New PBEM Classic SMAC

mmontgomery · February 23, 2009, 08:52

Actually, if that progression will work, I am OK with it. It was just in a previous game which started like this, I was sidetracked like crazy.

Let's just continue the game then. I will send on the turn.

Thanks!

vyeh · February 23, 2009, 09:24

Game has restarted.

I redid the game. The only difference is that I switched the order for Morgan and University (mmontgomery and FriendlyFire have the same local time). Everything else is the same, including starting locations.

I verified that University (mmontgomery) could choose Planetary Networks as its free pick in 2101.

Looking at the tech choices, it still seems that Mart's report that there are missing techs in the first choice is correct. All of the human players were affected. (For competitive reasons, I am not going to list which techs are missing from which players.)

Since mmontgomery specifically pointed out planetary networks and since he can now choose it, I am not going to attempt to fix a known problem that Mart says has no solution.

If someone else can't pick the first tech they want, I propose that we use Mart's solution, where I pre-select the tech when I set the passwords.

I saw mmontgomery's post above after I had already posted the revised game in the TTT. If you choose not to use the revised game, let me know and I will amend the post to avoid confusion.

vyeh · February 23, 2009, 12:39

Just to confirm on the original scenario playing University (slot #3). As mmontgomery has already stated, PN was missing from the free pick and the first pick. I picked IB as the free pick and IE as the first pick.

For the second pick, I was able to pick PN. And the third pick was IA. So only sidetrack was not being able to go down the PN branch of the IA b-line at the free or first pick.

This comment is directed at Darsnan, Mart and other (past and future) CMN:

There are a lot of quirks with setting up a game. I had to start over when I erroneously saved my scenario through the game menu (instead of the scenario menu). I ran into a problem stated with the fact that when I used the set mission year command, it set the mission year to 2101 even though the field said 2100. I have a much greater appreciation for Darsnan for setting up ACDG4 and Mart for setting up ACDG5 (even Maniac ran into an issue in randomly generating ACDG6).

mmontgomery · February 23, 2009, 17:41

vyeh, thanks for clarification on the tech. I have zero problem going down the other path first, and saving Planetary Networks for later.

I just wanted to avoid a situation like in Kill Monty - 3 vs. 2. In this game, I was sidetrack FOUR TIMES on my way to IA. I posted my frustration, and found that the other players were similarly sidetracked. For whatever reason, IE was not offered as a possible tech for ANYONE until the player had researched a pile of other techs. Needless to say, KM 3vs2 is going to be one strange game.

vyeh · February 23, 2009, 18:01

According to the TTT, there has been one complete turn. Use this thread, not the TTT, to report any problems.

I'm glad I could help out.

zsozso · February 26, 2009, 16:45

As florin79c pointed out in the TTT, the explicit rules did not state that players are not allowed to initiate diplomacy until they met in-game. Since he raised the point it sounds like this is a usual rule which I have now violated by offering Treaty to all human players. I admit I did not play PBEM for years, but in the early years of SMAC I used to and we never had such rule in those games, in fact it was common to start diplomacy right from the beginning, treaty/pact and tech trading can accelerate the slow start of PBEM games, so it seems logical to me. Although I understand the other point of view too, i.e. single-player games only allow diplomacy after contact so the same could be followed for MP games too. So, the point is, I do not want to change the rules even if not explicitly stated, so if you think it is better to restrict diplomacy for after-contact, then it is not too late to ignore my treaty offer and I will not initiate any more diplomacy until contact in-game.

So, players and CMN, what is your take on this issue ?
Please, let me know before the next turn comes around!

vyeh · February 26, 2009, 18:07

Originally Posted by vyeh

Please review rules carefully. I copied them and have no particular attachment.

I copied them from Old Pbem 2 and added specific rules that mmontgomery proposed.

My philosophy in setting up this game was to copy Mart as much as possible, so you could turn to him for rules interpretation.

Please note that while you can email fellow players and agree not to fight, not to build certain secret projects, I'm not sure how you would actually create a treaty for game purposes or trade techs until you actually met and the other faction is in your comm link menu.

Please note that both florin79c and mmontgomery began Old Pbem 2, which began February 2008, so I think they would have a hard time saying that they have never played a game without that rule.

And the rules were posted for discussion.

So my two points are:

(1) how would you trade techs before you actually met in-game?

(2) the rule against contact prior to an in-game meeting is not customary (some games have it; others do not).

Hope that helps further the discussion.

florin79c · February 26, 2009, 18:41

@Zsozso : If the rule is not there, you broke nothig

.

The idea is that Old 2 PBEM it's a team game in wich the team parteners can start trade at any time. This is not the only team game and i suspected you coppyed them from one of thows TTT. This is why i asked the rules to be placed by monty so i wont foget any, thow i dont see a problem for this rule, i dont mind starting with a treaty and change techs.

zsozso · February 26, 2009, 18:42

As for (1), the human players are simply there on the diplomacy menu from the first turn. I have always seen that in every PBEM or hotseat game. It seems to be a feature of the multi-player games...

BTW, it is not limited to SMAC/X either, recently I play some CivRev games online (parallel IP games) and the same is true there as well: you can do diplomacy with other human players from the first turn, but with the AI civs only after meeting them. So, I do not think it is a "bug", more like a deliberate feature.

vyeh · February 26, 2009, 20:26

Thanks. I don't play multiplayer.

I didn't realize Old Pbem 2 was a team game. Mart didn't provide a link to a set-up thread. (By searching I see that the team concept was discussed in Old Pbem.)

I don't think it is a bug. MP is different from SP. By allowing contact from the beginning, there is more diplomacy.

No rule against contact is sort of similar to giving the human players each other's comm frequencies.

Since florin79c doesn't have a problem with the rule either way and neither mmontgomery nor FriendlyFire has objected, I suggest that the rule against contact seems to occur in some games and not in other games, so it really can't be considered a standard rule the same way the rule against multiple airdrops.

mmontgomery · February 27, 2009, 20:57

Sorry to be late chiming in, but in EVERY multiplayer non-team game I have played in the last 2 years, the rule has been that no contact is allowed until in-game contact is achieved.

For team games, members of a team can make contact right away, but they cannot contact outside of their team until in-game contact has been made.

To bring up another issue, Friendly Fire reported:

"Talk about an idiot Monty! I knew we started in the corners but I didn't think right in THE corner! LOL Very dumb start by your's truly!"

When I asked if he was literally in the corner rather than the intended jungle starting square, he said:

"I am in the corner so that I have lost 6 productive tiles - I guess my own fault for not moving but I only had the CP's radius of vision to go by."

vyeh, can you check on this? If he did not start on the jungle square, then we absolutely need to restart the game with him starting on the correct square. There is no way that this could be a balanced start if he is literally in the corner.

florin79c · February 27, 2009, 22:07

Dito!

St Jon · February 27, 2009, 22:27

Turn 2103 to Uni.

I am not in the corner tile - I would have noticed that even from the CP's vision but just 1 tile away so that I have lost productive radius from my 1st base which is a pain. I can live with it but it's still annoying - I just wish I had known so that I could have moved rather than build!

FF

vyeh · February 27, 2009, 23:16

Since everybody got a symmetrical start, it can't hurt to show you this picture of FriendlyFire (Morgan) starting tile. (Everybody's starting tile looks like this.)

Please note that the colony pod is on the rolling moist jungle. Everybody started with only 9 tiles visible.

I've been careful not to disclose which of the four corners he is in.

St Jon · February 27, 2009, 23:47

If we all have a reduced production radius for starting base then fine. I still don't really understand why though?

zsozso · February 28, 2009, 01:24

OK, this should be clarified. The picture posted by vyeh matches my starting location and it also matches what mmontgomery said it should be: jungle square on top of a mountain with a road leading to it. However, that tile is definitely not in the corner of the map, it has full city radius well within the map -- of course, the full radius is not visible at start, you need to explore around. BTW, the plain map that can be downloaded from the link vyeh has given us earlier in this thread can be loaded into the game in scenario editing mode and then everybody can see exactly where the starting location should be: it is marked with text like "Player X starting location". So, FriendlyFire, could you please download that map file, load it into scenario editor and check if your starting location matches one of those marked jungle cells ? If it is not, then something really went wrong and we need to restart.

vyeh · February 28, 2009, 07:58

I was very careful to place the 4 human factions in the spots listed as "Player X starting location."

I need some advice. Does Mart provide games where the full base radius is visible?

I think there is some confusion about the word "corner." When FriendlyFire talks about corner, I think he is talking about the general location of the start locations, which are in the corner (rather than the center) of a map that does not wrap around.

I went into the game that was posted at the top of the TTT and checked FriendlyFire's location. There was a road leading to the location (I didn't show it because someone experienced with the map could have figured out which corner FriendlyFire was).

mmontgomery · February 28, 2009, 08:50

Probably the easiest way to clarify this is with the unique Jungle tile.

Friendly Fire, did you build your base on the starting jungle tile? You can easily tell this by looking at your production, and seeing if you have 3 food on your city tile. Or if you moved first, you should be able to see if you started on a jungle tile, by just looking at the tile you moved from. If you started on a jungle tile, you are in the correct starting location. There is only on jungle tile on each of the corner continents.

One must always explore to get the full value of your city radius. Myself, I sent one until exploring down the adjacent road, and the other scout in exactly the oppositite direction, which exposed the cities full site radius on the first turn. If one side of your city is dark, it is not necessasrily a board edge, it just means you have not explored those tiles yet.

Regardless of this, I encourage everyone to load the map into the map editior and take a look around, since Florin and I already have played on this map, it would be unfair if everyone else did not know the geography of this map. This way you can plan the direction for your initial expansion.

zsozso · March 2, 2009, 09:53

FriendlyFire, did you verify your starting tile by loading the map into the editor ?
I'd like to make sure you have been started from the right position before we get too deep into the game. If something bad happened and you got started in the wrong tile, we need to restart the game and it is better to do that sooner rather than later. I know vyeh checked again the original starting save file, but something could have gone wrong during the conversion from Mac to Win. The last info from FF in this thread about his starting location is still : "I am not in the corner tile - I would have noticed that even from the CP's vision but just 1 tile away so that I have lost productive radius from my 1st base which is a pain." -- which sounds like he is indeed in the wrong place.

vyeh · March 2, 2009, 10:07

If someone posted a save for me in this thread, I could look at FriendlyFire's start position. I do have the passwords and I have no problem opening a Windows file.

vyeh · April 19, 2009, 13:31

Originally Posted by zsozso

Another strange thing I noticed: are we playing at Transcend difficulty ? I thought we were supposed to, but I just had a base reach pop 2 without police or Rec.commons and the second citizen is NOT drone. AFAIK in transcend level it should be. I was fully expecting a drone riot and did not get one...

I confirm the problem.

It seems that it isn't enough to simply set "force current difficulty levels" in scenario rules (as Googlie's procedure in the SMAC Academy implied). You have to go into the scenario rules under each faction and toggle it (I wondered why Mart insisted I do it for each faction when I was setting up ACDG6).

What I can do is attempt to replicate your current game (I need the latest game save, could someone post or PM it to me).

I can't use the scenario editor on a MP game, but what I could do is run the scenario on automatic to see what the AI's are doing. It won't be exactly what happened in your game because of random events.

St Jon · April 19, 2009, 13:46

Sorry guys, I didn't even notice these later posts.

I think we cannot be on Transcend as Morgan is fussiest of all and I now got a size 3 Base and everyone is happy.

I reckon I am on the correct starting Tile as life is peaceful, apart from worms but that is the price you pay for being a raging capitalist!

I don't have the latest save but if zsozso has passed to Florin I will send you a copy before I play my Turn.

vyeh · April 19, 2009, 14:03

I only need the very latest (one save from the last person to play a turn); I don't need 4 saves.

St Jon · April 19, 2009, 17:55

I don't know how to attach a file to a PM and sending an email via Poly doesn't give that option.

Here's the latest save.

vyeh · April 19, 2009, 18:03

Thanks. You might post a message in the TTT that you've received it and suggesting that everyone go to this thread. I'd like everyone to be on the same page.

zsozso · April 19, 2009, 20:24

Vyeh, could you clarify what you are suggesting to fix the problem ? I do not understand.
Admittedly, I do not have much experience with the scenario editor or PBEM game preparations ala CMN, so probably that's why I do not get how you could reproduce the game state if you cannot use the scenario editor to set units to the right places. While one can reproduce city productions and units movements, I do not see how can you reproduce bug killing / catching events.

vyeh · April 20, 2009, 00:35

I can see all four of your positions since I have the passwords. What I can do is set up another scenario advanced to the year you are. I will be able to replicate the units, the techs, any terraforming, but I will make sure that the difficulty issue is remedied.

For the AIs, I was thinking that I could start with the original scenario and have the game play automatically. I could then replicate the AI position in the new setup.

As the game stands, the Hive is getting a drone on the second citizen while the rest of the human players are able to get 3 workers, so I hope that by replicating what each of you see, we can continue the game with little loss of time.

If you're talking about mindworm capturing/killing, I can replicate any captured mindworms down to lifecycle, home base (if any).

If there were killed mindworms, that would show up in the energy reserves and increased morale of the killing unit.

florin79c · April 20, 2009, 04:20

Well, i did get one drone at a base of 2. I hope you ca nfix this so they get some drones as well

zsozso · April 20, 2009, 10:58

Thanks vyeh, that sound good. I really appreciate all the effort you put into this game for us!
I was about to suggest that we go forward as is -- if everybody is affected the same way (just to avoid the trouble of re-creating the status), but since florin79c is running at Transcend difficulty that is not an option clearly.

So, my vote is for vyeh to go ahead with his suggestion and do not worry about exactly replicating the state of the AI factions. As long as the human player states are reproduced, I am fine with it.

St Jon · April 20, 2009, 14:09

Thanks vyeh, this seems the only fair solution and as long as the AI are still there it doesn't matter which one is winning between themselves.

And again thank you very much for all the hard work and effort you have put into this game for us!