View Full Version : 2vs2vs2vs2 open thread
Kingreno
29-10-2004, 18:00
my fellow despots;
I have two things to clear out, and sooner rather then later!
first, Killer will be away for some time, I reccon we wait or is there a replacement player?
second, more important! We agreed before teh game we would NOT play with fixed alliances on, because it would mean we would know eachother from turn 1. Instead we agreed to make no trades/alliances/techdeals or any of such at all between different players, in other words each players' 2 civs would always be at a state of war with all other civs on tha map. Right? This is mundo importanto. Please discuss it asap, as meeeting some other guy may not take that long.[mischief]
Re Killer: sad, but what we can do?
OK but then who declares on who? War happiness is a big deal at the current setup. We can just stay at peace and make sure there is no communicatons between ppls going on until there is a possiblity of a "non-phony" wars.
Kingreno
29-10-2004, 20:13
I think we should do it the honorable way. If player A lands 10 units next to player B's capitol, player A should declare war in that turn, it is not fair that Player B has to declare in this case, and gets the hapiness.
Human players can't declare other than moving a unit to another one iirc.
You could also try to remove the active peace deal by renegotiating peace in the diplo screen, though that wouldn't work when the peace has been signed less than 20 turns ago, I suppose.
Lt. Killer M
23-11-2004, 11:50
kemal: it works if not with a (##) behind it.
me back, who has the save? I did not find one waiting for me
quote:Originally posted by Kingreno
Instead we agreed to make no trades/alliances/techdeals or any of such at all between different players, in other words each players' 2 civs would always be at a state of war with all other civs on tha map. Right?
WRONG!
Of course we can make trades/alliances/techdeals between different players.
This idea of allways war drops completely out of the blue for me.
Lt. Killer M
24-11-2004, 15:20
the only thing I find in the other thread was 'no alliances' in the sense of 'no MAs' - but that didn#t get agreed on either, ever!
thanx stapel.
The only thing debatable is indeed MAs between players.
From the other thread:
Linked alliences of course, and no alliences permitted between others.
Linked alliences is not on, due to good reasons.
Furthermore, only MAs are not allowed (up to deabte, I am fine with all). trading techs, lux and money is all fine!
Where is the save????????????????????
I've resent the last turn to Killer but iirc he already played that.
Where is the game? Does it have to die that early?
I got it from KR, on to Akots in a few minutes!!
BTW:
To clear things out. Trading techs, luxuaries and money are all fine!
Alliances are fine with me too. There is no use in prohibiting being at war with 2 others, is there?
It IS NOT allowed to be at war with your other civ (for GA / leaderfishing purposes)!
Lt. Killer M
29-11-2004, 11:43
sounds fine to me! thanx for clarifying, stapel!
3 against 1 (6 against 2) is not fair as well. May be only 1 alliance then allowed? 2 x 2 (4 x 4) is OK.
quote:Originally posted by akots
3 against 1 (6 against 2) is not fair as well. May be only 1 alliance then allowed? 2 x 2 (4 x 4) is OK.
There is no way to stop silent alliances, I guess....
quote:Originally posted by anarres
Honour!
No, even with good intentions and even honour, people will see the mutual benefits of attacking the strongest mutual foe.
Surely seeing a strong foe and attacking him *isn't* using an alliance at all, secret or not.
I may as well say any attack on anyone by anyone else is an alliance then, because they are not attacking some other random unit?
Maybe I'm just missing something, but if you see a strong person with their army fending off an attack somewhere else you would be totally fucking CRAZY not to attack them on their exposed side. You can't say that you shouldn't attack them in that situation - it just makes no sense at all.
Silent is OK, like 2 fight on one and the fourth player is doing nothing but sitting in his corner glad that it is not him hammered this time. Well, apparently that fourth will be third soon and will be next if I may say so. Honour in this case would mean that 3 players cannot attack the one fourth all together. Certainly, one can attack 3 others, if he is insane enough. [lol]
However, the initial idea is that Kingreno understood and what I have got is that this siutation better be avoided because that is the reason we have received 2 starting civs to play with. Otherwise, there is little sense to play with 2 civs, it could have been just a normal 4-player no-AI game.
Actually, we should ask the mapmaker. Is the map playable with AW-type? Or not playable without reasonable trading?
If something goes wrong (like one has 4 uraniums and others have none), there is always somebody to blame for these things then.
The always war option is simply not an option.
We are allowed to trade techs, lux, maps, contacts and money.
Military Alliances not (I guess).
Kingreno
29-11-2004, 18:19
Well, to explain why I thought initially that we would play always war (or at least no treaties/trades whatsoever)...
The special thing in this game is to have 2 civs to control. To make the perfect harmony between those civs, by choosing right, ect ect. I fear this will be totaly snowed under by diplo and treaties, something, as Akots points out, is just like a normal 4-player-no-AI-game. I am therefore still in favour of playing as close to always war as possible (cold war perhaps?), but will, as said, do what the majority wants here.
All in all, an always war scenario, where every unit not part of the alliance is fair game to attack, is still extremely fun to play I think.
Well, I made the map with trading as an option in mind. Which doesn't mean itsn't playable as AW but I prob would have done a couple of things different.
quote:Originally posted by KingrenoI am therefore still in favour of playing as close to always war as possible.Once again, not an option.
We should end the discussion here.
I'll explain when the game has ended.
OK, then how about this:
1) no Military Alliances officially.
2) no MPPs officially.
3) no discussion of military operations in detail between ppls. (Certainly optional and difficult to control).
4) no trading cities neither between human ppls nor between 2 civs governed by the same ppl.
5) Allowed: Trading of techs, contacts (after Printing Press), luxuries, maps (after Navigation), resources, workers, and gold.
Question: Do we allow use of MapStat 2.8.0 or latest version?
quote:Originally posted by akots
OK, then how about this:
1) no Military Alliances officially.
2) no MPPs officially.
3) no discussion of military operations in detail between ppls. (Certainly optional and difficult to control).
4) no trading cities neither between human ppls nor between 2 civs governed by the same ppl.
5) Allowed: Trading of techs, contacts (after Printing Press), luxuries, maps (after Navigation), resources, workers, and gold.Seems fair!
quote:Question: Do we allow use of MapStat 2.8.0 or latest version?
Uh.... I never use it. Why would it benefit somone / change the gameplay.
Well, regarding MapStat 2.8.0. It does now show how much gold the human opponent has on hand and also it shows number of cities this opponent has (not sure that which you can see or all, have to test this) as well as territory in % after you get the contact. It also sometimes shows the techs available to trade which with the help of Tech calculator gives out the info about the contacts. But on the positive side, all this info is essentially available with little thinking except for cash on hand. That is apparently the only real spoiler info IMO which MapStat has.
Whether it is useful or not, depends on size of the empire and how tedious the management of cities is. I'm using it all the time in GOTM or SG (with +100 cities close to completion, otherwise I go nuts) but did not use in PBEM except when agreed by all ppls. For now apparently, with 2-3 cities, it is not a big deal and when we reach a decent size, might be possible to consider again. Well, then, there will be a new version.
I guess we should ban mapstat.
Lt. Killer M
30-11-2004, 07:35
I am totally fine with teh rules suggested by akots, and also think be should feinately ban mapstat!
btw akots: sorry for dropping out of our chat. my connection is fucked :( i can't use trillian or MSM atm at all :(
Isn't there a version of MAtStat without the spoiler info? That sucks if not!
Kingreno
30-11-2004, 16:53
quote:Originally posted by akots
OK, then how about this:
1) no Military Alliances officially.
2) no MPPs officially.
3) no discussion of military operations in detail between ppls. (Certainly optional and difficult to control).
4) no trading cities neither between human ppls nor between 2 civs governed by the same ppl.
5) Allowed: Trading of techs, contacts (after Printing Press), luxuries, maps (after Navigation), resources, workers, and gold.
Question: Do we allow use of MapStat 2.8.0 or latest version?
1 to 5: Agreed
MapStat: I do not use it, or have it. The only tool I use are my Brain and the f1 to f11 screens. If that happens to be insufficient to beat an opponent so be it. No Mapstat!
KR - would you also say that if it gave no spoiler info?
Kingreno
30-11-2004, 17:41
anarres: There is IMVHO no easy way to say what is allowed and what is not. There are tools for almost everything you want in Civ3. From techcalc to mapstat and I bet someone is working on a an f3-tool (to tell how much units an opponent has). I use none of these and do not intend to use them either.
However, to try to answer the Question; I play only PBEM with people I trust, and if they use a tool that tells them things they should not know that is just that. I cannot worry too much about it.
Though I'm not playing in this game, I'd like to stop by and post my views on this topic as well, because of course it has an effect on all pbems played, not just this one here.
I think that any external program that gives information on the status of your opponents with regard to tech/gold/luxes/resources, or any other information that in SP would be accessible via the diplo screen, should be banned in multihuman PBEMs.
Since you can't see what your opponent has to offer without external help, it should therefore remain unknown. In 1v1 games, you can of course deduct the techs from the costs to research it yourself, but when multiple humans participate this no longer works because it is impossible to know who has what tech anymore, only how many in total have it.
Of course, any program giving information that can't be deducted from the game itself in any "normal" game either should imho be banned as well, for example total land area when not possessing the full map, or total commercial output in case the demographics numbers don't prove to be sufficient for conclusions on that.
This isn't just for fun for me either! MapStat can be very useful (as I found out in the Defiant SID SG), and although the current version is NOT usable with PBEM without spoiler info, I am working hard to get a spoiler-free version that people can use.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=2376916#post2376916
As you can see, Dianthus is a nice guy, and he is willing to bend over backwards to accomodate the PBEM community, of which CDZ is a very large part.
When he has removed this spoiler info (gold, cities, techs), then the version will give nothing that the game doesn't say. I can't see a reason that anyone could object to somone else using this tool.
KR - I like your purist intentions, but in some situations MapStat can save you (literally) hours of time each turn. If there is no spoiler then why not? BTW, I am really confused as to why you would not use tech calc - all it's doing is some sums that before I used to do by hand. [???]
Anybody here doing math for flip calc? I don't think so! As long as no extra info is given away, all is fine.
Btw, on the topic of what can and what can't you use, I think certain graphic mods should be banned as well unless agreed upon before the game. Perhaps I'm sounding a bit too much like a certain ex-gotm moderator for some people here (I apoligize in advance if that's the case ;)), but it makes for an entire different game if you graphic mod allows you to see the lux/cow/wheat through the fog compared to when you can't, and especially with games on identical starts the difference is just too large to be withing a margin of fairness, imo.
Kingreno
30-11-2004, 18:47
quote:Originally posted by anarres
KR - I like your purist intentions, but in some situations MapStat can save you (literally) hours of time each turn. If there is no spoiler then why not? BTW, I am really confused as to why you would not use tech calc - all it's doing is some sums that before I used to do by hand. [???]
F8 now gives percentages on Domination, a very usefull thing. I am not aware of any other use of mapstat as I simply do not know it. But if you say it shows things like who has what techs that would insta-ban it for me.[nono]
As for techcalc, I have never used it in any game and do not miss it. I am maybe just not thorough enough in Civ as I do not do it by hand either, I just make a well educated guess about what my opponent has, or just ask on MSN (that is even easier then techcalc so in some next game I want to test it: Tell your opponent what you just researched!).
Well...
the debate is about *spoiler* info, and my question very clearly stated that if there was no spoiler info - what is the problem?
Your answer is that with spoiler info you won't use it, but that isn't what I asked. :)
Edit: FWIW I totally agree that using spoiler info is out of the question with regards to utilities, but again, that isn't what I am asking about at all.
Just to check up and summarize with MapStat, I opened an old save from finished PBEM.
Info which can be considered spoiler:
1) Territory - city count. Appears that number shown is all cities of your opponent not only that you can see. With spoiler tab unckeched in File-Preferences-Spoiler or without.
2) Trading shows techs, gold, workers and resources available for trade. This is certainly not good.
Otherwise, it is OK. May be though I missed something else.
If Dianthus can fix this, that would be a great help. However, the version 2.8.0 should be banned at least here in this particular game apparently.
Kingreno
30-11-2004, 20:12
quote:Originally posted by anarres
Well...
the debate is about *spoiler* info, and my question very clearly stated that if there was no spoiler info - what is the problem?
Your answer is that with spoiler info you won't use it, but that isn't what I asked. :)
If a player feels he can learn things from a tool that plays with the numbers of the f11-screen (combined with techvalues), that is basicly ok IMO. Hope that (finaly) answers that question. [:p]
akots - I wouldn't use it in any game unless you get permission from the other human players. :)
KR - I didn't mean to sound confrontational, I am genuinely interested in why you refuse to consider using non-spoiler utils, which can help a lot when playing. :)
Lt. Killer M
01-12-2004, 08:30
quote:Originally posted by Kemal
Perhaps I'm sounding a bit too much like a certain ex-gotm moderator for some people here (I apoligize in advance if that's the case ;))
You don't, not at all.
After all, he was and you are right on the issue, as long as you don't (as he did) call the mod-MAKER a cheater ;)
I completely understand why mapstat can be a spoiler for PBEM. However, I want to join the discussion and tell you what I like about the tool in SP games:
-During the Sid defiant game (MM1) we had a huge number of cities. With mapstat you can check out the moods of the citizens instantly. You can immediately see which cities are on the point of rioting
-During my 362x362 game with 31 civs (AG3) I could use mapstat to check out what new techs were known by the AI. Going through all the civs every freaking turn was unbearable. With mapstat you see it immediately.
-Mapstat tells you exactly how many tiles are needed to get to domination. Ever since the update of F8 this is less important to me though.
BTW,
Where is da save????
Lt. Killer M
01-12-2004, 11:16
not with me, I sent to KR a while ago.
KR, did you get it? weekendish, I think.
I have sent it to Alexander last monday. He usually informs if he played it to you, but hasn't done so yet.
Lt. Killer M
01-12-2004, 14:41
hm, I forgot that I do not have my CDZ mail forwarded to GMX anymore. Just checked, I have 25 in my inbox. Let me go to the other room and see if that is new to me.
sorry.
Ah, I did send our 2 player PBEM there as well!
Lt. Killer M
01-12-2004, 14:54
sent 25 on. sorry again!
Lt. Killer M
01-12-2004, 14:55
Bas, I see no 1vs1 there!
also, there is a map talking about another attachment that you sent, some sort of picture, that has no attachment :(
Well, gentlemen, if we are not going to play this one at an acceptable rate, better stop it now. I'm just thinking about Beam who put his time and effort in making this map which has promised an interesting game. If there are RL problems for that somebody who is recently chronically sitting on the game, we can try to look for a sub until it is not too late.
Last save gotten from KingReno on december 2nd at 16:59.
Last save sent to Akots on december 2nd at 17:23.
Hurry up!
Lt. Killer M
09-12-2004, 11:52
I have it in my inbo, but i can't get C3C to run :(
I will try another uninstall/reinstall cycle this evening, if that don#t help i must totally reinstall the entire PC again :(
@Killer: You have any other e-mail I can use to send the game?
Have not seen this one in ages. Is it dead or we are going finally to play it?
I don't know.
I don't thimk I have it.
IIRC, I played only the Hiawathans, you notified me of that litle blunder, and I played the Kim-Il-Sungs and sent it.
Yep, mailed the game same day to Killer and have not seen it since then. [sad]
Kingreno
17-01-2005, 22:11
Game is on it's way now.[blush]
Modding in the civ directory led me to making a back-up where I also accidently saved the game when it arrived. Game played and sent this afternoon to Stapel. Won't happen again.
So far, during the 3 weeks of January, we have played 3 or 4 turns. If we don't move this one, it can be declared essentially dead IMO. I hope when Stapel returns we can resume the normal playing pace of 1 turn/day or maximum 2 days. Otherwise, I see no reason to continue this game. Considering it takes about 200 turns to finish such game and we have not yet reached turn 50, it will take about 4 to 5 years to finish it at its current playing rate. If there are RL problems, we better seek a replacement to avoid stalling or end it now.
Lt. Killer M
26-01-2005, 09:22
akots, once one or both of your civs have been killed by us others the game will go a LOT faster ;)
no worries, mate - it was simply a bad time for the game, and better times will come again, too!
quote:Originally posted by akots
So far, during the 3 weeks of January, we have played 3 or 4 turns. If we don't move this one, it can be declared essentially dead IMO. I hope when Stapel returns we can resume the normal playing pace of 1 turn/day or maximum 2 days. Otherwise, I see no reason to continue this game. Considering it takes about 200 turns to finish such game and we have not yet reached turn 50, it will take about 4 to 5 years to finish it at its current playing rate. If there are RL problems, we better seek a replacement to avoid stalling or end it now.
I still think this game, overall, has a more than decent commitment. Sometimes people make mistakes by putting saves in wrong folders. Sometimes people take vacations. We have to live with that. I will be back in The Hague tonight, and then we should be able to speed things up again.
Kingreno
18-04-2005, 19:57
I guess this is the place to post wonderconstruction?
http://www.civ3duelzone.com/forum/uploaded/Kingreno/2005418195629_72greatlib.jpg
46.02KB
This is a Sumerian town.
Lt. Killer M
18-04-2005, 19:59
lucky fuck! [mad]
Pastorius
18-04-2005, 22:16
"Lucky fuck" is what you get when you pick up someone who turns out to be a fine specimen @ 03:30AM on a Sunday morning :D
Nope, that is not the way I picked up my GF, although she IS a fine specimen...
Lt. Killer M
19-04-2005, 07:07
what's her catalogue number? is she classified among the mammals or in the 'recent' collection?
Could it be, I do not have the last save????????????????
Markstar might be willing to take over TGL from KingReno!!!!
Markstar
15-08-2005, 00:17
Yep, I officialy took over now. Are you guys in the turn tracker? Who sends me the save? And where do I send the saves to?
I think I send the save to Killer. And I get them from Stapel. Which means you get it from Killer. We need to meet over MSN to discuss things if you are seriously planning to play. But we also need to locate the save. The latest one which I had played was turn 75 on April 29th this year (2005). Another but, I will be travelling to Moscow on Tuesday for unknown duration of time, hopefully about a month, maximum two months. I would have slow dial-up there and probably I can have C3C there after I fix the PC. I'm not col, hopefully it will take a couple of days. So, launching this game up again might take awhile but at least it is not completely hopeless task.
I've sent turn 75a to Akots in April. From his post I conclude he received and played that game, and has sent turn 75b to Killer.
I suppose Killer did send 75c to KR.
Lt. Killer M
15-08-2005, 09:39
yes I did.
sending on to Markstar now.
[dance]
We're on our way again!
Markstar
15-08-2005, 10:16
@Stapel: I don't have your email address for some reason, so here is the save:
Turn 75: icon_paperclip.gif 2v2v2v2_75d.zip (http://www.civ3duelzone.com/forum/uploaded/Markstar/200581510156_2v2v2v2_75d.zip)
132.59KB
@everybody: Have you guys considered asking Matrix for implementing this on the turn tracker? Just wondering...
Oh fuck, I've been waiting for the save to arrive in my inbox......
It's my fault! I remember I saw it here [wallbash]
Actually, I entered this thread to complain...... [lol]...
Will play tonight!
And I did play last week.......
Akots, did you get the save from me?
Lt. Killer M
25-08-2005, 11:08
akots told beam he is n/a in Russia waiting for a visa
digger760
25-08-2005, 11:41
akots is stuck in moscow, without internet access, according to a post by beam in akots forum area
I'm still sitting on the game. Sorry about this delay, need to figure out what to do now and have to clean a lot of stuff at work after vacation.
Ok, lets try to revive this. Turn 76 sent to Killer.
Lt. Killer M
12-10-2005, 11:32
aargh!
not again!
already my emails seem not to reach darkness - now turn tracker doesn't take my uploads again???? and my mails do not go to ANYONE???
This game is not in turntracker. Just play it and send to Markstar if you can.
Lt. Killer M
12-10-2005, 11:35
I didn't mean THIS game, akots - somehow NOTHING works atm if a file is involved.......
Lt. Killer M
12-10-2005, 11:36
Download Attachment: icon_paperclip.gif 2v2v2v2_76c.zip (http://www.civ3duelzone.com/forum/uploaded/Lt. Killer M/20051012113555_2v2v2v2_76c.zip)
132.61KB
Lt. Killer M
12-10-2005, 11:36
hm, can someone please check - for ME the DL fails.....
Lt. Killer M
12-10-2005, 13:19
anyone?
please?
can anyone DL this save????
Darkness
12-10-2005, 14:24
Killer,
i just checked.
I can download your uploaded zip, and if I unzip, there's even a .sav file in there... :)
Lt. Killer M
12-10-2005, 14:29
I talked to the uni IT guys. The server through which I upload, download, email is acting up.
They expect a reboot to fix this and will do so this evening (replacement server is being serviced, too, they said. methinks they are too lazy).
Lt. Killer M
24-10-2005, 21:10
and I was in the US and will not be able to access CDZ mail until tomorrow.
so be patient.
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.