View Full Version : ProPain/d760 vs Skyfish/Stagnate - MAP MADE
digger760
07-10-2003, 13:33
Player order
Player1: digger760 China (Pro760 team)
Player2: Skyfish Carthage (SkyNate team)
player3: ProPain Greece (Pro760 team)
player4: Stagnate Ottomans (SkyNate team)
Difficuly Level: Emperor
Map parameters:
- climate: warm & wet
- size: Standard
- landmass: Pangea
- barbs: restless
- AI: 4 Random
- all standard conditions on
- no regicide, capture the princess and other multiplayer conditions
- civ-abilities on
- culturally-linked start off
- ai-respawn off
Special Conditions:
This is a 2 vs 2 So we would like to start next each other, I suggest:
A B not A B
A B B A
Throw in 4 AI.... 2 on each side of the teams
Any other suggestions/preferences?
I think we are playing under RealmsBeyond Honourable rules as well
http://www.realmsbeyond.net/civ/etactics.html
digger760
Important detail :
Honourable rules are extremly difficult at Emperor level and involve too many changes to a normal play style, beleive me I knwo them well ;)
I am sure you meant RBCiv rules, which are different as they allow for dastardly acts (prohibited by Honourable rules)
However RBCiv rules are not common to follow in PBEMs and were purely made to restrict the human player vs the AI.
In a PBEM, you are actually are playing vs a human and not an AI so their usefulness is debatable at best.
I will post here an easy set of rules which embraces most of the important RBCiv rules without being too restrictive.
Then we can discuss each of them to agree on a full set.
digger760
07-10-2003, 14:23
OK, No Problem, I remember Stagnate mentioning them at some stage, but maybe that was when we were talking about 1v1v1v1.
Well, let's try this, it s not a complete list but it could do :
ICS , RCP (Ring City Placement) and Far Palace exploit (having the Palace far away from your core once you have an FP core built to exploit corrution bug)
RoP Rape - but also RoP Abuse that includes things like irrigating all tiles of a city building wonders, denying resources with a RoP, putting a unit to block a land bridge, etc.
Scout resource denial - parking a scout on a resource, as the AI won't ask scouts to leave. The same scenario also applies to workers.
False Peace Treaties : you must wait for the 20 years to end.
The negative science exploit - while you hav eno money, you can run a huge deficit of negative cash with a token penalty of one lost worker / cheap building.
Ship chaining exploit - you can move a ship, unload troops to another ship, move that ship, etc. This allows you to ship an indefinite distance, and that is why I consider it an exploit.
Resources disconnect / connect exploit - The exploit is to do this every turn. Example : Build a stack of horses, connect saltpeter, upgrade to cavalry, and disconnect.
Palace Jump - You abandon the capital city to move the palace to a new location. If you want to move the palace, build (or rush) a new palace.
Declaring war / demanding leave solely for the purpose of getting out of trade deals.
No "Settler creep" exploit.
________________________________________
What do you guys think any other ideas ? comments ?
heh, can you define RCP then Sky? Is 5 cities at the same distance OK? How about 4? Or 3? 2??
Even allowing 3 cities at the same distance will lead to 3 cities at distance 3, 3 at distance 4, 3 at distance 6, etc....
Of course there is the flip side. I can establish 3 cities at distance 4 early on, then find that there is a 'must have' spot 4 tiles away for a 4 turn settler factory. Do you then not settle there because you can't have more than 3 at the same distance? So for 3 cities allowed at the same distance you have to wait to see the whole land before building your 3rd (and final) city at that distance.
What about when you have 3 cities at distance 8 and the AI has a city 8 from you. Do you have to raze the city? That's not good for your attitude rating...
Just some thoughts about the definition or RCP for these kinds of things - I have thought about this before and any defninition you come up with has the potential to intefere with 'normal' play.
Some last thoughts: ICS is equally hard to define (especially for those of us who like tight builds), and "Resources disconnect / connect exploit" (mass upgrades) are a weird one to want to ban. Is it an exploit to hold off connecting a resource in your territory for the first time? If not then surely people will still upgrade 30+ units in 1 turn, which seems just as bad as doing 5 units every 2 turns for 12 turns. If you say they have to connect immediately then that is really bad since resources have a habit of disappearing on you...
You obviously have a scientific mind anarres [groucho]
The question is not about how enforceable the RCP or ICS rule is.
I totally agree with you when you say both these concepts are hardly defineable.
But its not about defining the rule in such a way that you can be sure nobody cheats here, IF (and we have not decided yet) we decide to follow those rules then the only person to "enforce" the rule will be by the player themselves with their own conscience.
What it means regarding RCP is that one should take himself back in time before we knew of that exploit : one would settle the best sites around the Palace, maximizing food, shields and resources. If it turned out 3 out of 4 cities were at equal corruption distance then you would get a hidden, unknown, advantage from it, nobody complained about it at the time did they ?
I am playing 2 games now which ban intentional RCP and I find it is working pretty good; in one of those games a player told us straight up before we knew of his territory that distributtion of bonuses meant that he actually would have 2 (or was it 3) first ring cities at equal distance, we said "sure, go ahead, no worries" (it's a 3player game).
Why ?
Because we trust him that this truly is the case and that he is not deciding to settle here instead of there because he will get less corrution from it (btw the advantage of "partial RCP" is for me yet to be proven since you earn a bit somewhere but lose quite a bit elsewhere..).
It's a trust issue and a "spirit, and not letter, of the rule" issue.
Just like I trust my opponents will not look at my games by exploiting the bug or using the admin password.
Thats the way RBCiv Epics work and thats the way I believe CDZ PBEMs work too so I am perfectly happy entirely trusting my opponent that they will follow the spririt of the rule and not try to cheat by "lawyer reading the rules" they previously agreed to.
:D
On the other points you make : ICS is same as RCP, see what I say in my previous post. One detail about ICS is not only the tight build (which I agree has its place in PBEM) it is more a style of play, and it is also heavily based, by the way, on ...
...the "resources disconnect issue" !
I again totally agree with you that resource disconnection totally has its place in Civ3 ! :D
See we agree on everything ;)
It is NOT an exploit "to hold off connecting a resource in your territory for the first time?". It is perfect gaemplay than to disconnect a resource for which you have no immediate use because indeed they have the bad habit of disappearing when you need them most.
If you read what I say the exploit is in doing this every turn and, I should say more, through the ages as well.
The example I give is not innocent : if you are in late Middle age with a developped core of productive cities and you purposely disconnect salpeter, build 5 horsemen, reconnect, upgrade, rinse and repeat ad nauseam : yes I consider this an exploit !
You're in Ancient Age, building up warriors, waiting then connecting Iron and mass upgrading to swarm= with swords in one go, no I dont consider it an exploit. Because it involves skill to build up the treasury, time it, etc...
It is the repetition and automaticity which makes it no fun anymore.
Remember that this sort of "gentleman's agreement on rules" was made when we could only fight AIs !
Never has an AI built 30 warriors, waited to connect their Iron to then do a mass upgrade, thats the point of the rule. Some of the tricks the humans can use are jsut too powerful to make the game fun or challenging anymore.
Also I am not saying the RBciv rules are "the way to play Civ3" and I have never imposed any of the rules to anyone here, everyone can see in my spoliers that I certainly dont play by them. These rules should not be 'patronizing'in any way...
The request was here to maybe try something different and it seemed to make sense since 2 teams of 2 players can beat up on the AIs so much that it would add little more challenge and interest to the game to refrain from using the most powerful tactics a human can use against an AI.
Interesting points, and on reflecion you are right: all rules are enforcable by spirit. [thumbsup]
digger760
08-10-2003, 17:00
the only exploits i think we shoudl avoid is the palace jump away from the core bug and the negative science expoit.
I think we can rape the AI all we want in this game. so the rest is free game, i hope i read it all correct.
Originally posted by Skyfish
Well, let's try this, it s not a complete list but it could do :
ICS , RCP (Ring City Placement) and Far Palace exploit (having the Palace far away from your core once you have an FP core built to exploit corrution bug)
taking the spirit rule in consideration Im ok woth this
RoP Rape - but also RoP Abuse that includes things like irrigating all tiles of a city building wonders, denying resources with a RoP, putting a unit to block a land bridge, etc.
I wouldnt mind to allow this, but no biggie for me
Scout resource denial - parking a scout on a resource, as the AI won't ask scouts to leave. The same scenario also applies to workers.
I wouldnt mind to allow this, but no biggie for me
False Peace Treaties : you must wait for the 20 years to end.
i think this rule shouldnt apply:
AI part: AI's dont honour 20 turn deals all the time so why should we.
human part: it's all in the game, can you trust your opponent or not
The negative science exploit - while you hav eno money, you can run a huge deficit of negative cash with a token penalty of one lost worker / cheap building.
I agree: axploit shouldn not be allowed
Ship chaining exploit - you can move a ship, unload troops to another ship, move that ship, etc. This allows you to ship an indefinite distance, and that is why I consider it an exploit.
I agree: exploit should not be allowed
Resources disconnect / connect exploit - The exploit is to do this every turn. Example : Build a stack of horses, connect saltpeter, upgrade to cavalry, and disconnect.
I dont agree, lets allow this as it just a means of converting gold to shieldds
Palace Jump - You abandon the capital city to move the palace to a new location. If you want to move the palace, build (or rush) a new palace.
I would like to allow this. cost of this strat are high (abandon a city)
Declaring war / demanding leave solely for the purpose of getting out of trade deals.
The rep hit you get from declaring war means no one will do per turn deals with you, Thats punishement enough. Lets allow this
No "Settler creep" exploit.
[/b] if meant to avoid taking out an ai in 1 turn. I agree[/b]
________________________________________
What do you guys think any other ideas ? comments ?
PP adds:
leader farming: declaring war on your teammate who sends cheap units with the sole purpose to butcher them and get leaders
stagnate
08-10-2003, 18:08
Ok, worked with Propain and digger and have a good set of round rules.
First, the teams are incorrect. It should be:
Player1: digger760 China (Pro760 team)
Player2: Skyfish Ottomans (SkyNate team)
player3: ProPain Greece (Pro760 team)
player4: Stagnate Carthage (SkyNate team)
Rules decided on:
'Spirit' rules:
No RCS/ICS
No false peace (no milking AI/making peace with the INTENTION of breaking peace). If circumstances change in <20 turns you can redeclare, it's an honor system.
'Hard' rules:
* No war vs teammate
* No ship chaining
* No RoP rape (vs AI)
* No 100% science exploit
* No far palace (with core around FP)
* No settler push (vs AI)
* No resource denial (with non-military units vs AI)
Still in the air:
Note that my goal with these rules is to try to keep things as 'real' as possible. Meta-game exploits or tactics are what I want to avoid. The example would be a palace jump; in game terms its a tossup with benefits and disadvantages, but it isn't realistic. Your preferences are probably different, but it's good to know why I have these opinions.
1) Palace jump
Propain mentions this is a costly manuever (dead city), but I think that early in the game it is much cheaper than building a new palace. Propain indicated flexibility, digger lumped Far palace/palace jump as one rule and said deny. Unless one of you feels strongly I'd like to leave this as banned.
2) Disconnect/Reconnect of resources
Doing this with the goal of preventing resource hopping is meta-game, and I don't like it. I don't have a problem with disconnecting to build cheaper units, or to break trade with your teammate so that you can access the resource, but I don't like the idea of doing it with the intent of breaking the games resource mechanism. I'm willing to make this a 'spirit of the rules' sort of thing also, so you have flexibility, but don't just leave it disconnected so it won't jump.
3) Settler push vs humans
I don't like this on a general level for the same reason that I don't like RoP rape; it only works because it's a turn based game. I can avoid RoP rape by not signing an agreement with my enemy (hell I deserve what I get :-P), but I would rather ban settler push even vs humans. It's just an attempt to get around game mechanics and take advantage of structure (turn-based).
OK we're coming to an agreement here, nice :)
I agree with every hard and spirit rule listed by Stagnate.
I will list what I *really* would like to ban which is still in the air :
- First and foremeost, the Settler push vs Human : this tactic is just so powerful you can totally destroy a Human within one turn, it's a game killing exploit just like using the "mobilization" exploit to cheat.
- Palace jump : I dont agree with PP its not costly at all, its very cheap and you get HUGE rewards from it. If you really wish to leave it though I think I master this technique quite well so its at your risk and peril ;)
- It leaves us with "resources disconnecting" : I would love to have it in spirit of the rule part but I understand its a bit difficult so ok we can leave it on...[sad]
Settler push: No biggie: I'm ok with banning it
resource disconnecting: make it a 'rule of spirit' that disallows disconnecting resources for the sole reason of prventing depletion as Digger proposes
Palace jump : No biggie for me, ban it: (I'll resort to hammering a GL out of an ai if I need my palace moved)
stagnate
11-10-2003, 18:49
Looks like the rules are clear. What sort of map? I'm into minimalist intervention, just some mods to make sure the positions are reasonably balanced, but I don't care much regardless; if a map maker wants to go all out I'll accept that :-)
4 random AI
Pangea
How should the distribution of the AI be? 1 AI on the outside, then two teammates, then 2 AI, then two teammates, then 1 AI?
pangea is fine with me, dont realy care about AI distribution as long as it's a fair one. Leave that up to the mapmaker to decide.
stagnate
18-10-2003, 00:34
Soooooo, what needs to happen to move this forward? It sounds like we're all agreed on pangea and other elements.
digger760
20-10-2003, 08:43
quote:Originally posted by stagnate
Soooooo, what needs to happen to move this forward? It sounds like we're all agreed on pangea and other elements.
It needs me to change the topic from MAP-DISCUSSION to MAP REQUEST...which has just been affected. Now all we can do is wait for the map makers...if i only new how to do the bow smiley..it seems to be missing from the smile list as well ;)
This one just changed to 'map request'? Unless DrA wants to do this one, for testing purposes, I have it for tonight.
Please remind me if needed ;)
The bow smiley is hte following Digger [ worship ] [worship]
An remember...Always bow down very low to the map makers ;)
Here you are. Admin pw = 'admin'
Download Attachment: icon_paperclip.gif Pro760-SkyNate, 4000 BC.SAV (http://www.civ3duelzone.com/forum/uploaded/Aggie/20031020185349_Pro760-SkyNate, 4000 BC.SAV)
65.99KB
digger760
22-10-2003, 09:08
opps...i misses this yesterday..sorry got it now.
Thanks aggie [goodjob] [worship]
Hey everyone
the play order is the one first posted
so I am Carth and Stagnate is Ottomans
I'd rather have the agreed order is that a problem ????
not for me let aggie switch races
What do you people want me to do? Sorry...
EDIT: I see it. I must say that this thread is rather confusing.
It s our fault Aggie, not yours at all..
My apologies !
2nd try:
Download Attachment: icon_paperclip.gif Pro760-SkyNate, 4000 BC.SAV (http://www.civ3duelzone.com/forum/uploaded/Aggie/200310257388_Pro760-SkyNate, 4000 BC.SAV)
66.91KB
stagnate
30-10-2003, 18:48
Digger?
digger760
31-10-2003, 08:04
yeh i got it, but Skyfish has gone on holidays now :(
I've sent it to him.
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.