a little less exotic (everyone would start with Alphabet), but seafearing civs should start with it IMO. Also not all seafearing civs start by the sea, but that's only a matter of map making. Apart from that it's OK. Send me the next save with more additions that might make it to our game, and correct the little errors.
@ all :
First it's better if we all tell our preference for civs, so :
1. Byzantines :D (definitely if SGL's are in)
2. Dutch (never tried them)
3. Vikings (never tried them)
I think the SoZ should stay in, but ivory should be in equal accessibility to everyone then. SGL's are fine with me (one more reason to go for a Sci civ), and as I said, the bigger you get, the more foes you'll have.
I may request to be player #1, as I might become some kind of GM (or anyone wants to manage admin affairs ?), and so I'll quickly see if everything runs fine with my version... The GM will have to organize the player roster (keeping in mind that akots is in the USA).
@krys. That was a pure testsav to see if you can load mods in your French version. Which it does so we can proceed with the modified traits approach. No more testsavs required imo. Hittites added to the list of Exp. Civs.
3 ppl already have posted their preference, I assume that is with the Seaf. - Exp. replacement in mind and accepting dice rolls for equal choices.
Creating equal chances for SoZ by making Ivory equally accessable is just complicating matters for the mapmaker, instead either leave SoZ out or remove Ivory as a required resource. For SGL, my personal pref. is to play without, no prob however playing with SGLs.
I really don't see a need for a GM in this game as the roster is in the game itself and it really doesn't matter where in the queue akots is. Besides us being a self-governing anarchist community. ;)
Socrates
03-07-2004, 12:33
Ok, I assume the game will load well on my PC. What I meant by GM was the guy who will have to see where the save is, if someone forgets to play, and who will have to remind him. I don't see the need to create a topic for everyone to say "turn played ans sent", it will pollute this site more than needed. I'd prefer to do it by e-mail if possible. Maybe you have a better solution (keep in mind that here WILL be problems).
There also is the problem of rules. As there is no AI, we need to all agree on a set of human-human rules.
Ivory or not, I don't see any problem, but I think haveing the SoZ in is funnier. Up to Aggie, I don't think putting ivory near the starting location is hard to do.
I want a turn thread, I would much prefer that over email.
Regarding rules - I suggest the ruleset we are using in the ISDG (without the "admins" crap in there). I know it's a big ruleset but it has been very carefully thought out with respect to human-only games.
The SGL's are (IIRC) not enabled in custom 1.22 games, it is a known bug and can not be got around unless you generate the map in 1.15 and upgrade it.
On the SoZ - it is nice, but unless the map maker wants to balance it, it should be left out.
My civ choices:
(1) Dutch
(2) Byzantines
(3) Carthage
Hm, a turn thread isn't a bad idea. Were you thinking of uploading savs as well? We could use a thread as turntracker and use mail to forward the sav.
Why not play with Aggies ruleset together with CDZ honourable play?
Anyway, my top 3 (assuming Exp. will be replaced with Seaf.):
1) Hittites [scared]
2) Dutch
3) English
Too late for me to enter I see, but I'll follow it with great interest. If it works out, I'm game for a similar pbem.
Mind to grab the #1 reserve spot PP?
Socrates
03-07-2004, 23:12
Welcome back ProPain ! One thing is sure : we won't have more than 8 players in this game. But some fellows hardly post one message per week, and it's sometimes difficult to measure their real interest. I wouldn't want this game to be full of delays (see how it's difficult to have 7 people sending their moves before a deadline in the Diplomacy forum). I think that if someone doesn't reply to a question here (like the civ's choice) within one week, we should reconsider his registration.
Well, a turn thread doesn't mind me at all. This is not my site, so I bet anarres thinks this is worthwhile. What would be the complete way of doing then ?
Where could I find the ISDG ruleset ? We need to discuss that one too, why not now ? Aggie's ruleset is used for SG's and 1v1's, so I don't think it really fits this game with no AI.
I also heard about a bug with SGL's ; was it that you could rush a wonder with MGL's if you disabled SGL's ? Or is it something else ? Aggie's opinion is welcome here.
Still waiting for the last players to post their choice.
quote:Originally posted by kryszcztov
....I think that if someone doesn't reply to a question here (like the civ's choice) within one week, we should reconsider his registration. ...
How's about decreasing max reply time from a week to 24 hours. OK, 48 hours. Otherwise, we will play and play and play and never finish. If everyone would hold the save for a week, ... let me grab a calculator... we'll move at 56 days/turn. For about 250-turn game it makes about 38 years to play. I'll try to survive that long. But what about the C3C disk?
I just send PM's to Killer, Kemal and Arghis asking them to post their Civ choices asap.
Max. reply time should be 24 hrs imo. We also need a mechanism for ppl being away, i.e. either a replacement or someone not participating in the game pressing EoT and moving it on. How do you DDPP ppl solve that btw?
I'll post the ISDG ruleset here for those not having access to the ISDG forum.
The ISDG ruleset. We need to remove a couple of things like the admin stuff etc.
Italic are phrases applying to our game. I didn't replace references to "team" or "member" with "player". Just read it like that.
quote:Ruleset for the CDZ all-human PBEM.
<s>[u]Regulating Out-of-Game Conduct </u>
[u]0.0 - Game Staff Authority </u></s>
[u]0.0.1 - Definitions </u>
Intent: Many of the below rulings are based on the intent of a <s>team or </s>individual. Intent is determined by the Game Staff and is only decided after investigation.
<s>0.1 - Team Memberships
0.1.1 - Membership Roster
Description: All teams are required to maintain a public listing of their membership. This list will include the name and city of the members, at a minimum.
Purpose: To help everyone know who is on what team and help discourage and prevent out-of-game espionage.
Verdict: Not posting or keeping the teams public listing up to date within 15 calander days is a violation of this rule.
Punishment Level: Once - Yellow, (verbal warning), Repeat – Yellow (written warning and apology)</s>
<s>0.1.2 - Allowed Memberships
Description: Each forum will be allowed to determine the requirements for membership of its team as it sees fit. However, a person may only be a member of one team at any given time. A double membership is automatically considered out-of-game espionage.
Purpose: To disallow the use of out-of-game espionage and prevent anything that resembles out-of-game espionage.
Verdict: Double membership is strictly prohibited and doing so is a violation of this rule.
Punishment Level: Red (Ejection – Personal or Team)
</s>
<s>0.2 Switching Teams
0.2.1 - Switching Teams
Description: No team member is allowed to switch teams, until after their team is knocked out of the game, and this is with special restrictions as stated below.
Definition: Switching teams between the two games is allowed, provided that the person is on only one team at a time. Your team being knocked out of the current game makes you refugees, for the remainder of this game only.
Purpose: To minimize the opportunity and possibility of out-of-game espionage.
Verdict: Switching teams is a personal and team violation for both the individual who switched teams and the team who allowed him to switch. If a team reports that they did not know about the team switch, because of a different name or otherwise, it will be considered a personal offense.
Punishment Level: Red (Ejection – Personal and/or Team)
0.2.2 - Membership retention after Defeat
Description: Members of teams that were defeated in the current game are allowed to TEMPORARILY join the team that conquered them, if the team will have them. They may also join neighboring teams that they had contact with at the time of their defeat.
Definition: Neighboring does not mean specifically teams adjacent to them in game, more specifically it means teams they would have had the capability to travel to with their current technology. Temporarily changing teams means that when the current game is over the teams default back to where they were. If someone would like to switch teams at that point they may do so upon approval of the gaining team
Verdict: See 0.2.1 Switching teams for the verdict and punishment levels.
0.2.3 Refugees
Description: Upon becoming a refugee according to rule 0.2.1, refugees may join another team provided that their team had in-game contact with the team they wish to join or the team they wish to join has/had in-game contact with at least two teams that had in-game contact with the eliminated team. This is a temporary effect as described in rule 0.2.2. See that rule for more information.</s>
0.3 - Out-of-Game Espionage
0.3.2 - Inadvertent or Accidental Espionage
Description/Procedures: All teams and their members are allowed to visit/view any other team's public access areas. An accidental viewing of a private or secure area due to a security hole or other bug/glitch in any software should not be considered a deliberate act of espionage provided the following conditions are met:
A) The members must have exited the private area immediately upon such discovery (it is up to each forum to clearly label its private areas.)
B) The member must privately inform his team leader of the inccident, the team leader must put the member in contact with one of the game staff and the member must give the game staff details about the incident (how it happened, how much was seen, etc.) The game staff will then inform the violated team of its security problem and which team violated their security and then determine what action if any should be taken against the member. Action to be taken should not exceed a 50-turn exclusion of the member from the game.
0.3.3 - Intentional Espionage
Description: Any out-of-game espionage in any form is strictly prohibited.
Definition: Trying to hack the secure team forum(s), continuously logging team chat channels, inserting moles in an opponent's team, hacking screenshots or savegame upload location, or any other action considered espionage as determined by the game staff
Verdict: doing any of the above as determined by the game staff is a violation of this rule.
Punishment Level: Red (Ejection)
0.4 Punishment
There are three possible punishment levels for breaking the rules. These are Yellow, Orange, and Red Offenses. All punishments for rule breaking will be determined by the game staff. The punishments listed with each rule/section are general guidelines, they are by no means a limit or restriction to the minimum/maximum punishment for a given offense.
The minimum punishment for an orange offense is forfeiture of one turn of play, which will be skipped by the game staff. Where rules explicitly state otherwise and for repeat offences the game staff will determine what a team will forfeit.
A team that commits a Red Offence will forfeit an enormous amount of turns, in upwards of 30 or 40 turns, they may even be ejected from the current game. A repeat offense is easily enough for they to be expelled from the entire IDG or ever playing on CDG again.
Team Punishments include:
Forfeiture of turns*
Forfeiture of tradable assets (Cities, money, etc.)
Forfeiture of untradable assets (units, population, etc.)
Ejection from the current game
Suspension From the rest of the IDG (to include the championship game)
Expulsion from ever playing on or with CDG again
*Note- When a turn is skipped, all production, science, taxes, building, and other things are reduced to the minimum possible producing levels. This may cause mass unhappiness or reduction in funds.
Personal Punishments include:
Suspension for # of turns as prescribed by the game staff
Ejection from the rest of the current game
Suspension from the rest of the IDG (to include the championship game)
Expulsion from ever playing on or with CDG again
In-Game Glitches/Bugs/Exploits
[u]1.1 - Double-Duty Exploit </u>
Description: No team or individual is permitted to 'allow' the capture of their bombardment or workers with the intent of executing a double-duty exploit.
Definition: Two or more teams capturing and recapturing non-combat units (Including bombardment units) with the intent to use them against a third party team simultaneously.
Purpose: To prevent two or more teams from sharing units and their abilities in the same turn for multiple turns.
Verdict: Using this exploit or any other exploit that allows Double-Duty through any means is a violation of this rule.
Punishment Level: Red (5-20 Turns)
[u]1.2 - Resource Sharing Exploit </u>
Description: No team or individual is permitted to share a single resource through the use of the Resource Sharing Exploit.
Definition: Two teams gifting and regifting a resource as well as cancelling it allow two teams to get use of the same resource that wouldn't be otherwise possible.
Purpose: A resource is to be used by one team per turn, no exceptions.
Verdict: Using this exploit or any other exploit that allows Resource Sharing through any means is a violation of this rule.
Punishment Level: First Offense/Turn (warning) - Yellow, Repeat Offense (2 or more turns) - Orange (2 + turns)
[u]1.3 Leader Sacrifices </u>
Description: No team or individual is permitted to barter, gift, or otherwise allow another team to kill-off any of its units with the intent of creating a leader for either team.
Definition: A team creating weak units or sending its out-of-date units after another team with the intent of helping that team create a leader.
Purpose: To prevent great leaders from appearing between two allied teams abusing the game system
Verdict: Using this exploit or any other exploit that allows Leader Sacrifices through any means is a violation of this rule.
Punishment Level: Once (1 Unit) – Orange (1 Turn), Repeat Offense - Red (2-10 Turns)
[u]1.4 Worker Sacrifices </u>
Description: No team or individual is permitted to barter, gift, or otherwise allow another team to kill-off any of its units using those units with the capture ability with the intent of creating a worker for either team.
Definition: A team creating weak units or sending its out-of-date units after another team with the intent of helping that team create workers.
Purpose: To prevent workers from appearing between two allied teams abusing the game system.
Verdict: Using this exploit or any other exploit that allows Worker Sacrifices through any means is a violation of this rule.
Punishment Level: Once (1 Unit) – Orange (1 Turn), Repeat Offense - Red (2-10 Turns)
[u]1.5 War Happiness </u>
Description: No team or individual is permitted to declare war on anyone with the intent of generating some happiness amongst its populace.
Definition: A team declaring war on another just to invoke a little extra happiness.
Purpose: To prevent this 'feature' from being exploited and retain the spirit of the game.
Verdict: Using this exploit or any other exploit that allows Happiness to be generated in such a way as to violate the purpose of this rule through any means is a violation of this rule.
Punishment Level: Once – Orange (1+ Turns), Repeat Offense – Red (1-20 Turns)
[u]1.6 Invalid Map Trading </u>
Description: No team or individual is permitted to barter, gift, or otherwise trade any sort of map, whether it be a screen shot, minimap, hand drawing, or any other 'picture' of the in-game map, mini-map, or embassy screenshot before the requisite tech is discovered. Verbal/text descriptions are allowed, but coordinates are not.
Definition: A team creating screen shots, drawings, or other depictions of any part of the in-game map before the requisite tech has been discovered.
Purpose: To prevent the use of outside game elements to break the spirit of the game by allowing maps to be traded before they are allowed in-game.
Verdict: Using this exploit or any other exploit that allows any map trading before the tech is discovered through any means is a violation of this rule.
Punishment Level: Once – Orange (1-5 Turns), Repeat Offense - Red (2-20 Turns)
[u]1.7 - Exchange of Contact </u>
Description: No team or individual is permitted to barter, gift, or otherwise trade any sort of contact information until the requisite tech is discovered. A simple statement to team 'Z' that you live next to team 'Y' is allowable so long as no transactions are made or brokered between the two.
Definition: A team trading anything for any location or contact information before allowed in-game.
Purpose: To prevent the use of outside game elements to break the spirit of the game by allowing contact and location information to be traded before they are allowed in-game.
Verdict: Using this exploit or any other exploit that allows any contact or location information trading before the tech is discovered through any means is a violation of this rule.
Punishment Level: Once – Orange (1-5 Turns), Repeat Offense - Red (2-20 Turns)
[u]1.8 - Enjoining Teams </u>
Description: No team or individual is permitted to barter, gift, or otherwise trade multiple cities with the intent of joining teams to destroy another team and keep both teams alive to survive to the end. If a team decides to drop out however, they are allowed to change
Definition: A team trading multiple cities in a short period of time, in order to allow one team anything for any location or contact information before allowed in-game.
Purpose: To prevent the use of outside game elements to break the spirit of the game by allowing contact and location information to be traded before they are allowed in-game.
Verdict: Using this exploit or any other exploit that allows any contact or location information trading before the tech is discovered through any means is a violation of this rule.
Punishment Level: Once – Orange (1-5 Turns and/or Cities), Repeat Offense - Red (5+ turns, Double cities given, and possible ejection, suspension, or expulsion).
Metagame Tricks
[u]2.1 - Reloading... </u>
Description: No team or indivdual is allowed to reload the game with the intent of altering the outcome of any event, combat, or other in-game result.
Definition: Someone reloading the game when something happens that they don't like and wish to change. Playing the turn in a different order to alter the outcome of said happenings.
Purpose: To prevent a team from replaying a turn until the most optimum outcome is achieved or otherwise increasing their odds of winning.
Verdict: Reloading the game or using any exploit or bug that allows altering the RNG outcome or replaying a turn through any means is a violation of this rule.
Punishment Level: Red (1-10 Turns)
[u]2.2 - Save Manipulation </u>
Description: No team or individual is permitted to use the PBEM savegames or other files to obtain information or alter any in-game element. This includes monitoring or altering memory while the game is loaded. Using MapStat is also prohibbited.
Definition:An individual scanning or monitoring loaded files into memory or altering a file can obtain location information and more, they can even alter in game data.
Purpose:To prevent the use of outside game elements to break the spirit of the game by allowing someone to outright cheat.
Verdict:Using these or any other methods that allows altering the in-game content through any means is a violation of this rule.
Punishment Level:Once - Automatic Expulsion
[u]2.3 - Zoomed Loading </u>
Description: No team or individual is permitted to have their settings set to have the game zoomed out when loading a PBEM savegame.
Definition:Loading the game when zoomed out can reveal information that you would not otherwise have access to.
Purpose:To prevent the gathering of information against the spirit of the game.
Verdict:Using this exploit or any other exploit that allows learning any information about another team that you would not be able to get through the in-game espionage system is a violation of this rule.
Punishment Level:Once - Red (1-10 Turns)
[u]2.4 - Misleading through Renaming </u>
Description: No team or individual is permitted to rename a unit or city with the intent of misleading or confusing opponents.
Definition:Cities can be renamed to names of tech or sums of gold or anything else in an effort to not trade what that opponent agreed to. Units can be renamed to other units and appear to be something else entirely.
Purpose:To prevent the misleading or confusion of another team through malicious use of in-game features.
Verdict:Using this 'feature' or any other feature or exploit that allows misleading or confusing another team is a violation of this rule.
Punishment Level:Once – Red (5-Expulsion and forfeiture of double what was not legally traded)
[u]3. Game Mechanics tricks </u>
3.1.1 - Fortify All
Description: No team or individual is allowed to use the “Fortify All” command on a stack of units that contain any units that have used up their movement points.
Definition:A team may get the effect of a unit being fortified prior to an attack when that unit should have not have been able to fortify itself because it had no movement points to do so. This is done by using the stack command “Fortify All.”
Purpose:To prevent the unfair use of combat tactics.
Verdict:Using this command on a stack of units that has one or more units that do not have any movement points left is a violation of this rule.
Punishment Level:Once - Red (1-5 Turns)
3.1.2 - Fortifying a boat/passenger
Description: Similar to 3.1.1, except now addressing sea vessels. The sea vessel also would enjoy increased visibility during the next turn. A team can move the vessels the full allotment of movement points then “wake” the passengers and give them then “Fortify all” command which fortifies the sea vessel as well. It is allowed to use the “Fortify All” command on a vessel or a stack of vessels that has movement points left before the command was issued.
Definition:A team may get the effect of a sea vessel being fortified prior to an attack when that vessel should have not have been able to fortify itself because it had no movement points to do so.
Purpose:To prevent the illegal use of having increased visibility.
Verdict:Using this command on a stack of vessels with passengers or a lone vessel with passengers that do not have any movement points left is a violation of this rule.
Punishment Level:Once – Red (1-5 Turns)
3.2.1 - Hitting F1/back-forward to change production
Description: It is possible to use F1 to go into city views and change production or rush items before a city has been reached in the pre-turn production queue.
Definition:This can result in tech-enabled units and Wonders being completed the very turn the tech is researched, or production to be changed in response to an enemy's actions (like Walls if a stack moves toward a specific city and not another).
Purpose:To prevent the unfair allocation of resources not intended to be used in a certain way on the previous turn and keep gameplay flowing within the spirit of the game.
Verdict:Using the pre-turn production queue at the beginning of a turn to change production or to rush builds in a city is a violation of this rule.
Punishment Level:Once - Red (2+ Turns)
3.2.2 - Hitting F1/back-forward for double tile usage
Usage of F1 or back - forward buttons in the city view during the pre-turn production queue can be used to use the same tile by 2 or more different cities in the same turn.
Description: It is possible to use F1 to go into city views and work force allocations before a city has been reached in the pre-turn production queue so that a tile can be used to used by 2 or more different cities in the same turn. .
Definition:This can result in the possibility of a bonus tile being “shared” by 2 or more cities.
Purpose:To prevent the unfair allocation of resources.
Verdict:Using the pre-turn production queue at the beginning of a turn to change production or to rush builds in a city is a violation of this rule.
Punishment Level:Once – Red (1-10 Turns)
3.3 Using GoTo/Auto-Explore/Auto-Workers to get extra movement
Description: The last team in the turn order can issue the “GoTo” command, and have a unit move twice before the next turn begins. This is very strong in war-time. Every Civ has that option, that's why it is stipulated that no one use go-to.
And it's not that you got extra movepionts with that, you only use the movepoints for the next turn early -> mean 2 turns in 1 and 1 you can not move the unit.
Similar results can be achieved with auto-explore and auto-workers.
Definition:This can result in the last team to play in a given turn, the ability to move their units twice before another team could move in between
Purpose:To prevent the unfair movement of units; especially during war time.
Verdict:Getting two moves out of a unit or units before you opponent can move through any means is a violation of this rule.
Punishment Level:Once - Red (5-10 Turns)
3.4 Chaining naval transports to quickly move land units across water
It is possible to wake a land unit at sea, and transfer it from one transport to another. Given enough ships, a chain can be created to instantaneously move units across bodies of water (by ending in port).
This is to be allowed
3.5 Teleporting units by abandoning or gifting cities
Description: A team can instantaneously transport units from any city back to their capital by simply disbanding it or gifting it to another team. This results in very weird strategy.
Definition:This can result in a Civ’s units being transported out of harms way or to a new war front.
Purpose:To prevent the unfair movement of units; especially during war time.
Verdict:Moving your units in this way or any other way that is against the spirit of the game as determined by the game staff is a violation of this rule.
Punishment Level:Once – Red (10-Expulsion)
3.6 Accepting a Peace Treaty from a Civ then immediately declaring war
Description: A team at war with another can accept the latter's Peace Treaty, then declare war afterward in order to eliminate War Weariness from that team. This results in a huge advantage if the peace-seeking team is not aware of the trick.
Definition:This can result in a team’s properly acquired War Weariness being shut off and the possibility for the other team to suffer from it should they redeclare war.
Purpose:To prevent unfairly using the games mechanics to negate or reverse the effects of War Weariness,
Verdict:Do not accept peace if your intention is to behave in a war-like manner, unless a determination by the game staff to fall within the rules of this ruleset dictates so. Any method to break war weariness in any such manner is a direct violation of this rule.
Punishment Level:Once – Orange (2-10 Turns), Repeat Offense - Red (5-Expulsion)
3.7 Staying at war to upkeep War Weariness but not actual fighting
Description: Being kept at war by a team with the intent of inflicting War Weariness, and the penalties that are associated with it.
Definition:This can result in a team’s War Weariness being applied and worsened when the team no longer wishes or is able to wage war against the other.
Purpose:To prevent unfairly using the games mechanics to increase, exaggerate, or prolong the effects of War Weariness when waging war is not a reasonable option as determined by the game staff.
Verdict:A team must accept a peace offer, within a reasonable amount of time (determined by the game staff), if war has not been waged or reasonably waged in a reasonable amount of time (all determined by the game staff)
Punishment Level: Once - Orange (1-5 turns and/or Forfeiture or funds), Red (5 – Expulsion)
4.1 Reputation and honor system
[u]4.1.1 - Offical Treaties </u>
All in-game treaties can be submitted to the game staff for an official record. All teams in the treaty must confirm the exact wording with the game staff for the treaty to be officially recorded.
[u]4.1.2 - Distribution of Treaties </u>
All offial treaties will kept private. The only exception to this is where a team in a treaty asks the game staff to send a copy of the treaty to another team.
Example
* Team A and Team B have a treaty, which they submit to the game staff for the official record.
* Team A believes that Team B has broken their treaty, and tell Team C of this.
* Team B believes they did nothing wrong and tells Team C this.
* Team A or Team B can ask the game staff to send a copy of the official treaty to Team C.
* Team C can now make an informed decision on who they believe.
4.2 Unknown exploits
[u]4.2.1 - New Bugs/Exploits </u>
The teams agree to abide by the rulings of the game staff should a new, previously unknown bug/exploit appear in the game.
[u]4.2.2 - Exemption </u>
Issues known by several people/teams in the ISDG are exempt from this rule. Ignorance of a known game feature by one team should not lead to discussion in the middle of the game of whether this is an exploit.
In essence, this says that any existing known issues can not be re-assessed once the game has begun. Only new bugs/exploits will be considered.
[u]4.2.3 Disclosure of new bugs/exploits </u>
Every team has to control its own actions and to look for bugs or game mechanics which could be defined as a bug or exploit. When a team finds such an mechanism (which is not known by other teams), they have to announce this mechanism directly in the public forums at the U.N.
The game staff will be responsible for facilitating a discussion (in either the public or private U.N. forums) and a vote on the issue (by the team captains).
The clock will be stopped whilst this is taking place.
4.3 - Fairness Pledge
Every team must agree to the fairness pledge before the game starts.
4.4 - Battle Log
Description: For all combats, teams must submit a log of what units attacked, retreated, died, won, etc. from each battle on that turn to the team they attacked. Including capturing units and cities.
Verdict:Failure to email a log to the game staff of all combat actions is a violation of this rule.
Punishment Level: Yellow (Warning), Yellow (Apology)
[u]5. Turn Progression </u>
5.1 Time allowed for a turn
Every team has a maximum of 24 real world hours to play its move and to send the save. This does not mean, that every team must use all 24 hours.
5.2 Extensions to time limits
In some cases a team is allowed to take more time for a move:
A) If the request is announced in time, which means before the requesting teams turn limit has expired, and if the game staff deem it reasonable.
OR
B) Technical problems, like a downed forum (verified by the game staff).
The Game Staff will determine how much extra time is appropriate for the situation, if any.
I would recommend ignoring the "punishment levels". Any deliberate breaking of any rules we agree should mean expulsion. Any accidental breaking of the rules will (in all likelihood) be forgiven. This goes for any rules in any game I play here, it's about trust.
Socrates
04-07-2004, 13:04
Thanks Beam, I'll read it when I don't have one billion things to do at the same time. ;) akots, what I meant by "one week" was now : the game setting up. Of course once the game has started, we'll try to move a lot faster. ;) I think we should have everything ready by the middle of the week, this should be a decent deadline. But then I need people's help (those who hardly post here). That way, Aggie may have a whole weekend for the map (if he can), and we could start the game during the following week (Monday, July 12).
My choices, in prefered order of course:
1) Dutch
2) Inca
3) Arabs
Sorry for the delay, i was out for business this week end.
i've nearly nothing to add to all that's being said, unless, the more we discuss modification, the longer it will take to launch this game.
i agree on :
ivory at a distance reachable for everyone (so either everyone has 1 near start point but that reduce trade potential, either you put it on small isle, which could lead to interesting choices for sea exploration),
keeping Vikings (which add a certain political flavor with such a dangerous adversary)
Instead of adding a 3rd traits, the map should be adjust (with different kind of bonus) for people who choose to not take SeaFaring Civ. So we don't have to discuss about what 3rd trait, or what Civ to replace ... as it is a complex subject
I believe that only 2-3 here should decided as I think there is only good, honest and rather experienced players
i go for :
1/ Celts
2/ Greece
3/ French
Lt. Killer M
05-07-2004, 10:44
hm, I am gone for the weekend and suddenly things move - I shoudl try this at work ;)
my civ choices:
give me any civ not already taken! I can#t be bothered to think about civ choice atm!
About adjusting starts for non-seafaring civs, that seems rather unfair to me, since these civs do keep their 2nd trait bonus as an advantage over seafaring civilizations, and would also put a great burden on the mapmaker who would have to decide what kind of bonus would balance the lack of the seafaring trait for a non-seafaring civ, which I think is almost impossible to predict beforehand.
As far as I understood, the only reason why expansionistic may be traded for seafaring in this game is because most people feel that this trait would be useful to them in this game, and since there aren't enough civs to choose from with seafaring for all 8 players, this rule has been added to avoid conflicts when choosing civs. Choosing a non-seafaring civs just means one will not benefit from the advantages this trait gives, but from one of the other 6 possible traits. Whether that means it is mandatory or not to choose a seafaring civ is up to players themselves, I'd say.
But again, that's just my opinion of course. :)
Well in my idea, considering on an archipelago map the advantage of being sea-faring, the bonus for non seafaring civ choice could have been something like food (i.e. cattle - to compensate for easy harbor) or commercial (i.e. tobacco - to compensate for easy money) bonus ressources for instance.
Nothing extraordinary in fact.
It can also be the opposite, a malus for the seafaring civ, like having a desert/jungle just beside your capital (that's why they choose to go at sea, to find better lands).
N.b. : also i don't want to be the only one not being seafaring
Arghis, with your choice you ARE the only one not being seafaring :)
hmmm, ok; so if i understand wel, the country list is :
Scandinavia - Mil.
Carthage - Ind.
Netherlands - Agri.
Byzantines - Sci.
England - Com.
Spain - Rel.
Portugal - Exp.
And if we replace Exp. by seaf., it adds :
- Russia - Sci
- America - Ind.
- Zulus - Mil.
- Arabs - Rel.
- Mongolia - Mil.
- Incans - Agri.
- Hittites - Comm.
- Portugal - Seaf./Seaf. (unless you keep Exp. in this case :-)
ok
so considering it would be stupid to be the only non-seaf. with a bunch of experimenterd players like you, here's my choices :
1/ Scandinavia
2/ Carthage
3/ Arabs
Arghis, updated your choices.
Is this a typo or did the Aliens kidnap one of us? ;)
quote:experimenterd players like you
Allright, I just went thru the Civ Preferences and there is one conflict cause both anar and Kemal have the Dutch as their fav. Diceroll will solve that, if anar loses the dice however there is a second conflict (Byz. with krys) and even a potential 3rd conflict (Carthage with akots).
I propose to just roll the dice (or throw the coin) in all these cases and just come back if anar (or someone else) isn't given any civ of the top 3.
I could throw the coin if you want an impartial person... Just explain to me what I have to do :)
Socrates
05-07-2004, 17:36
I don't know what the standard rule would be for civ's choice, but if I picked the Byzantines as my 1st choice, and anarres as his 2nd one, aren't I supposed to get the Byzantines without contest ? [hmm] Or is the rule something else ? Of course if anarres loses the toss, then he might not get any of his 3 choices. Then why not giving him his 1st choice ? (just wondering about that...)
Maybe because the dutch are my first choice as well...? ;)
Socrates
05-07-2004, 18:23
Yes Kemal, but anarres's 3 civs are already taken by 3 other people, whereas no one chose the Incas... ;) Do you get my point ? I don't want to write any rule in stone ; I prefer things to be solved friendly and have more people's input.
Will we edit traits then ? Killer doesn't seem to bother about his civ, but still, I'd like him to throw a list. Would you think that, by editing the map in a certain way, someone would not suffer from not having the seafearing trait ? Like having more land on his starting island while being agricultural and expansionnist ?...
krys, why make it so difficult? Killer can get a seafaring civ that the rest doesn't choose.
Socrates
05-07-2004, 19:11
Yes, but then Killer, you should tell a preference for a civ... I don't mind editing traits, I just want the game to be balanced. It would be so easy to choose a powerful civ and change one of its traits for seafearing... I just want things to be fair for everyone, so the more we make up our mind on civs to choose, the more we'll see if we have to edit traits and/or balance civs.
I can assure one thing: if one of you gets a non-seafaring civ, then my life will be more difficult. I wonder if I'm capable of making a balanced map for 7 seafaring civs and one non-seafaring. I'm sure that there will be great seafaring or exansionist (thus seafaring) civs left for Killer to choose from...
Socrates
05-07-2004, 19:47
My opinion/questions about the ISDG rules...
# When should we be allowed to declare war ? 1.5 says that we shouldn't declare war just to get war happiness. Can we draw a clear limit for that ?
# Should chaining ships be allowed ? I'm not into such a trick (3.4), nor RBCivers...
# When should we be forced to observe peace before redeclaring war ? RBCiv rules are very clear on this subject : you have to observe peace (if the opponent asks you to, to a max of 20 turns) if you got tech or cities as part of the peace deal. This applies to AIs, but why not to humans ? (3.6)
# Again, when should we be forced to sign peace ? (3.7) This is a bug to get more war happiness or have your opponent get more war weariness.
Generally, there are some few RBCiv rules that weren't mentionned, like the great RoP, which I think isn't even to mention. [nono] Tell me what you think of that.
Lt. Killer M
05-07-2004, 19:55
I do not care at all what civ I get - all the good ones will be taken by the great Micromanagers anyways. And we all know who will win this game - someone who simply outmanages the others. So what should I care?
I am in it for fun, and if I end up with the lousy Mongols that may still be enough to really give one of the great players a kick in the groin at the wrong time..... so I reallydo not care what i get.
seafaring is fine
Must say I agree with Aggie. Killer hasn't shown particular interest in a civ and posted that he was happy with anything left. There is enough left in the Seafaring / modded Expansionist area and I trust Aggie enough to pick a Civ for Killer that's good enough to play with.
About the diceroll: I can understand ppl are disappointed if they don't get their first, second or third choice. I think rolling dices is a fair and simple process to decide such matters and also assume that all of us are capable enough to play well with any of the Civs with Seafaring.
In order to help Aggie a little here are the likely scenario's:
Banzai and Beam get their no 1 choices cause Hittites and Portugal are on no one elses list.
First roll: anar - Kemal for the Dutch.
- If anar wins, Kemal gets 2nd choice (Inca) which is avail.
- If anar loses: see 2nd roll.
Second roll: anar - krys for the Byz.
- If anar loses, krys gets Byz: see 3rd roll.
- If anar wins, he gets Byz: see 4th roll.
Third roll: anar - akots for the Carth.
- if anar loses he has to pick a 4th choice Civ.
- if anar wins akots gets England which is avail.
Fourth roll: krys vs Kemal for the Dutch.
- If krys wins, Kemal gets 2nd choice (Inca) which is avail.
- If krys loses: see 5th roll.
Fifth roll: krys vs Arghis for the Vikes.
- If krys wins: see 6th roll.
- If krys loses he has to pick a 4th choice Civ.
Sixth roll: Arghis vs akots for Carthage.
- If Arghis wins akots gets England which is avail.
- If Arghis loses he gets the Arabs.
It is also fair to ask not to start another set of dicerolls if you have to pick a 4th Civ.
I think it is logical that the more popular a Civ is the higher the chance you can't play it.
Do you all agree with Beam? I think that this is the most honest way to deal with it. If you agree I can start rolling :)
Socrates
05-07-2004, 21:00
Mmmh wait, wait, wait... I won't be here tonight ( [party] ), so don't be in such a hurry. ;) Having players to choose for a 4th civ is a bit hard, me thinks. While I'm sure we can find some players to get their 2nd choice by will, so as not to go into dicerolls.
But even before that, since Killer doesn't care at all about his civ (I hope you'll have fun, at least !!! :) ), we could just have the 7 other players get one of the 7 natural seafearing civs (to be decided by dicerolls if we can't agree on friendly terms ;) ), and give Killer another civ (not seafearing). That way, no need to edit traits at all (more simple). If you still think it's a bad idea, then oh well. But if the map isn't to be exactly identical for everyone (I think that was requested by most of you), then Killer with a non-seafearing civ could have something like a bit more land to compensate for this handicap, and/or maybe be closer to neighbours than other players... ... ... Just a thought. Yeah, I'm a bit maniac... ;)
Still, why not go into friendly negociations for the civ choices ? I'm the only one to have picked the Byzantines as a 1st choice, but if I lose my 3 dicerolls as they are now, I will end up with another 4th civ. [blush2] And other players may be in a similar situation.
Lt. Killer M
05-07-2004, 21:04
ah, fuck it, if my civ is a problem just take your No.1 replacement player.
I am getting a BIT tired of this, krys
krys, you make things very complicated! And I can roll without anyone around :)
Socrates
05-07-2004, 21:13
Yep, just wanted to say that I had something to add... Well, the last thing I want is Killer to get upset, so go on and roll please... [cry] [}:)] Cya.
Hey, I really do prefer playing the Dutch over the Inca (since I'm Dutch myself (and their UU is a lot better of course ;))), but the way it is done now, if I'd win the flip vs anar, I'd still have 50% of having to do another flip with Krys, even though I would already have won the first flip... so while I'd win the first flip I'd still have a 25 % chance of not playing the Dutch, having to roll for them with someone who has ranked them 2nd... meaning that I have a lower chance of actually playing my favourite civ than anarres, who has a strict 50/50 chance, that's a bit strange no?
Since it is safe to say that both anarres and Kemal could agree with the 1st roll (only the rolls after that are disputed imho), I decided to throw a coin. This could clear some air.
Anarres is heads, Kemal is tails............. Anarres wins!!
quote:I have a lower chance of actually playing my favourite civ than anarres, who has a strict 50/50 chance
Kemal, anar had a 12,5% chance of not playing any of his Top 3 while you had a 100% chance of playing either 1) or 2)! I assume you picked the Inca's as 2nd option with care and you got Seafaring and Agri as you would have with the Dutch. GA planning will be a little more challenging of course, yet a) I think you now how to handle that and b) that will be a challenge for all of us!
Kingreno
05-07-2004, 23:39
Wow guys! Make sure you back this thread up somewhere because when this game ends in May 2008 you need to have some proof! ;)
So many players in a Pbem...I will be very interested to watch both the tactics and the playability. Good luck on both.
I'm a bit late to the chat, but FWIW the ISDG admins decided the teams by rolling for people who had the same #1. If someone lost they went to their #2, but they had priority over anyone else who has that civ as #1.
This seemingly-backwards way of working out civs actally works and gives more civs to the people that had them in their lists. It is almost impossible for someone not to get a civ from their list, and more people may not get #1, but most get (at worst) #2.
Anyway, the matter has been settled already - but it may be of use for future games.
Nice discussion, BTW. Very intense sometimes. Guess, I get my beloved Carthage... And nobody gets the Viking. Or am I wrong?
Re rules: I'd like to see violators being excluded from the game and their replacement sought.
So, are we all ok with the map specs? And if so...what are they? When I know before tomorrow I can start the map on my free day :) I know that one person's preference is not known yet, but that shouldn't influence the shape of the map...
Well
Considering the fact that this is a "only-human" game, i don't understand why there is so much debate around the civ choice. :-) a bit paradoxal :-)
Why this, because all will come from politics, alliances and exchanges.
Let's decide on a rather balanced situation, see how it evolves and debate about our first steps.
Anyway, no games are perfectly balanced.
I've not taken the Viks as a first choice because they're mighty (i've just never really seriously played this civ), i choose them because i think in this game, they can lead to an interesting and tricky political situation.
The best (management) player with the best civ (regarding to the map) will be no match against a serious alliance.
I've played many (board) games like History of the world, Age of Renaissance, ... wich somewhat compares to Civ, and each time with a majority of good (experienced) players. Obviously, the starting parameters are important, but unless you make a critical strategic error, this is just a question of time.
For the map, i'm intresting to know soem details about barbarians. i've heard (and seen sometimes) that the game mechanics has a problem with barb camp on isles, which lead with time to unbelievable stack of barbarians.
Do we expect this kind of problem ?
Also, what about goodie huts ? Will they be included ?
Socrates
06-07-2004, 18:49
Coming back from my sick day (TM)... [blush] Let's see what happened.
anarres won the 1st roll : anarres will play as the Dutch, and Kemal as the Incas (indeed a careful choice, given the modded traits). So I end up with my beloved Byzantines. :) akots gets the Carthaginians. Arghis will be the leader of the mighty Vikings. Beam will lead the Hittites. Banzai gets the Portuguese. And Killer just has to throw many, many coins to choose his civ on his own. :D
A little question about the Portuguese : they are seafearing and expansionnist, so what will we do ? Is it fair to change the Exp trait for another one of Banzai's taste (Ind he asked) ? Or leave the Portuguese traits as they are ? I assume that everyone with an Exp civ will want this trait changed.
About civ colours : the only time I saw 2 civs having the same colours was in Beam's test save. Maybe it would be good to edit the civ colours, so they only have one to choose from (with clear differences between colours). Aggie, your call, see if it's simple to do.
Thanks Kingreno ! It was my idea, and now it is taking shape for many CDZers, so that's just cool. I hope that the game will be moving well.
A little word for Killer. I hope you'll get your part of fun in this game. But please don't say that you already know the outcome of such games, a lot can happen. I can only back my words with my very new and little experience with Diplomacy ; go there and you'll find out that it's not only a matter of being a strong player, I can assure you. You may not find fun in micro-managing your cities (sorry, but I find some fun in that), but you might be better than many of us in tricking players in vague alliances, fooling your opponents via diplomacy, and what else... You have an equal chance of winning this game to anyone here.
Still waiting for input about human-human rules (see my latest post about that). And will we work things out with a protocol (don't be afraid of the word), an internal or external GM, or whatever, or will we do things in an anarchistic way ?
For the map settings, Aggie, read the 1st post (still quite accurate). Not sure if we have made up our minds on this or that, so you could read the 1st posts in this topic, and post your questions about this or that setting if you're not sure it was decided.
A general comment : I know some of you are eager to start, so am I. But we need to make sure of everything before we start, and I'd rather delay the game by a few days more than start NOW and see some problems afterwards. Aggie, post your questions for the map making. :)
Through this thread I see questions and remarks regarding Zeus, SGL's etc... I would like you all to agree on the map shape and specs before I start. I will be asking questions after that, if needed.
Socrates
06-07-2004, 19:20
Let's keep it straightforward...
Statue of Zeus : either we remove the ivory requirement, either Aggie puts one ivory source near everyone's starting position (maybe not just next to the settler(s), but a few days of walk away ;) ). Disabling it is rather sad, as it was a cool addition to Civ3. Same for the Knights Templar.
Luxuries : I assume we don't need more than 8 sources of each of the 8 luxuries on the map. So let's do that : 8 sources of each type. If the SoZ ivory requirement is still on, then I think it's more simple to put 1 source of each type in each of the 8 regions (every player would have his 8 luxuries), but that'd be not excellent for trading. If the requirement is off, then Aggie can decide to put 8 sources of one type in each region (like, anarres having all the furs, akots having all the ivory...), or maybe 4 sources of 2 types, etc... And Aggie would have to decide the types to be given (because some luxes are better than others).
SGL's : I'd rather have them. But someone told us about a bug which would prevent their presence in 1.22. If Aggie knows a simple way of doing, good enough.
How many settlers at the start ? I don't mind only one, but some may want 2 or 3. With as many workers ? Remember that once the 1st city is founded, you may have some maintenance for units for a few turns...
Level : I'd like Deity. But Emperor or Demi-God is OK for me. This is for the tech pace and barbs.
Barbs : Normal setting ?
The rest is found in the 1st post. Feel all free to discuss anything.
quote:Originally posted by kryszcztov
- Demi-God or Deity level (remember there is no AI) ;
- possibility of having 2 or 3 settlers at the start ;
- a rather symetrical archipelago map, with almost or exact same starting positions for everyone ;
- maybe a rather large starting island, a few smaller ones, and many small ones ;
- a standard-size map ;
- maybe little tweaks like no Statue of Zeus and Knights Templar, no SGL's, and so on...
IMO, as stated previously, Emperor level would be sufficient.
One settler on start might be better.
Map specs are fine with me including map size.
SoZ, KT, SGL - no preference, whatever seems good for the majority.
Re game rules:
0.3. Espoinage. Does it pertain to reading spoilers?
0.4. All rule violations should have one penalty - elimination from the game.
2.3. IIRC this has been fixed with 1.22 patch.
3.2. If I understand correctly, this is allowed to prevent the civil disorder or to upgrade units but not to play with production or to rush something. Is switching production from one build to another OK?
3.3. This is really-really bad but was supposed to be fixed in 1.22??
Re ship chaining: I'd like it to be prohibited but will agree with the majority.
Do we allow free Palace jump? Would it be allowed by using the MGL?
Do Vikings have both berserks and longships? May be it is a good idea to take away the longships leaving only zerks or the opposite? Otherwise, chances of Viking survival to Middle Ages can be very slim. Nobody would be willing to have that kind of an opponent. :)
no prob for me with the portuguese case.
i have Vikings, cool. [viking]
*wondering why and how to build a boat with ivory - perhaps it'll be lighter*
:D
as for the date where it will begans, note that i'll be away between, roughly, the 10 and 30 of july. Hey, it's holidays and i've to go to a wedding at the other end of my country (ok, i do not live in russia, but that's still far away). And i've known this just this last week end.
For me it's not a problem if a replacement player can play my first rounds (building troops and exporing the surroundings takes time).
Considering all the past discussions here (which i agree are important, because we're going in for several months), i expect the game to began around the 15-20 of july.
in this case, that means i'll miss something like 10 turns (1 turn / 2 day ??).
i'll have a computer at hands but i'm not sure if i can install C3C & co. Anyway, i'll be present at least on the forum.
This leads me to a simple question :
Am i the only one going in holidays this summer or have you all a laptop computer ?
N.b. : well, if the game hold for 250 turns, and we achieve to play 1 turn every 2 days, it means that this will be a 16 months experience. Wow. i can't be the only one leaving my home for one week or more during this period, it's not possible.
So, more on the replacment player : if we took 1 guy to hold the place during our absence, this guy will soon know all the position, details, ... of every one. Even if we gave him strong direction to follow, perhaps will he be embarrased if he had some unexpected choices to made.
So what about having more than 1 replacment guy, or why note taking a team mate for each of us. Hey, every King has a counselor, no ?
Soz : we should keep it (idem for Templar). it's a potent but interesting addition.
Luxuries : without diversity, there will be no trading. that implies less fun. luxuries should be included the way that some monopole can be achieved (with a serious war), and some other are rare. every one of us should have enough to trade early.
Also, pliz, give iron (and horses ?) to everyone or to none of us. perhaps is this obvious.
Barbs : that's always a good way to make some cash. sometimes it's even useful. also, they bring some randomness.
1 settler is ok for me. Perhaps 2, yes why not. as you wish.
for all the other special tules (isdg & co), i agree with your choices. i'm not expert to this level. also, i'm not one who use this kind of abuse that all this rule are preventing.
It would be nice if Portugal is changed, but if that is not wanted I have no problems with it. I am playing this game for fun, and winning is just a nice bonus.
But of course I understand that picturing Industious Portuguese cause fear among you!
I prefer to play on demi-god, just to add a little more difficulty in research and happiness management.
Starting with 3 settlers and 2 workers sounds very cool to me. This is not what you get in a normal game!
Palace jump by abandoning should be an no, but you can always allow your capital to be conquered by another civ :D
Building it or rushing it in another city is fine by me.
About replacement players.. we'll see it when we get there I think.. and I prefer a Queen above a counselor!
Banzai!
Socrates
06-07-2004, 20:45
I'm OK with Portugal's change to industrious. Apart from Killer that we don't know yet, Banzai is the one with the most advanced UU, maybe not the ideal situation, so I agree on letting him be industrious (his choice) to compensate.
I want to know what this fuss about Vikings is. Every civ has ONE UU, and Vikings have zerks. What are those longboats akots keeps telling us about ? [???] And I want to remind everyone that zerks cost 70 shields, so Vikings will have to pay a lot to dominate the coasts.
About the level, it's almost all about the tech pace ; I'd prefer it not to be quick, so we can enjoy some time with our UUs and stuff. [blush] Maybe if we can have input from DDPP players about the tech pace in no-AI games (does it go quicker than with AIs ?). Do human players often trade or not ?
About rules, yes, ISDG is fine. We can agree on not allowing palace jump (but rushing it is OK), no chaining ships (I prefer not having it)... My questions posted yesterday at 19:47 still want some answers !! [}:)]
Vikings have no longboats in the epic game. They only appear in the conquests!
On the Portugal case, I checked all available Civs with Seafaring and if Portugal gets Industrious it fits in traits mix. Replacing Exp. with Seafaring for all Civs and leaving Port. with Exp. seems unfair to me and I don't see the point for discussion. Also Portugal has been listed as Seaf. / Ind. as soon as Banzai made the suggestion, another reason not to change that now.
The idea of starting with 2 or 3 settlers for each Civ basically is intended to get the game up to speed faster. Otherwise the 1st 20 turns will basically be made up of some tile shuffling and hitting <ENTER>. It also is a new aspect of the game to most players and offers a wide variety of options from the start. Settle full coastal and build curraghs for early contact or go for a builder mode first. My personal pref. would be 3 settlers btw. ;)
On diff. level, I'll go with anything as long as it isn't Sid. Since there is no AI there is no pressing need to get the extra challenge for Deity imo.
SoZ, either remove it or have the same chances for everyone, i.e. every player has straight access to the Ivory which makes it a little artificial. My pref. would be to leave it out entirely to simplify matters.
About luxes, I really don't think the difference in value makes a lot of difference. Would be nice if everybody can get access to say 2 or 3 luxes with some effort and has a multiple of one of those for trading. Please no monopolies, it means no competition for trading. ;)
Please nothing too unusual with the luxs (just do your normal job Aggie ;)). That's really my only map request.
Regarding the rules:
* Ship Chaining is a fun part of the game to me, I would be upset if we couldn't use it.
* I can live without free palace jumps, but using a leader is NOT a "free" anything! It uses a valuable leader and is totally valid IMO.
To answer your questions krys:
quote:# When should we be allowed to declare war ? 1.5 says that we shouldn't declare war just to get war happiness. Can we draw a clear limit for that ?The person you declare on gets War Happiness. The rule basically says that you can't declare on someone else so they get WH, which you could agree to do with someone (for payment, for example). This seems VERY clear to me. No agreeing with someone to declare war on them so they get WH.
quote:Should chaining ships be allowed ? I'm not into such a trick (3.4), nor RBCivers...See my comment above, and it's not a "trick". [:p]
quote:When should we be forced to observe peace before redeclaring war ? RBCiv rules are very clear on this subject : you have to observe peace (if the opponent asks you to, to a max of 20 turns) if you got tech or cities as part of the peace deal. This applies to AIs, but why not to humans ? (3.6)AFAIK (and according to all WW studies at CFC) this rule (3.6) is just complete bullshit. I told people at the ISDG at the time that WW didn't work like they say in 3.6, and the rule seems 100% pointless to me. Some people were convinced that WW is eliminated when you make peace, so I couldn't convince them to leave this rule out.
This is however NOT the point you are raising. You are asking if we should respect peace deals, and if we should make a rule to govern it. All I can suggest is that at CDZ we are no strangers to reputation, and I can see no reason to legislate for whether people break deals or not. Remember that with an AI they are STUPID, and have to be given advantages because of their extreme stupidity. Humans are (hopefully) not quite so stupid, and no-one here needs special treatment to compensate.
quote:Again, when should we be forced to sign peace ? (3.7) This is a bug to get more war happiness or have your opponent get more war weariness.I am happy for 3.7 to be dropped, but am equally happy for it to stay. If it does stay we would need to get a 3rd party to arbitrate in any contentious decision, but tbh this arose in the ISDG because in the last game GCA was at 1 city and was gifted another city on the other side of the world (maybe even a 1 tile island). This meant the team they were at war with had crippling WW for the rest of the game.
I would hope that the people here would have the grace to die with honour, rather then convincing another player to give them a city *just* to keep WW on the person they were fighting. This would mean the rule would be redundant, but then of course if we remove it and someone does this in the game....
quote:Generally, there are some few RBCiv rules that weren't mentionned, like the great RoP, which I think isn't even to mention. Tell me what you think of that.Well, if you give me an RoP don't be suprised if I rape you. ;) In all seriousness, those rules are to protect STUPID AI. We really deserve what we get if we give an RoP and watch an opponent march outside our cities. :D
To be honest, I'd rather start the game sooner than have tiring debates over rules as we had in the isdg. I believe that reputation plays quite a big role in the CDZ-PBEM community, and I think we all know what is regarded as fair or non-fair play, so I don't really see the need for such a detailed rules list for this game (there no rules list at all in DDPP, that goes well too).
But since it is here anyway, I agree to most rules, except that I'd rather see the palace jump left in (since its value has dereased tremendously in c3c) and can help if you (by mistake) made a severe error with placement of the capital, which without the jump would put you out of the game from turn 1.
Totally disagree with the rules 1.6 and 1.7 for this game, as they make diplomacy much more difficult without (IMO) contributing to a better, more enjoyable game.
As for SoZ/luxuries, as said before by some I'd rather see the SoZ removed, and regarding the distribution of luxuries, like anarres said, nothing unusual please.
I will start making the map now with the following starting points:
-standard size
-balanced for all civs, but not balanced to death
-coastal routes to allow trade
-something that gives all a good starting spot, still requiring the use of the seafaring trait (something along the lines of what krys suggests in his first post)
-3 settlers for each civ at the start
-no geographical accuracy!!
I like to use my 'artistic' freedom with the luxes and resources. I think it's better that you don't know what you get. Also: I think that emperor level would be good. It will make the game faster, because research will be quicker.
I suggest you create a poll for the Soz and knights templar.
The rest of the issues have nothing to do with maps :)
Well
i've read all the isdg set. i've learn a lot. i understand them more or less. I let you decide what is good or what is wrong because, anyway, i do my best to play fairly and i do not search way to pervert game mechanics.
All i ask is that you don't block things that are "political" like the next point :
1.6 Invalid Map Trading
Description: No team or individual is permitted to barter, gift, or otherwise trade any sort of map, whether it be a screen shot, minimap, hand drawing, or any other 'picture' of the in-game map, mini-map, or embassy screenshot before the requisite tech is discovered. Verbal/text descriptions are allowed, but coordinates are not.
The exchange of information is vital. If a player has information thanx to a tech or a good position, and another has not this information because of a tech or a bad position, i don't see why they can't exchange this info, especially in wartime.
Sending a screenshot do not seems to me like abusing the game mechanics.
Do you imagine, for instance, a country saying to it's allies, i know where our common ennemy is but i can't show it to you because you don't have the technology or are located at the opposite of the battle front.
Such information can be at the origin of interesting trade relations.
Socrates
07-07-2004, 11:52
OK, to be clear : there are things belonging to the map and the game settings (that's for Aggie), and there are things for how we will play the game (rules). Let's discuss the stuff for Aggie only until we agree on everything. Then, while Aggie is making the starting save, we will discuss the rest. :)
For Aggie :
The general map.
So it's clear that with 8 players, we'll have a standard-sized map. We don't want it to be symetrical to death (but rather very well balanced), but it is also clear that we'll end up with 8 regions. How will those regions be implemented ? Up to Aggie ; could be 4 in the northern hemisphere and 4 in the southern one, equally distanced from each other, or something else. With the archipelago feeling of the map, we want all the starting islands (which will be of fair size, but not too large) to be connected by coastal routes (otherwise there is one über-wonder to grab). Add medium and small islands everywhere, with some resources only there (lux or strat), so as colonization makes some sense. We could even have some resources only at the edge of regions for more intense disputes.
The starting position.
Allows some quick development (quite rich, so maybe a few food bonus), with at least one river, so as agricultural civs don't get spoiled. How many settlers ? We need a poll. If only one, then put it right on the coast of course. If 2 or 3, then we can have the possibility to put them not on the coast, for funnier search for good spots.
Other settings.
Replace the expansionnist trait by the seafearing trait. :D Replace the Portuguese expansionnist trait by the industrious trait. Of course remove the scouts if they're not already removed. The Chasqui scout : obviously it should stay here :D ; so Kemal should be able to build them, but I think he shouldn't have one at the beginning. Of course change the starting techs so that they match the traits.
Emperor, Demi-god, Deity ? Let's make a poll. The only real difference lies in the tech pace. On Deity eras will be longer, so it's all about if you want longer usage for your units or not.
Barbs. Well, the usual setting : standard. If anyone is against huts to pop, then stand up and speak.
SoZ + KT : poll...
SGL's : poll...
Anything I forgot ?
All in all, why not make a quick test save, with the exact settings but a false (random) map, so that we can check that everything is fine ?
OK, let's make those polls...
hey, i've made a special page for isdg zealots [fdevil]
i could name it something like : this is not a texte, this is not an image, what is it ? [eek]
ok, i'm kidding, but you should have a look, it's a way to circumvent those laws :D
http://blhoyez.free.fr/ascii-civ.htm
n.b. : beware, it's 500 ko loading
Lt. Killer M
07-07-2004, 12:01
jsut to clarify: I do not want to take part in this game.
Lt. Killer M
07-07-2004, 12:03
jsut to clarify: I do not want to take part in this game.
Socrates
07-07-2004, 12:41
quote:Originally posted by Lt. Killer M
jsut to clarify: I do not want to take part in this game.
[blush2] That's what I call a clarification (like for our game) ! [}:)] Well, what can I say ? You don't like the way we discuss things before being sure everything is OK ? I know your feelings about how to play Civ, but here it's not a 1v1, it's a game with 8 people, and some are very different from you (and me). We have people only looking for quick fun (like you), people who really want to win and micro-manage to hell (Kemal ?), people who want things to be very clear before we jump into that mess (me), etc... How to please everyone ? Surely not by starting the game after 1 or 2 days of discussion, all the more as the game will last for months and years. BTW, I was pleased to hear from you again (I'm not kidding !), but then you were the one who showed the less interest in this game, not even able to pick up a civ like everyone did, though it usually is a fun thing to do (see, no one died after that coin toss, and no one would have if the result had been the opposite). To sum it up, I feel a little insulted to see that you come here saying you're "very interested", then say so little, and then withdraw from the game. It's not like I'll regret you as for the game (I'll regret you as for our human relationship), but it already slows us a little, as we'll have to either play with 7 people, or take someone else (ProPain ?), who will have to read everything again...
All in all, this is just my PoV. Not everyone's. I want things to run OK after the game has started, and won't say anything ingame and won't act like a GM (won't be), I think anarres said it all about the anarchist way of doing, and I want to try that. So I beg you to come back in this game, you'll see that it will be some fun. :) And choose a civ, AT LEAST. I don't force anyone to vote in those polls. You're free, my friend, but we can't decide for you (civ...), so you also have to show your level of investment. This game has already taken me a lot of time. I hope it will be worth that time. Anyway it will be the last time I beg you to come back, I don't want to lose one month for doing so, and you neither. Come one, this is CDZ and you love it, don't you ?
Lt. Killer M
07-07-2004, 12:47
krys: it is indeed to way the discussion here has run that tires me out. I can#t begin to imagine how some ingame aspects will run.
I thought my last post on that matter was obvious enough, btw - so you shouldn#t be surprised now.
Eldakkar
07-07-2004, 12:57
Hi! I am sort of wanting to take up pbemming again and this game sounds like fun. If you guys cannot find 8 players I'd be happy to step forward :)
Socrates
07-07-2004, 13:49
@ Killer : my philosophy is : the more we talk now, the less we'll talk then while ingame. Simple. [cool] I really don't want to get into discussion while being playing, and so that's why I do my best to clarify everything. Now your withdrawal is noted, and unless you suddenly want to come back, let's say, by tonight, I consider your withdrawal as DEFINITIVE (since there are some players waiting to play apparently :D ).
@ Eldakkar : Hello, "welcome back" ! I don't really know ; first are you sure you want to be committed to a game that will last for years ? And BTW, ProPain has already indicated his will to take part in the game (in this topic), so I'm gonna PM now, that's the least I should do. If he doesn't want to play after all, then I may consider your registration. [goodjob]
We may want to agree on a cool name for this game. Throw your propositions !! [coool]
Lt. Killer M
07-07-2004, 13:56
krys: sorry to say that, but you remind me a LOT of Lucky. And that's why I don't want to play - very definately!
Maybe strict rules are needed for this kind of multiplayer games: compare DDPP, 8game etc etc with ISDG!
The ISDG performes much better IMO.
I finished 80% of the map, but as they say: the last 20% take 80% of the time :) And I naturally need some imput (which is taken care of atm).
Socrates
07-07-2004, 17:14
Woah !! [eek] You're fast ! We may even want to start by the weekend. But we need to sort those last things out, and have our 8th player. Aggie, maybe you should test your save yourself, so as to be sure everything is OK. We also need to send you our passwords. Do you think it's a good idea to edit civ colours, so as we have clear and distinct colours, and no way of ending with same colours (happens sometimes) ?
Hey! Do what you want with the colors :) I will playtest this thing myself indeed.
Spent a couple of hours in the car today (for fun actually believe it or not. Something electronical was fixed and I should have all 220 hp (not hitpoints ;)) back. Best way to test is go to Germany and see if it reaches topspeed. It didn't because of traffic but 250 km/h [:p] gave me enough confidence everything was fine again) and did some thinking about the turntracker on the way back.
Turntracker:
Two key-points imo:
- To see the game is moving. Best achieved by posting in the turn tracker, something like "Sav > Arghis"
- To be able to pick up the sav when it isn't moving. A non-player could open the game, click away all messages and go straight to next turn. A solution to pick up the stalled sav is to have a cdz mailbox where every forwarded sav is sent to as Cc. The only practical thing I see is the need for 2 or 3 people with access to both the mailbox and each save. This will be exception rather than rule hopefully.
Before we start asking people, how about this?
Deadline for issue input:
About the rules, imo it is important to discuss a couple of key ones before the game starts (the ISDG set is a good starting point btw), there should be a time limit however until which topics can be put in as an issue. Let's set Saturday 10 July, 21:00 CDZ forum time (20:00 UTC) as target. Don't wait 'til the last minute, it also doesn't mean discussion stop at that time. Sole purpose is to have a finite list of things to be decided by Saturday.
EDIT: great to read you're making progress with the map Aggie. [goodjob]
Socrates
08-07-2004, 02:10
What I can say is that we should try to be ready to play our 1st turn by Monday at the latest !! That's really close, so we'd better hurry.
ProPain is currently (sleeping, I suppose, yes, but also : ) studying if he can join the game without much problem. He will reply tomorrow (on Thursday) about it. Should he deny the offer, then Eldakkar is welcome to grab the last and 8th place. [goodjob]
I agree on the turn topic. Will we add a message each turn, or edit the same one over and over ? That topic will be huge and... boring after all. [:p] But I disagree with Beam about someone "playing" (in fact : not) the turn for a player who is "sleeping". This is the Internet and you never know what can happen at the other end of the Internet cable. I suggest that an external guy (why not Aggie ?) used the admin password to give the save to a replacement player in the worst case (no hearing of the player at all). In not so bad cases, we'll do it in the anarchist way, and ask for the player to play, or send his password to a replacement player, etc... This is just my current PoV BTW. Hopefully it'll be rare. Players should keep the last save they have forwarded at any time.
About "vacations" (when you're away from Civ). I wouldn't mind stopping the game for a little while when someone goes away. Taking replacement players all the time complicates things and may alter the game (diplomacy, way of playing), and would cause some players to lose interest (me for instance). I guess vacations are part of such games, and all in all, it will only lengthen the game by 10 or 20%, which isn't to be upset of. To accelerate things, I'd rather have all the players to play their turns as quick as they can upon receiving. :D Of course, vacations shouldn't last long, maybe 1 or 2 weeks at worst ? If more, then we'll ask for a replacement player. I count on people to do what they can to play a few turns while being on holiday (just : if you can do it and it doesn't upset you, then go on !). I myself won't go on real holidays for much time, maybe not before Christmas !! But who knows...
Civ colours :
Byzantines : wine red (yeah, want that colour)
Dutch : orange
Incas : pink (? :D )
Carthaginians : brown
Vikings : purple ?
Hittites : turquoise
Portuguese : purple ?
8th civ : ???
There is no yellow civ, no red one, no blue one... Arghis and Banzai could agree on their colours. And the 8th player, we'll see.
We also need to sort the roster out. Aggie could throw some coins for us. ;) And please, unless indicated by some people, put our exact pseudos in the game (no fucking capital letter in mine [aargh] lol).
About exact rules, I believe we need to be clear. ISDG rules can be a good start to discuss. I already know I don't want palace jumps nor chaining ships. If we let RoP, then players should respect it and declare war with all their units OUTSIDE the enemy's borders ; I think RoP's can be effective sometimes, and so don't see the need to never set them up ; but please no RoP rape !! For the rest it needs some thinking, but all in all I want players to act as gentlemen and so not to do tricky moves which aren't in the spirit of the game. That being said, we can quickly debate on this or that.
I have read through this thread and I think that the map I am making fits the request. But it pobably won't we what you expect [tongue] I playtested it yesterday and got a UN victory on regent at 1100 AD [:o] The AI settled nicely as well and in the end 8 decent sized empires existed. I will start the final tweaking today.
Thought about it long and hard and decided I won't join. Work will be really busy the next 3 months at least and I expect that trend to continue. With more players it becomes more important to be able to play asap which might prove difficult for me. I don't wanna be the one holding up the game and ruining it for the rest of you.
Wish you a lot of fun and I'll keep a close eye on this game for sure.
PP
Eldakkar
08-07-2004, 09:32
@ Eldakkar : Hello, "welcome back" ! I don't really know ; first are you sure you want to be committed to a game that will last for years ? And BTW, ProPain has already indicated his will to take part in the game (in this topic), so I'm gonna PM now, that's the least I should do. If he doesn't want to play after all, then I may consider your registration.
Thank you, yes I still play civ very regularly in SP mode, so no problem there; the love for the game is still intact. I like to play, but I do not like to discuss a lot about trivialities such as the colors of the players and stuff. I will gladly conform to any rules stated. I hope that is not a problem.
Playing a turn once a week or a couple of times a week, will not be a problem. The pbems I did went very smoothly too.
So yes I'd like to join. Should I pick a tribe already? :D
You want me to pick a color?
I prefer White :D, but Blue will do just fine!
Banzai!
hi
for the colour, green or red will be ok.
if we can't find an 8th player we can still take one IA :-) that could prove fun in fact.
ok i'm kidding.
It is also quite possible to recruit some fast players from CFC. Apparently, somebody like Rubberjello or Dogboy or Loulong would like to join. But it looks like there are 8 players atm ready to go.
AFAIK you have 8 players with Eldakkar [hmm]
EDIT: sorry, I misread akots's post.
Socrates
08-07-2004, 23:37
Alright, we are 8 players again ! [goodjob] Eldakkar, plase pick up your tribe now, that's the most important thing to do. And you're welcome to vote in those 4 polls.
Aggie, you're welcome to toss coins for the roster anytime you want.
Debates about rules can still take place of course, please hurry, we will probably start very soon !! :)
Just please don't forget to put me in the end or middle since I'm the only player in US (??)
Small but rather important question, when replacing traits (i.e. expansionistic for seafaring), I assumed the starting techs will be changed accordingly as well no? So (in my case) Inca changing to seafaring,agricultural will have same starting techs as the Dutch (Alphabet/pottery)?
If not, I'd (logically) wish to change my choice of civ to another nation, of course. :)
Eldakkar
09-07-2004, 13:53
I'll have the Iroquois as my tribe,please :)!
Eldakkar, that means no seafaring trait on an archi map (a lot of islands, so even 'worse' than archi) vs all seafaring tribes...
Socrates
09-07-2004, 22:27
Yes Kemal, starting techs will change according to traits. This is my will anyway, probably everyone's too, and surely what Aggie will do. So you'll have the Dutch with Chasqui scouts instead (I assume Kemal won't get a scout at the beginning ?).
Oops, Eldakkar, for a second I thought you would end up with "England with mounted warriors", but then I saw Aggie's post, and of course in C3C Iroquois aren't expansionnist anymore, but agricultural and commercial. Eldakkar, I suggest you read the whole topic if you haven't done it, to see what the game will be about. There are essentially 7 (modded) seafearing civs, and the map will be purely archipelago. So you know what to expect... :D We'll allow expansionnist civs to become seafearing, since there are only 7 seafearing civs (and we are 8 players). Confirm or change your civ, please ! [cool]
I am almost ready with the map. I need all your passwords, which you can either e-mail ( aggie[at]civ3duelzone[dot]com ) or pm to me :)
Eldakkar
10-07-2004, 12:05
Hi Aggie, Krys. Thank you for pointing that out. I'd still like to play the iroquois. At least they start with alphabet, so curraghs will be available. It will cost me 1 movement point per turn per ship, and the suicide runs will not be as succesful as those of the other players, but I DO get a great UU [:D}
So Iroquois,please.
Socrates
11-07-2004, 00:00
[lol] All in all, we could have played a game without modded traits (7 seafearing civs), but it doesn't matter at all. Have fun with the Iros, Eldakkar. [goodjob]
Now all I need is the remaining passwords!
hi all
forum was down late evening ? well at least for me it was not working.
Anyway, aggi, i send you my password now (keep it, because iff i ever forgot it, well, ... :-)
Also, as i've already mentionned a few post ago, i'm leaving this evening for holidays in my family (and wedding, ...). So you'll have to give my place to the replacment player you want, until my return (end of july).
I'll have Internet access, so i'll can keep in touch with you, and the said player. Also, the beginning of the game being what we know, i do not worry much.
Still waiting for 3 passwords...
EDIT: I need that last password to start the game. You know who you are, you also have to play the save of our pbem ;)
Socrates
11-07-2004, 23:03
Mmmh, not much discussion about rules or how we will play lately... Since Arghis will be off for a few weeks, we need a replacement player now for him. Of course replacement players should be allowed to replace only ONE player (one civ) in this game. ;) Anyone up for it ?
I would almost volunteer to play the first turns for Arghis, but somehow that would be strange, knowing the map and all.
OTOH: It is probably only 10 turns and in those turns I can hardly profit from this knowledge. Obviously it would be better if someone else would take over from Arghis.
Aggie,
I have no problems if you replace Arghis for 10 turns if you are capable of playing as if you do not know the map.
Socrates
12-07-2004, 11:08
Of course it won't be that bad if Aggie plays those turns, but all in all, Arghis will probably need a replacement player in the future, and so we'd better start to search for real replacement players. So it would be better if another guy could play those turns and the ones Arghis won't be able to play in the future. Another simple solution is to wait for Arghis to come back ; I can wait that much in any case, though I'd like to start asap of course. The length of the game doesn't put me in a "let's play now now now" mode.
I have all the passwords now and I am ready to create the save. That said, the outcome of the SoZ poll is vague...
Socrates
12-07-2004, 21:23
About rules... We have the ISDG set for a basic reference. Some disagree about certain rules, some don't... I think many players don't feel the need to have a strict set of rules, since we're all humans and there is no AI. I think it will be difficult to come to a point where everyone agrees. I suggest we all got the habit of playing like gentlemen, didn't abuse the game mechanisms (sorry Kemal, but the palace jump is rather abusing the game for me). Why not having Aggie (the godfather of this game) as a special referee in any case of disagreement ? :) I think that's the best way of doing. Chaining ships really aren't my cup of tea, and I think this one is important as it might play a big role in the game.
OK, what a messy post. Please tell me if you agree with that.
EDIT : Sorry Aggie, I quickly edited my post. [blush] While we're at it, every player is welcome to choose a replacement player. You may not need one now, but when you need one, you'll have to find someone who won't have read any spoiler yet, and I bet it will be hard to find. :D Of course any CDZ member who appears to have read even one spoiler is strongly NOT recommanded to replace any player ever in this game, unless he has only read this player's spoiler.
Who wants to be my replacement ? :D Don't fight people, please do it in a civilized manner !
I already have the passwords. Only thing stopping me from making the save is the question: Zeus or not?
On Zeus and KT:
4 say No
3 say Yes, no mods
1 sais Yes, equal chances for all players
Simple, take the option most people are happy with imo.
Socrates
12-07-2004, 22:58
It's just that we could come to a 2nd vote turn, like in those fucking politician votes. ;)
Anyway, ProPain has just agreed to be my replacement player. :) That means he will have to refrain from reading other players' spoilers. I suggest other players found theirs too, and to clearly write down every member's name who isn't allowed to read their spoilers in their spoiler topics.
It may be a good idea to start an open topic for the game, with all the important info (I'll do it soon).
For the 2 not-clearly-decided polls, if no one else says anything before tomorrow night, we'll consider everything closed, and go with the options which got 4 votes.
Socrates
13-07-2004, 13:08
Last call for those who may have a different opinion than before, or who really want the winning option not to be chosen !! By tonight Aggie will be completely free to create the save. As for now, we will be playing on Deity (but akots might want to play on Demi-God after all), and with no SoZ nor KT (but I agree on having the ivory requirement).
Aggie should also use a random process to sort the roster out, and that would be a nice thing to do before releasing the save.
About the starting position, we could agree on all showing it to every other player or not, but if we want to do it (not particularly my case), then you'll have more time to find a replacement player. Otherwise, the quicker you find one, the better.
The roster (after throwing the dice):
1. krys
2. anarres
3. Beam
4. Banzai
5. Kemal
6. akots
7. Arghis
8. Eldakkar
I now will finish my map, deity level and no SoZ/KT.
I would not show the starting spot by the way. It might lead to discussions, while you don't know the rest of the starting islands...
Maybe not the nicest random map to test with, but here is a biq with the non AI PBEM ruleset and civs.
Download Attachment: icon_paperclip.gif nonaipbemrulesrandommap.biq (http://www.civ3duelzone.com/forum/uploaded/Aggie/200471474023_nonaipbemrulesrandommap.biq)
455.96KB
Socrates
14-07-2004, 10:54
Tested it, and it runs well on my PC. I guess everything will be fine with the real save then. The SoZ and the KT have been removed, too bad, as they are nice additions to the game, but people didn't want them. :(
I see I'm the 1st one in the roster, but I will be able to play by tonight only. That means you have all your day to create the save, will that be enough ? :D
Then I can say that the map is ready [party]
[party]
Thanks Aggie!!!!!!
Beam.. you can send the save to my MSN address
Kemal.. where do you want me to send it to?
I will send the save to krys, the first player. I still volunteer to take over for Arghis for the first 10 turns.
Is it possible to e-mail to everyone the list of players in the order the game would be played with e-mails? Many thanks in advance. :)
Socrates
15-07-2004, 00:49
Hehe, I played my 1st turn !! :D And it's already some hard mindstorm about how to start it, kudos to Aggie for a map that I already like !! [coool] Save sent to anarres. Will we create a topic to just say "save sent" somewhere ? The topic called "The Swimming Pool" won't be this topic, just the one for any public comment about the game (all that isn't admin affairs).
hi all.
i'm happy to know that the game has begun. i'm really sorry to be away at this time, but i had no choice. anyway, for the replacement player, i'll ask to Moff Jerod and tell you if he agree.
edit :
Also, i see no problem if it's aggie who take the first turn for me. i don't want the game to take delay because of my absence.
edit 2 :
Moff Jerrod will be my replacement player [goodjob]. so take note to send him the first turn instead of me. also you can send him my password because i'm not sure which one i've choosen. that's strange because i remember having choosen an easy password but i still hesitate on this one or another [mischief]. perhaps have i taken some notes at home. well, i'm not at home currently [rolleyes]
With Moff, there is a 2nd US guy i think [thumbsup]
quote:Originally posted by akots
Just please don't forget to put me in the end or middle since I'm the only player in US (??)
hmm, rather quiet topic these times. is it because i'm in holidays ? my holidays are fine. i have plenty of sun, good food and wine, nothing to do, unless for discussing with old family/friends, and, ..., and daydreaming in a beautiful countryside.
What about a temporary new nickaname for me ? something like Arghoff, or MoffJhis, just to mark the participation of Moff. Hmm, a poll for this. no; ok i'm kidding. nothing to do on an old computer with 56 k. and now i'm obliged to shut it down. pff.
how can people live without a computer (and a good strategy game).
:-)
Socrates
16-07-2004, 23:49
Well I'm being silent because I worked until midnight today, and finally I ate something at home !! [crazyeye] Otherwise it's quite sunny in Paris, quite hot, but I'm not quite in holidays. Still I can play a few turns of civ every night. :D
Noted about Moff Jerjerrod replacing you, Arghis. I don't know why you PMed me though. PM Aggie, so that he sends him your password, and PM the guy before in the roster for Moff's email. Thanks.
I sent krys the corrected version, with Portugal industrious...
Moff Jerjerrod
17-07-2004, 14:18
I'm in and will be happy to substitute for Arghis while he is on holiday.
don't forget to send the save to Moff until my return (ok, you know that i'm away these times but i prefer 2 security instead of one)[viking]
i pm you the needed adress akots
quote:Originally posted by akots
Is it possible to e-mail to everyone the list of players in the order the game would be played with e-mails? Many thanks in advance. :)
quote:Originally posted by kryszcztov
... I don't know why you PMed me though.
because i find you sympathic :D
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.