30% Iron Civer Tournament- The Forge of Champions

[Rommel2D]

The Iron Civer PBEM Tournament approaches it's final stage. The first round was chronicled in the 30% Iron Civer Tournament thread.

Yomigaeru Aiyan Shivilan
Yo-mi-guy-ru-eye-yon-shiv-u-ya!

Contestants:
smellymummy
Aqualung71
Moonbars
Andydog
ricketyclik
Flandrien
Soltz
Paddy the Scot
alexman
Masuro
MickeyJ
McMeadows
sabrewolf
Trip
Bongo
jshelr

Replacement Pit:
MFCamillus (D)
Beta (D)
Krill (B or C)
conmcb25(D)
Arnelos (D)
snoopy369 (D)


The qualifying round of the Tournament is nearing completion. The final will soon be underway and a new tournament will follow. Stay tuned for further updates...

The main thing to keep in mind: This is a long term proposal. Everybody should be available on a daily basis for at least the next year with only limited periods of expected absence.

The schedule of games:

Game A
ricketyclik %eliminated%
Paddy the Scot %eliminated%
Aqualung71 Victor
Masuro %eliminated%

Game B
McMeadows %eliminated%
jshelr %eliminated%
Flandrien %eliminated%
Bongo Victor

Game C
Andydog %eliminated%
Mickeyj %eliminated%
Moonbars Victor
sabrewolf %eliminated%

Game D
alexman Victor
smellymummy %eliminated%
Soltz (richthur) %eliminated%
Trip %eliminated%

Standby Game AA
MFCamillus %eliminated%
conmcb25
Arnelos
Snoopy369

Championship Game
Aqualung71
alexman
Moonbars
Bongo

Moderating Mystic:
Rommel2D (jwala at fastmail dot fm)

Cleric in absentia:
Sir Ralph (sirralph TA gmx TOD com)

Groupings have been made geographic in hope of promoting 'quick play' periods where mutiple turns may be played in one day. I've done my best to arrange an east to west flow modified by the schedule information I've been given...

[Rommel2D]

Finalized rules (seventh draft):

1) 16 players, two rounds, all four player games
2) Tiny pangea with 70% water, random civs (first round only)
3) Players in final round choose tribes in order of first round completion
4) Players organized by geography for fast play (modified by individual schedule variations)
5) Turn order in east-west progression with exceptions only for players who give specific availability variances
6) Games started by referee, first turn skipped
7) Each player has the option, once per game in the first round only, to call for a restart before the completion of their first turn
8) Replacements are allowed while game is still BC
9) Replacements will eventually be assigned according to speed and/or number of victories in ICR games, but until the first replacement round reaches completion, they will be chosen as best meets the situation
10) 24 hour 'play clock', actively enforced
11) All players expected to make simple 'sent' post in tracking thread each turn, preferably listing year played, except when technical problems interfere.
12) All turns to be played with version 1.22 until it is superceded by another stable upgrade which all players agree to adopt
13) There is to be no...
rule 13.


To clarify the issue of rules and exploits/ettiquette:
Everything listed under Tournament Laws is here to keep the whole tournament together and running smoothly. These will receive active attention from the moderator.

Everything in the Warrior Code is there for the convenience of the players. It is meant to be a starting point for them to refer to when deciding on 'house rules' for each game, and these items are not being actively enforced by a moderator. However, if a dispute arises that is not settled by the individuals in the game, the moderator's resolution will be based on the list and agreements stated in the game's tracking thread.

[Rommel2D]

[ Recently revised content in orange text ]


Regular and bold words give the basic exploit information and rules to prevent them. Red, underlined words are the specific exploits covered. Royalblue, italicized words are etiquette points mostly, meant to add to the game if agreed to, but not necessary to avoid the most damaging exploits.



Preamble
It is understood that everyone participating is doing so to enhance their enjoyment of the game and share this enjoyment with others. These rules are not designed to prohibit someone who does not play with the spirit of sportsmanship from gaining undue advantage, only the vigilance of the community can hope to accomplish this. The aim of these rules are to present a common ground from which a fair challnge is presented to all, subject to the intended random elements of the game.

Reloading
Reloading of the turn in an effort to gain better RNG results or reposition units according to newly aquired information is the most heinous abuse of the PBEM system. However, reloading a turn to correct manual errors is Ok, as long as no unexplored or fog-of-war tiles are revealed and no combat has taken place. Any instance of reloading should be reported in the tracker thread.


Definitions
'game turn'= sequence begun when first player in order starts turn and ended when last player clicks 'save & exit'

'production phase'= part of the individual's turn immediately after loading, lasting until player is free to select and move units. In the "it's not a bug, it's a feature" department, any time the map is blacked out, it is still the production phase. :-)

'Trade' = applies to tradeable resources only

1 Intertribal cooperation

1-1 Players shall not conspire to use irregularities of the game engine's turn sequence to gain extra use from units or resources. They shall not declare frivilous wars. Deals shall not be canceled on the same game turn as they are made unless due to a legitimate war. Resources intentionally removed from a trade network cannot be reconnected to that network on the same game turn. Players shall not make deals that include money they will not pay for.

1-1.1 Getting double-duty out of artillery and Workers
1-1.2 Sharing a Luxury or Strategic resource
1-1.3 Generating Leaders and Golden Ages by sacrificing cheap units
1-1.4 Declaring war for happiness
1-1.5 Inflation bug
2-0.2 Accepting a Peace Treaty from a civ then immediately declaring war


1-2 Players shall not exchange in-game information until they are represented on each other's foreign advisor's screen. They shall not exchange graphic map information before both have knowledge of Navigation. Players shall not coordinate military action unless an alliance is formally declared in the foreign advisor's screen. Players shall not make Mutual Protection Pacts or Trade Embargoes unless they are declared in the foreign advisor's screen.
a) In diplomacy without an embassy between the Tribes, a player may only offer technology already known by their Tribe. They may not offer or ask for unknown techs.
b) Players shall not make reference to specific distances or directions until both have knowledge of Map Making.

1-2.1 Exchanging map/minimap information before Navigation.


2. Intertribal conflicts

2-1 Players shall not rename units or cities to disguise the content of unit stacks or diplomatic offers.


2-2 Cities may be offered diplomatically only as part of a peace treaty.

2-2.1 Teleporting units by abandoning or gifting cities


3. The individual turn

3-1 Players may only use drop-down menus to make changes during the 'production phase'. They should not zoom to cities or advisor screens from the pop-up boxes.

3-1.1 Using F1 to change production during the 'production phase'
3-1.2 Using city screen's arrow keys to change production during the 'production phase'


3-2 Last player in turn sequence shall not use the GoTo command.

3-2.1 Using GoTo to get extra movement


4. Options

4-1 Naval chains are allowed unless players agree otherwise in advance.

4-1.1 Chaining naval transports to quickly move land units across water

4-2 There are 4 basic levels of combat reporting;

Level 0> Absent
No reporting whatsoever, unless the attacker feels like gloating.

Level 1> Passive
(The default level to be used unless there is a consensus to use one of the other levels.)
A summary of combat results is required to be sent to the defender if, and only if, they make a relevant inquiry soon afterward.
['soon' should allow for a few turns to realize a unit is missing, but could only be one turn cycle for simplicity if the attacker insists.]

Level 2> Active
A player making any attack must indicate to the defender that it has taken place and provide a brief summary of units involved, along with damage taken.

Level 2.5>
Same as level 2, except any unit moving into and out of another player's fog of war on the same turn must be reported.

Level 3> Intensive
A player making any attack must indicate to the defender that it has taken palce and provide a detailed account of each unit's location and resulting damage status.

Level 3.5>
Same as level 3, except any unit moving into and out of another player's fog of war on the same turn must be reported.

All information need only pass between the affected parties. Post it in the turn thread only if you wish and are allowed to broadcast results to the world

[Rommel2D]

...From first to last
The peak is never passed
Something always fires the light
That gets in your eyes
One moment's high
And the glory rolls on by
Like a streak of lightening
That flashes and fades
In the summer sky...

[Rommel2D]

Two changes worth specific mention:

The Iron Civer Etiquette/Exploit List has been renamed simply the 'Iron Civer Warrior Code'. Rolls off the tounge a bit easier.

Also- within the Warrior Code, point 1-2 has been changed so that the two formerly optional points that would affect the war weariness attitude of the population are now obligatory. I proposed this a few months ago and have heard no criticism of the idea so far...

[bongo]

Any news on colosseum C btw?

[Aqualung71]

Yes

[Rommel2D]

Friends, PBEMers, fellow Apolytonites-
Moonbars the Frank rounds out the field of first round champions, joining Aqualung, Alexman, and Bongo in the hall of Iron Civer qualifiers by grinding his opponents into the dust under the hooves of his Ancient Cavalry in Coliseum C. Our scribes have verified the legitamacy of his victory. He may now retire to his gladiator quarters to contemplate his choice of tribes for the final match.

The Tournament priests have been sent to present Moonbars with his spoils- 3 months of the finest Apolyton Plus services. (You're not a lifer are you? ;-)

[Rommel2D]

Your meters may overload
You can rest at the side of the road
You can miss a stride
But nobody gets a free ride

A plapable calm had settled upon the Iron Civer participants. The frenzied battles of the past half year had been settled and four leaders had emerged victorious from the initial tests they had been faced with. They surveyed the setting before them:

Tiny Pangea with 60% ocean
All victory conditions except wonder
Cultural conversions and Scientific Great Leaders on
Emperor level
Climate/Temperature/Age Random
Roaming Barbarians
No culturally linked start
Y-Wrapping on
The map has been previewed to make sure there are no island starts. All seafaring tribes will be assured of a coastal start.

Players shall choose their Tribe in the following order:
1> Aqualung71
2> Alexman
3> Bongo
4> Moonbars

Please PM or email me your selection. If it has been taken by another player at a higher rank, I'll ask you for your next choice.

Before the choices will be revealed, all players must first post here stating preference on:
A- Including the 1-2 options form the IC Warrior Code
B- Allowing ship chaining
C- Preferred level of combat reporting

While you're at it please list your expected hours of availability to play the save, in GMT.

[Aqualung71]

My preferences / opinions:

1. I agree with IC Warrior Code 1-2. Bear in mind though, that since MPP's and Trade Embargoes are not possible until Nationalism, other "out-of-game" diplomatic options such as mutually agreeing not to trade techs or luxuries to one or more civs is perfectly acceptable to me, providing of course that an Embassy has been established with the civ with whom you are making the agreement. I see no need to formally announce such private agreements. This was discussed at length during one of the qualifying games and for me the issue is quite clear.
   
2. I am happy to allow ship chaining. Frankly, anyone who is able to squeeze some benefit out of this particular exploit on a tiny Pangea with 60% water, is welcome to try
   
3. I prefer level 2. Full disclosure of all units involved in the battle and damage taken. Where they went to after that is the attacking player's business, and hiding in the fog of war is a genuine and valid strategy. I would however like to arrange a veto of Alexman using combat Settlers and Workers in his stacks

Best hours of play: GMT 1000 - 1600

And if I may be so bold, the best turn order based on geography is probably:

Aqualung --> Bongo --> Moonbars --> Alexman

...though Bongo and Moonbars are fairly close.

[Rommel2D]

Originally posted by Aqualung71
I agree with IC Warrior Code 1-2. Bear in mind though, that since MPP's and Trade Embargoes are not possible until Nationalism, other "out-of-game" diplomatic options such as mutually agreeing not to trade techs or luxuries to one or more civs is perfectly acceptable to me, providing of course that an Embassy has been established with the civ with whom you are making the agreement. I see no need to formally announce such private agreements. This was discussed at length during one of the qualifying games and for me the issue is quite clear.

I believe the resolution was that tech embargoes were Ok only because they were not "tradable resources"- meaning that an agreement to not trade luxuries (prior to Nationalism) would be a violation.

[snoopy369]

I'd think the problem with that, Rommel, is simply that if this game makes it with 3 or more players to the industrial era - or almost any PBEM, but particularly a Tiny Pangea - there's something seriously wrong. Thus, you're not discussing *when* luxury embargoes are allowed, but *if*.

Of course, in a 4 player game, perhaps you want to disallow them, and the even more brutal MPP ... although a MPP is a vague concept, and I certainly can imagine in many of my PBEM games having what many would call a "MPP", consisting of a vague agreement to research together and work towards a common goal - not an alliance, and not *explicitly* an agreement towards common defense, but pretty darn close...

[Rommel2D]

The IC Warrior Code is not meant to be tailored to any specific game in the Tournament. If this makes it to the industrial age, I'd say there would be something seriously right with the game- the players would have to be well matched and play well. Of course, the format is set up to encourage a quick outcome. If they make it they make it, if not they don't.

I think Coliseum C was a great testament to how this should work. There were a series of loose alliances and diplomatic misunderstandings, but the AARs had a 'flavor' that made it seem very entertaining. It had all sorts of the stuff- blackmail, lies, betrayal, tactical errors, willy-nilly treaties- that makes PBEMs fun beyond the basic building routine. As far as I can tell it was all within the constraints of the Code (ICe/e) we laid out before the game.

I think the game is more enjoyable when there are clear, simple guidelines to follow; ie adhere to the SP mechanics as closely as possible. MPPs, trade embargoes and map trading would be fun to have in more PBEM games, but the best solution would be an MP mod that moves these items up in the tech tree, not to bypass the diplomacy mechanics via email.

[bongo]

My opinion on Game Rules:

A - I agree on the restrictions on map-trades and out-of game contact. I am not so sure about the restrictions on diplomacy though. Partly because it is very difficult to define and/or control, and partly because diplomacy between humans is probably the single most attractive feature of PBEMs. I would allow any trade/arrangement between human players who has met in the game.

B - I'm fine with ship-chaining.

C - I got a weak preference for level 0 but I will accept level 2 as well.



Rommel2D, a question about the map if you don't mind. Did you make it yourself or is it a random map with your 'approved' stamp on it?

[Rommel2D]

I randomly generated until I had one with 4 decent starts (first try), then made some minor modifications to it...

[alexman]

A: yes to all 1-2 parts
B: yes to ship chaining
C: level 3

Best times to play:
2pm - 10pm GMT: can play any number of turns immediately upon receipt.
10pm - 3am GMT: can play one turn, but usually not immediately.

[bongo]

Forgot my hours of availability:

Weekdays: 1700-2200 UTC
Weekends, a bit more irregular




I'll have the Bongolians, they are religious, industrious, commercial and militaristic. They also got two UUs, one for each age

[Moonbars]

Originally posted by Rommel2D
All players must first post here stating preference on:
A- Including the 1-2 options form the IC Warrior Code
B- Allowing ship chaining
C- Preferred level of combat reporting

***

"Players shall not coordinate military action unless an alliance is formally declared in the foreign advisor's screen. Players shall not make Mutual Protection Pacts or Trade Embargoes unless they are declared in the foreign advisor's screen."

In Col C (it says Col B in my victory post, BTW) we never declared those alliances against sabre in the game (we all had emabssies, by the by) we just declared them in the thread. I have an issue with the diplo restrications - it is just too hard to enfoce, and hard to define. Sabre got too strong. We took him down. France got to strong, the other two tried to take me down. they declared a MPP in the thread, they never had one in the game. It was all good.

Good on ship chaining.
Level 2 combat reporting.

Availablility:
6:30 - 9am

5:30 - 12pm

please note I work shifts, so sometimes I'll be up at 6:30 and leaving for work at 7, and some times I'll be up at 8:30, etc. I need the save in my inbox at the start of those times to garantee I can play twice a day. It is looking pretty good for some Quick-Fire!! I am also off work all mondays until january, so if you guys can manage some time, we can blitz the start.

[Moonbars]

How about we adopt the SoZ change from the AU Mod.. I found it to be.. Pleasing.. to play with stock C3C again.

Or on a major change from Iron Civ basis, how about adopting the whole AU Mod?

[alexman]

AU Mod's fine with me!

[bongo]

I don't know, never tried the AU mod...


SoZ have been a decisive wonder in colosseum B and C. I would like to keep it as is, just to see if we have learnt enough to deal with it.

It *should* be possible to take down the owner of SoZ with a 3 to 1 alliance. My opinion anyway

[Moonbars]

Originally posted by alexman
AU Mod's fine with me!

LOL, thought it would be

[sabrewolf]

any chance of having DAR threads (or at least 20 turns back where only things are revieled that others don't know yet)?

and moons: i wasn't getting too strong. my military was in fact similar to yours and the score lead was only because of the early popped but never productive village). and the pyramids didn't help me very much when 3 SoDs came from every direction
your clear victory was mainly because of your superior diplomacy skills. had they let us battle out and then enganged the victor, they would stood a real chance. convincing both to gang up with one (you) of the two nearly equally strong players was probably the most effective diplomatical move i've seen in PBEM. well done :b

[snoopy369]

I definitely think the AU mod would be a poor idea for this. It's intended primarily to be a mod that makes SP more challenging / effective, and it changes so much that it's not as much of a fair test of PBEM ability but rather of AU Mod knowledge. Obviously i wouldn't expect it to be used in the final but I don't really care not being in it; but I'd argue strongly against using it in the next round. I've played AU mod, it's interesting, but it's not standard PBEM, and honestly it doesn't add that much to PBEM except taking away some things I like (like powerful armies). Perhaps a "PBEM Version AU-like MOD" would be interesting - one that modified the annoying things in PBEM, but left alone things that were only intended to aid the weaknesses in the AI?

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by sabrewolf
convincing both to gang up with one (you) of the two nearly equally strong players was probably the most effective diplomatical move i've seen in PBEM. well done :b

He might not be American, but he sure understands Cold War Diplomacy 101 ... This was the entire strategy of the US of A during the Cold War - "Team up with us, because we'll probably win, and you'll only survive if you're on a team. And besides, we're a lot nicer than they are." - and clearly proven to be a much more effective diplomatic tactic than the USSR's ("Team up with us or you won't survive.") which is evidence imho that Communism should have veteran spies and conscript Diplomats.

[Rommel2D]

A post of mine from the last thread concerning mods and map settings...

I won't sabotage the map against ag civs, as I'm aiming for a no holds-barred straight-up knock-down brawl between the best players with stock rules. I'll do random settings (climate/temp/age) to throw a little uncertainty out there. There might be a little strategic resource editing also...

[Rommel2D]

Does anyone have concerns about The Worthingtons Manourve or the lack of a 'leave or declare war' ultimatum in PBEM? The first is an exploit of questionable benefit; for the second, we have yet to confirm how the game mechanics work for war happiness in PBEM...

[Andydog]

Originally posted by sabrewolf
and moons: i wasn't getting too strong. my military was in fact similar to yours and the score lead was only because of the early popped but never productive village). and the pyramids didn't help me very much when 3 SoDs came from every direction
your clear victory was mainly because of your superior diplomacy skills. had they let us battle out and then enganged the victor, they would stood a real chance. convincing both to gang up with one (you) of the two nearly equally strong players was probably the most effective diplomatical move i've seen in PBEM. well done :b

Sorry but no.
Your military was the only military at that point with swordsmen. Had England and Portugal sat back and done nothing while you two battled it out, then I think you would have beaten Moonbars. You were in Republic at that point with the tech lead (we were all still despots) and so it would be a simple thing for you to cut science to zero for a bit and buy your way out of the problem with spears and swords. If this had happened then you would have gotten all of Moonbars' land and England and Portugal would have stood no chance against you, so it was too risky to sit back and do nothing.

It was me that suggested the alliance because look what I got out of it: all your land! I'd rather have it than you or Moonbars, and even if he had managed to take it from you by himself, I don't think England and Portugal could have taken it from him afterwards because we wouldn't have your iron and we didn't have much of an army between us - Moonbars had the biggest mob at that point.

Read my AAR: you'll see that England and Portugal had the game in our hands after the first war, but we stupidly cocked it up by going to war against Moonbars too early.

[Rommel2D]

Originally posted by Moonbars
In Col C (it says Col B in my victory post, BTW) [fixed, sorry] we never declared those alliances against sabre in the game (we all had emabssies, by the by) we just declared them in the thread. I have an issue with the diplo restrications - it is just too hard to enfoce, and hard to define. Sabre got too strong. We took him down. France got to strong, the other two tried to take me down. they declared a MPP in the thread, they never had one in the game.

Nothing in the IC Warrior Code except maybe 2-1 and 3-2 can actually be enforced. The idea behind calling it 'etiquette' or a 'code' is that while these ideas may be put before you by your peers, how well you adhere to them is basically between you and any 'higher powers' you have in your life.

As for defining the restrictions- an Alliance involving "coordinat[ed] military action" means mentioning numbers, directions, city names, dates associated with troop actions, anything of that sort. If two tribes happen to decide to declare war on a clear mutual threat, that's something else. In a similar vein, as we discovered, Trade Embargoes only apply to resources and luxuries- not technology or gold.

To me "difficult" in PBEM is making no-retrade deals and trying to keep track of these various techs and timeframes from week-to-week while going 24 hours or more between each turn. Diplomacy restrictions actually make the games easier, since diplomatic status is tracked through the F4 screen. I think people who make the claim these restriction make the game more difficult just don't want to be told what to do in any way, but are afraid to admit it.

The restrictions you quote were removed as options and made mandatory because they have a direct impact on game mechanics, namely War Weariness. The basic notion is that the player is not an absolute dictator of every aspect of their Civ. Formal alliances and conflicts that involve any depth of information exchange and cooperation affect many strata of a society, and the mood of the citizens affected by this has just as much affect on the game as how many luxuries the player aquires. Bypassing this aspect of the game can affect the outcome and could amount to cheating.

I'd like to reread your thread and ask about in-game actions to see just what it is you're calling Alliances and MPPs...

It was all good.

I know Paddy the Scot. I've played with Paddy the Scot. You, my friend, are no Paddy the Scot!

[Moonbars]

Originally posted by Rommel2D

The restrictions you quote were removed as options and made mandatory because they have a direct impact on game mechanics, namely War Weariness. The basic notion is that the player is not an absolute dictator of every aspect of their Civ. Formal alliances and conflicts that involve any depth of information exchange and cooperation affect most strata of a society, and the mood of the citizens affected by this has just as much affect on the game as how many luxuries the player aquires. Bypassing this aspect of the game can affect the outcome and could amount to cheating.

I'd like to reread your thread and ask about in-game actions to see just what it is you're calling Alliances and MPPs...


I know Paddy the Scot. I've played with Paddy the Scot. You, my friend, are no Paddy the Scot!

I think in all cases, any war weariness would have been suffered by Me, not Sabre, and any happyness benefit would have been enjoyed by Sabre, not France.

I don't understand your last sentance, is that something PtS says as well?