The Dance of Civilizations [Pitboss Diplomacy Game] [Setup Thread]

[Robert Plomp]

Latest version of the opening posts.
If I forgot stuff or made some errors, please post it. No new stuff please.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Dance of Civilizations [Pitboss Diplomacy Game] [Setup Thread]

I want to start a new Pitboss Game for Civ4:Beyond the Sword Patch 3.19
It'll be a game in Diplomacy Style. More about 'Diplomacy Games' later.

The purpose of this setup thread is:

A.
1. Players signing up for this game
2. Making a ruleset for this game
3. Decide on the game settings

B.
4. Assigning civs/leaders to each player
5. Get a map
6. Launch the game

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dictionary of Terms:

- Diplomacy Game
A Diplomacy Game is a game in which all players lead their civilization as if they're leading a real nation. It's not a game but reality. Leaders can be tirans, democrats, noble kings, fascistic, etc. and the civs are being played according to the role they take. During the game civs can get new leaders, change directions and style. Alliances can be formed and broken.
Some leaders care for their people, others don't. Key is that the players try to stick their civ to a certain role. A role which can change throughout the game b/c of revolutions, marriages, coups, evil sons, plagues, etc.
Players are free to develop this concept to their own ideas.
Diplomacy means not that war is prohibited. War is very welcome, but stick to your role. Have a valid reason why a modern democratic nation would invade another modern democratic nation. (there's always a reason! Just make it up if needed.)

Another purpose of the game is to keep it interesting for everybody. Nations won't be annihilated or broken in such a way that the fun is gone for a player. On the other hand, players must be willing to compromise when losing a war and be willing to accept terms of their enemy.
Small nations can still be important to the game! Make things interesting, develop stories and roles.

- Diplo Victory
Not the in-game score determines the winner of the game, the so called "Diplo Score" does.
The Diplo Score is calculated in a still to be determined manner for this game. Key is that Diplomacy, Story Telling, Military Strategy and Game-score (And perhaps other categories) will be used to determine the winner. Voting will most probably be a part to determine the diplomacy/military strategy/story/etc. score.

- Pitboss
A pitboss game is being hosted by a pitboss server.
The pitboss server is available 24/7, players can login to this server everytime they want to play their turn. The pitboss server will automaticly advance to the next turn when a certain ammount of time has passed.

- In Game (IG) / In Character (IC)
Posts / messages a player posts / spreads in which he's acting as a game character and sticks to his role.

- Out of Character (OOC)
Posts / messages a player posts / spreads in which he's not acting as a game character but discuss organisation or technical game related issues. Player A may be enemies with Player B In-Character and acts like that In-Character, but ie. supports a suggestion of Player B Out of Character.

- Game Host (Host)
The person who hosts the Pitboss Server and organises the game. He calls for the votes, starts the game threads, etc.

- Story Thread
A dedicated thread created by the Game Host for story telling and diplomacy purposes. Only IG posts can be made here.

- Organisation Thread
A dedicated thread created by the Game Host for game organisation purposes. Only OOC posts can be made here

- Pause
Sometimes the game must be temporarely stopped becauseo of OOC reasons. The hosts then saves the game and ends it till the organisational (OOC) issues are being dealt with.

- Double Move
Civilization is a turn-based game, like ie. chess. Players play their turn in a certain order. First Player A, then Player B, etc.
Because of the nature of a multiplayer-pitboss game, all players are abe to login whenever they want. This means that the turn order will likely be broken during the game
When a certain player plays twice in a row without another player playing his turn in between, it's been called a double move.
In example: During Turn 80 Player A plays first, Player B logs in to the game 3 hours later and plays his turn. Then the game proceeds to turn 81, PLayer B logs in first and plays his turn. Now Player B has played 2 turns in a row without Player A playing in between. This is being called a "Double Move"

- Sub
When John is the player of the Americans and Bill takes over from him, then Bill is a sub

- Temporary Sub (tmp sub)
When someone only temporarily subs for a player this is called a tmp sub. A tmp sub may be needed when a player is leaving on vacation, is sick, etc. The idea is that the tmp-sub will only play a certain civ for a limmited ammount of time. A tmp sub will always play the game like the official player would play it. (or at least try to)

- permanent sub (perm sub)
When a player quits the game a perm sub is being looked for to take the game over permanently. Factually a perm sub is being called the new player when he's found and took over.

- Reload
When there's a reason (ie. rule being broken, technical problem, etc.) the game will be reloaded.
Every turn the pitboss server will automaticly save the game.

- Judge
A judge is someone who makes a (ooc) decision one the involved parties in a (ooc) conflict can't agree upon a solution.

- Fight
Games that last as long as diplomacy games often cause 'fights' among players.
A fight errupts when an ooc conflict arises about rules or unballanced/unfair gaming by others.
Fights are no good for the game but are unfortunately reality in games like this.
Usually a fight can be avoided if both parties are willing to be cooperative or want to compromise, if players admit their mistakes. Clear rules and sometimes the involvement of judges must help to avoid/end fights.

- Voucher
In some games only limited tech trading is allowed.
In such games vouchers are used. All players receive in such a case an x number of vouchers.
Every voucher gives the right to trade away one (1) technology. This means that when a civ gives/trades one tech to another civilization, this civ loses 1 voucher. Vouchers can be freely traded.

- Voltan
Voltans are sometimes used in limited tech trading games. These voltans are in the mid-game given to the civs that are far behind to top civs. Voltans are like vouchers, except that they can't be traded for anything but technologies.
Voltans are named after Pacal Voltan, the Mayan Pacal played by Pinchak in Beyond the Pit.

- Beyond the Pit
The first (Experimental) Pitboss Diplomacy Game that was played from may 2008 till July 2009.
The game was won by Rome, played by Heraclitus and The Priest.
The game was experimental to find out what rules would work best. Despite many arguments and troubles the game lasted till the end.

- Cold Turkey Time
Everytime a civ loses much terrain, is being invaded, is being backstabbed, faces ig troubles, the player of that civ needs some time to accept these new facts. For some this time is short, for others 1 or 2 days.
During this time the player will develop conspiracy theories that are both entertaining to others but very disturbing for the player itself. The player will believe rules have been broken, it's all unfair and unballanced, and may accusate other players from foul play or cheating.
The Cold Turkey Time is needed to give a player some time to grab himself together and accept the new facts.
This happens to everybody, we just have to learn to live with that.
If such a cold turkey time pops up the game will be paused and the involved player will read this Cold Turkey Time explanation once again to understand that he's not the first who feels this way. Hopely that'll help him to understand that there are most probably no ooc conspiracies. He'll then move on and play the ig conflict in an ig matter.

- Measured war
A Civ Diplo Game has to balance two factors in war.
1. This is Civ - Warmongering, conquest and domination is a perfectly acceptable and honourable way to play. There is no intention that Diplo games need to be 'builder orientated' (though that is just as acceptable a strategy too).

2. This is Diplo - No civilisation should be crippled with the result that the game stops being fun for the player involved. This means that there is a balance to be struck. War is costly for the aggressor, building up forces while other nations race ahead, so the victor should be able to make real gains from the war. But if they gain too much, the loser may be crippled. Its impossible to make a hard and fast rule out of this, because that can just be exploited (e.g. a loser refusing to make a reasonable peace because 'the rule' will then kick in and save them). But as a guide, a 25% loss is an appropriate threshhold (loss being an overall measure, not just a city count - losing 3 tiny fringe cities may be much less of a loss than 1 major city). More than this may well be crippling the loser. But a loss/gain up to this probably is appropriate benefit for the victor. Again this can't be a rule - taking a small bite out of a neighbour every ten turns will cripple them, but having won a war against a neighour a millenium ago doesn't mean you can't fight with them again.

This concept of measured war is enforced in rule 7.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rules and game settings


Game settings:
- Map made by preferably a not-involved player. Type: 3 big continents with each 1/3rd of the civs. All continents are located close to each other, preferably multiple points where galleys and later ships can cross the sea to the other continent to make sure that civs on these 3 continents will be able to interact from early on. Apart from these 3 big continents some smaller empty continents / islands will be spread across the globe for later discovery.
- Players: 12-18 (as many as possible, not more then 18, unless we can use a mod to accomplish this)
- Normal Barbarians
- Huts
- Random Events
- 21h turn timer (effectively 24h)
- The first 100 turns of the game will be played with an 8h timer
- The first turn will last for 72 hours
- Choose religions

Game rules:
01. Anonymous play (all players will receive an anonymous apolyton account, like "Greece (DoC)" which they will use for diplomacy (post and PM) and story telling (posts). The players behind the civs won't (immediately) be revealed. When players login to the game they must write down an anonymous name to keep their true identity hidden.

02. Civilizations that are at war or want to declare war have observe the turn order which is set the turn before the war starts.
Thus: no double moves during wartime or when declaring war. Players are free to agree on a new turn order if all involved parties agree and this new turn order is published in the organization thread and all involved parties publish their agreement there as well Every player gets at most 24h to make his war moves. The host will pause the game if the turn is about to advance in 1 hour, without the last player involved in the war having had a chance to play his turn. When 24h have past the player just missed his turn. If the 2nd player in the turn order misses his turn he's first in the turn order from that moment on.

03. The host will give his cellphone number to all players so that everybody can send him a text message when problems arise and no internet connection is available.

04. Subs will always put '(sub)' behind their name when they login to the game. (ie. 'Emperor Augustus (sub)') tmp subbing for allies is allowed. Tmp subbing for civs that lost their player completely till a perm sub has been found is only allowed for civs that are not closely involved with the civ they wil sub for. (no neighbours, no enemies, no allies).

05. If a civ won't be played for 10 turns in a row or 20 out of 25 turns, a a perm sub will be looked for. Civs like this won't be annihilated.

06. It is not allowed to make public accusations against another player. If problems are suspected the gamehost will be contacted in private and the problem will be explained. (If the gamehost is the suspected trouble maker player heighest on the diplo-vote scorechart that's not involved will be contacted).
The host will then pause the game and explain in public there's a problem. He'll tell the other player in pivate about which he's been accused. Both involved parties will then send a list of players to the host (in private) that are acceptable to them to judge in this case. The host will then pick the best 3 players (according to the diplo-vote chart) and ask them to judge. (The host will never judge himself). If any of the involved parties thinks one of the judges is not a suitable judge for the conflict he'll pm the host who'll assign the next best player as a judge.
Both involved players will then send a brief explanation about their own position. The host will then send this to the 3 judges. The judges will all make a personal judgement and inform the host. The host will then disclose the result of the judgement. All players will accept the final verdict and the game moves on.

Example:
Diplo Score Chart:
1. France
2. China
3. India
4. Netherlands
5. America
6. Japan
7. Korea
8. Germany
9. Canada

* China has a problem with America
* China pm's the host and explains the problem
* the host contacts America, pauses the game and explains the situation briefly
* the hosts informs both parties about the 3 judges in pm. (France, India, Netherlands)
* china pm's the host that France is not suitale b/c it's an allie of America
* The 3 judges are: India, Netherlands, Japan
* The host posts who the judges are
* America and China write a brief explanation of their case to the host by pm
* the host will send these explanations to the judges by pm (the argument will never be made public)
* the judges will make their verdict and inform the host by pm
* the host will publish the verdicts. Majority wins. In this case: America
* China accepts this verdict, perhaps after needing some Cold Turkey Time.
* The game moves on, even when everyone knows that every verdict is imperfect. After all it's only a game.

Public Accusations will always be deleted by the host from the forums.
If not 3 acceptable judges can be found outside (not in the game involved) judges will be asked by the host.

07. When rules are being broken the game will be reloaded. The host can reload immediately when a breaking of a rule is obvious. If it's not obvious to everyone the game will be paused (again) and rule 6 will be effectuated.

8a. Trading away a tech costs 1 voucher. All players get 8 vouchers. Vouchers cannot be traded away. (this means that civs can give away 8 techs or trade 8 techs for 8 techs)
8b. When 4 civs have advanced to the next age (ancient, classical, medieval, renecance, industrial, modern) all techs of the age before the past age can be traded freely in a 1 tech for 1 tech trade without the need to spend vouchers. (If 4 players are in the medieval age, all techs of the ancient age can be traded freely, etc.)
8c. All tech trades must be reported in the Tech/Units trade thread. For '8a trades', only the 'giver(s)' must be reported. For '8b trades' the explicit deal must be reported. For '8b trades' the 4 civs that are supposed to have advanced into the next age must be listed along with the trade report.

9. City trades are allowed. Receiving a city back that you traded away in the past 50 turns is NOT allowed, unless requested in the org thread and nobody objects for ooc reasons within 48h.

10. When 51% of the players for ooc-reasons think that a war should end then it must end. This to avoid that civs will be cripled too much by a war. The terms of the end of war are in such a case: immediate peace for 50 turns. It is advised for both parties to agree on the best possible terms for peace before this happens.
Such an end of war must be organized in the org thread. (ie. players must announce their opinion regarding the end of a war in the org thread).

Reasons for such an end-of-war vote are only OOC! Not IG (like: my allie is losing this important city)
(check dictionary of terms for the meaning of 'measured war')

11. It is not allowed to reveal anybodies anonymous identity or to speak about these identities in private or public. During the game people may get more and more clues, but still keep their mouth shut.
Punishment for breaking this rule: losing 25% of the Fair Play Rating (for the entire game) per violation. (reason for punishment: no way to undo such a violation, unless someone finds a way to purge the info from our brains)

12. The player who achieves the In game victory player gains #1 position game-score position, no matter how much game-score he really has. (ie. Belgium 2290, Austria 2108, Canada 2085, Mexico 1984 VICTORY, New Zealand 1849; score: Mexico 5, Belgium 4, Austria 3, Canada 2, New Zealand 1)

13. No permanent vassalage (capitulation). The vassal must obey the terms made in a vassalage deal unless it's been freed (by a 3rd nation or by the master, or if the master doesn't live up to the terms). This rule is in place to find a way to get long lasting vassals then 10 turns only without being forced to remain a vassal by game mechanics.[/b]

14. When the game has started rules can only be changed if 66% of the players agree.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

List of players: (alphabetical)
- bamf226
- Black Knight
- BranksDilly
- Hendriks de Infiedielen Dooder
- Heraclitus
- Jeroen
- mzprox
- Pinchak
- Rasputin
- Rempedaalops
- Robert
- St Jon
- The Priest
- Toni
- WarningU2

List of Civilizations / Leaders (alphabetical)

- Arabs			Saladin 
- Byzantine		Justinian I 
- Dutch 		Willem van Oranje 
- Egypt 		Ramesses II 
- England 		Elizabeth 
- Greece 		Pericles 
- Inca 			Huayna Capac 
- India 		Mahatma Ghandi 
- Korea 		Wang Kon 
- Mali 			Mansa Musa 
- Native America	Sitting Bull 
- Ottoman 		Mehmed II 
- Persia 		Darius I 
- Rome 			Augustus 
- Russia 		Catherine

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Robert Plomp]

Diplo Score Mechanism

After every month all players are invited to rate the diplomatic, story telling/role playing and game attitude of all other players.
Using a special web application a ratin of 1-7 will be given to every player regarding every category.
1 = very bad
2 = bad
3 = poor
4 = neutral (= default if no educated rating can be made)
5 = ok
6 = good
7 = excellent

These ratings will be added to each other per month and per player. Till will result when the game is over in a final

rating. Based on this final rating a score list will be created per category.
The #1 on that score list will receive X points. (X = the number of civs in the game). The #2 will receive X-1, etc.
The scores of these 3 categories will be added together.

At the beginning of each first turn of the month the in-game score will be noted.
Every month the player with the best game-score will receive X points, etc.
These points will be added together at the end of the game and a new list will be made based on this list.
The #1 on that list will receive X points, etc.

EXAMPLE:
America, Russia, Korea and China are in this game

China votes: (story telling)
		May	June	July	August
America: 	4	5	7	3	avg: 4,75
Korea:		2	3	7	4	avg: 4
Russia:		4	4	2	2	avg: 3

America votes: (story telling)
China		5	5	6	7	avg: 5,75
Korea:		2	3	4	4	avg: 3,25
Russia:		3	3	4	2	avg: 4

Russia votes: (story telling)
America:	4	4	3	3	avg: 3,5
Korea:		2	3	4	4	avg: 3,25
China:	 	4	5	7	3	avg: 4,75

Korea votes: (story telling)
China		5	5	6	7	avg: 5,75
America:	2	3	4	4	avg: 3,25
Russia:		3	3	4	2	avg: 4

Final score:
America: 4,75 + 3,5 + 3,25 = 11,50 points
Korea: 4 + 3,25 + 3,25 = 10,50 points
Russia: 3 + 4 + 4 = 11 points
China: 5,75 + 4,75 + 5,75 = 16,25 points

Scorelist Story Telling:
1. China (16,25 points)		4 story telling score
2. America (11,50 points)	3 story telling score
3. Russia (11 points)		2 story telling score
4. Korea (10,50 points)		1 story telling score


Likewise the Diplomacy and Game attitude categories.
This results ie. in:


Scorelist Diplomacy:
1. Russia (15,50 points)	4 story telling score
2. America (13,50 points)	3 story telling score
2. Korea (13,50 points)		3 story telling score
4. China (11,00 points)		1 story telling score


Scorelist Game attitude:
1. America (14,00 points)	4 story telling score
2. China (12,25 points)		3 story telling score
3. Korea (10,50 points)		2 story telling score
4. Russia (8 points)		1 story telling score


The in-game score:
		May	June	July	August		Total	In Game Score
America		395 (4)	512 (2)	719 (3)	849 (2)		11	3
Russia 		280 (1)	530 (3)	700 (2)	958 (3)		9	2
Korea		360 (3)	760 (4)	915 (4)	1295 (4)	15	4
China		350 (2)	318 (1)	420 (1)	590 (1)		5	1


Then all scores are added together:
civ		Story telling	diplomacy	Game attitude	in game		Total
China		4		1		3		1		9
America		3		3		4		3		13	<-- Diplo Score Winner
Rusia		2		4		1		2		9
Korea		1		3		2		4		10

Every civ casts his ratings in the first week of the month.
If a civ fails to cast his votes 4 points per category will be substracted.

Players will rate OOC! Not based on IG situations!
Thus the player of China may be at war with the player of Russia but still gives him a 7 rating b/c of the way his enemy plays this war! Players rate based on reasons, not on score positions. (no political rating).

The ratings will remain anonymous till the game is over.
It's up to the players to showcase their achievements to gain good ratings.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Pinchak]

Signing up.

The new rule set is a definite improvement over the "guide", although I still see some glaring problems with how the double move issue is addressed. I also think the limited war concept needs defined better.

[Toni]

Please SIGN ME UP for this amazing to be game!!

[Black Knight 427]

Count me in please.

[St Jon]

Count me as in!

Question and request.

Can you add a definite NO to mass third party upgrades please? If we have Tech Trades then let the Game take its' course over 'buddy' deals. Gifting, espionage, back stabs etc all OK but not skipping 100 Turns of Tech through a loophole.

8hrs for start Turns may be too fast for me as I commute to work. If the Turn ends at 0300 there is no way I can play before 1500. I have to get up at 0530 just to get to work and I really do not want to set the alarm to 0500 just to get my Turn in.

[bamf226]

Is every category having equal weight again? Is the rating of every person every month supposed to help provide opportunity for everyone to receive points and possibly win?

[Jeroen Schweitzer]

I'm in!!!

I do have some issues with the rules though (this means I wholeheartedly agree with the other proposed rules)

1) I think a judging panel is a great idea. The problem with any system that has rules that are not (mostly) auto-enforced (gravity, space-time) is that there is going to be breaking going on. A game like this creates legalities and precedents all over the place. A system that in RL is solidly supported by a set of judges/juries and what not. We do need something in place there, since I think it is a lot easier to accept that, although you think you were wronged, a set of independent judges says what the verdict is going to be. (not the host, not a shouting match in the forum where whoever logs in most that week sets the tone.)

I do think the system of picking them is too complicated: we should keep it simple to organise a panel when it is needed, not have to go through all sorts of elections/appointments and vetting every time we need them.

2) The double move should be mentioned as being illegal in the rules (it's just defined right now)

3) A point of confusion: no tech trading? or only tech trading within the voucher system?

4) I suggest we scrap the military elections: game score captures this nicely. How well you play with/manipulate others goes into diplo score (in character that is), and there is story telling for the quality of your entries.

5) St. Jon: Regarding the mass upgrade loophole: that is a system that is actually in use in RL: The Netherlands is not capable of building F-16's ourselves but we did replace a fleet of starfighters with them, by buying american. Also these were given a midlife update by the US a short while back. All in exchange for dutch dollars. I think, if you can convince another country with superior weapons to sell you upgrades/weapons, that is valid business and can bite the seller firmly in the ass too (the US fighting their own equipment in Iraq in the Gulf War for instance) I do think civs performing a service like this for another civ, should realise what they are doing, and that it should not be done cheaply, but that is more of a role playing hint, than a rule.

6) as for the all complaints behind closed doors thing, I see what you are trying to achieve, Robert: you want to stop escalations and mud-throwing before they start. I don't like secrecy, but I think that it might be smart to consider to keep all ooc fire away from the forum.

I found all the barking and biting going on pretty intimidating when I joined as Spain, and seeing that apparently a game such as this after a period people develop, let say, issues with each other. I found it to ruin my fun almost as much as the fun of the people with the issues was ruined: the fact that you're in a bad mood, does not mean I have to be too.

but all that aside:

I'm in!!!

[Jeroen Schweitzer]

By the way... this game is to be called DoC from now on?

[Robert Plomp]

Doc is the working title till someone comes up with something better
Maybe "Dance of Diplomacy" is better... maybe something else.

I'll respond to all issues when more people have signed in. Let's first try to get people in before we debate the rules. This means: keep those comments coming, but let's not comment on each other's comments yet.

@bamf226: equal weight can be discussed. The rating system is indeed developped with the idea to give all civs a better change to gain a good score/rating.

[Toni]

Players so far:

1. Robert
2. Pinchak
3. Toni
4. Black Knight
5. St Jon
6. Jeroen

Waiting on: bamf226

[St Jon]

I still believe early game crowding is the biggest problem. 9 Civs on 1 land mass means immediate contact and if, luck of the draw, 1 gets Barbarians they will never be able to expand. 3 generous continents removes the problem of an unwinable war and also prevents early game boxing in of players.

The start is most important. You get space and I don't you should always beat me. Most games are decided by room for expansion and the relative ability of near neighbours. On a 2 continent map I would always opt for an island start but if the island is too small you end up like Japan or England in BtP. In my view both continents in BtP were too crowded for good early game development. The lack of a sea route across the globe must have been an enormous difficulty. Good islands to discover are wonderful but not if they lie outside you reach until you have Transports in order to colonise them.

[The Priest]

Count me in.

Thanks Robert for what looks like a huge amount of work in thinking through a good framework for the game.

Three suggestions on the rules/framework:

1. Length of game. It strikes me that this was an issue in BtP. Whatever is done to keep balance, and however dedicated players are, there is a real issue I believe of the game dragging for those who feel they don't have much of a stake in the major world events. BtP took what ? 14 months and did start to fall apart near the end. I believe we should play on a far quicker game setting. I know purists think anything but marathon/epic isn't civ, but we have to be realistic. The massive game that stretches out for ever, falls apart. Lets have a shorter game, so even if you find yourself in a black hole, you are not being asked to carry on 'for the sake of the game' for too many months. BtP was theoretically perfect but fell apart. Why not aim for something less perfect but which works and stays more fun for more people.

2. Upgrades/gifting I think that St Jon is right that massive upgrade is an issue. At least it is exactly the same issue as tech trade - it effectively is a way of getting round the voucher limits particularly in the late game. This is what we saw in BtP. Nation X wasn't able to give nation Y the tech to build modern armour, so insteady Y gave units and money to X, X upgrades and gives them back. And lets be honest, it doesn't really have a modern world equivalent - a nation which doesn't even have the technology for the combustion engine having an army of modern tanks.

I can see that there are issues in banning it, since it would be very hard to define what is not allowed securely and in a way which doesn't hit legitimate operations. Therefore my suggestion is:

*All gifts between nations of units must be reported publicly*

This limits the abuse (people will know and world opinion judge and understand the alliances) , and is far more realistic. In reality the USA couldn't give armour divisions to India without the whole world knowing about it. I would hope that people would story these gifts - after all you can't hand over those armoured divisions without there being a story among your people, but in any case make folks have to report it (the giver reports). Once you are having to report it, many of us would then rise to the challenge of storying - at the moment we don't because the secrecy is convenient.

(This isn't an attack on anymore - in BtP I supplied completely secretly a good half of the forces with which Russia seized east Piercia, and in exchange got Russian territories overseas, and then Russia supplied many of the crucial transports to allow my invasion of Maya, again secretly, for which Russia was paid with three Mayan cities. So I have done it myself, and don't want to ban it, but it is not realistic and distorting of diplomacy for these transfers to be done secretly.)

3. Voltans and Tech Trade Limits Voltans were a good invention by Pinchak in the last game. But they were a fix, necessary because there was a problem. It was the best we could do, and worked because it was unexpected/unplanned for. But we should fix the problem. Also it will now just become a huge issue IG of when we are going to give Voltans which could well become tied in with IG activities.

So I propose we instead follow the suggestion that 'old techs' don't need vouchers to trade. We then need to define 'old techs' but it should be organised around the 'eras' in civ. Something like 'when 50% of nations have entered era x, era x-2 techs are defined as old' and so on. This way there is a tech floor underwhich nations can't sink because once a tech becomes 'old' someone will gift it to them. The detail will need refining but this has been suggested as still giving lots of incentive to research, while providing the floor.

[Robert Plomp]

For the record: I suggest that we do not use tech trading at all.
The dictionary of terms only defines certain terms.

Like the "double move" entry in the dictionary.
It's only described there. Then in the rules it says what kinda double moves are forbidden.

I just talked with Jeroen, he had two more ideas:
- judges being ruled out instead of being ruled in.
Normally the top-3 (not-involved) players are the judges in a conflict. The conflicting parties can however ask the host to replace one (or more) of these judges by the next player on the score-list.

- Fair Play category instead of Military Strategy category.
reason: millitary strategy is hard to tell, mostly the winner wins while he's already been awarded by game-score points.
Fair Play gives civs a chance to gain an award for in-game charity but also will reward players who are willing to accept stuff they dislike ooc. It's actually a way to punish uncooperative people who can't be punished ooc

[Toni]

Updated:

Players so far:

1. Robert
2. Pinchak
3. Toni
4. Black Knight
5. St Jon
6. Jeroen
7. Priest

Waiting on: bamf226

[Toni]

Some thoughts:

*I like the idea of having a Fair Play category!

*I really liked Ozzy's score table in the early diplo games. Robert any chance that we can use that again? It gave many interesting points for all kinds of things. Like points for shrines, wonders, first civ to reach certain techs, spreading culture, etc.

*I like Epic Speed, it worked well. If we reduce the game land mass game will will be quicker.

*Also do not forget that we will have the first 100 turns at 8hrs thus speeding the game. That means 3 turns per day, St Jon i saw that you were worried about this guicker timer, well it was implemented to speed the game during the nothing to do first 100 turns. For example, if you need 24 turns to build a worker, well you would have to wait almost a whole month for that to happen, during which you only have maybe a warrior and a scout to move around. The 3 per day turns will speed up the game wheel and get us to the the real game.

*There was too much land last game, i suggest that we have less land. This will result in quicker contacts, diplomacy, conflicts, more dynamics between the civs.

*If you average the city count from last game it comes roughly down to 20 cities per person. This is just too much!!

*10-13 cities is plenty

*Again i would like to point that it would be better for the game to have all civs on one land mass - the result will be an explosion of everything (War,pacts,treaties,diplomacy etc) Civs starting on two seperate continents was a good experiment, still as we all saw it turned all to be pretty boring, only in the later game with modern ships it became more interesting.

[Robert Plomp]

I have pm'ed 2 guys who signed up during BtP in the threads.
I've also pm'ed mzprox (Japan).

Jeroen has contacted Kees (Maya) and Bjorn (friend).
Let's just give it some time.

I'll leave for a 2 week vacation this friday.
But I take my laptop and my cellphone with me so I'll be able to check in about every day, just not as often as usual. (which is most probably good anyway )

[Robert Plomp]

What about this as a concept map:

dark-blue: water, passable by galleys/triremes
light-blue: ocean, not passable by galleys/triremes
green: oceans
purple square: starting location

Advantages:
- all civs can contact each other immediately
- lots of islands to discover / settle
- much sea passages, naval is important!
- more discovery when the age of ocean sailing arrives

If all civs start on 1 continent there won't be the importance of the navy!

[Toni]

A good concept map Robert

[Rempedaalops]

Well, me, a friend of Jeroen, would very very very much like to join.

PS will beg if required.

[Jeroen Schweitzer]

I Like the way the map is set up

*All gifts between nations of units must be reported publicly*

I like this idea: this way excessive use becomes a casus belli.

Rempedaalops, please start your begging after the beep

*beep*

[The Priest]

I like the Map concept. However, if we do have something like this, I think we should not have Portugal as a nation. The ability to get across to an empty new world long before anyone else can is a huge advantage. It is a fair trait/UU in a continents game since all you are getting is the ability to contact the civs on the other continents, but in a 'new world' map, when you know there is lots of free landout there, it is unbalanced.

[Hendriks de Infiedielen Dooder]

I would like to be drafted for next game :-)

(I was Maya Continent Hopping Gossipist)

[Robert Plomp]

1. Robert
2. Pinchak
3. Toni
4. Black Knight
5. St Jon
6. Jeroen
7. The Priest
8. Rempedaalops
9. Hendriks de Infiedielen Dooder

Waiting on: bamf226

I agree with The Priest that no Portugal (b/c of special unit) is maybe a fair rule in this kinda maps.

[Rempedaalops]

Rempedaalops, please start your begging after the beep

*beep*

I would, but seeing as Robert already included me in the list, begging now would be off-topic

I agree on the Portugal-issue, good point.

[Toni]

It is wonderful to see so many new faces join this soon to be EPIC adventure!

P.S Yes taking out Portugal is a wise idea!

[St Jon]

I like the Map, basically Islands, but I still think that early game cramping is a huge problem. Crammed in like this you will get ancient wars in abundance because nobody will have a choice. The really big problem is people getting marginalised very early and losing interest because they have nowhere to go and have too few cities to finance the research to get them anywhere. I admire the guys who played Celts and America though to the end as they must have been stuck from the start. Also with such close start points you have China talking to England before 1000BC, in epic mode, and that is not any kind of history of the world. There needs to be mystery and nations to be found rather than render half the world devoid of humanity.

I reckon a straight ban on Tech Trades is the best option. Choose a military path or a builder path, the choice is your's, but you live with the consequences of any misjudgment. Gifting of units I reckon is fine, even if secretly, as in the BtP examples of Priest's it must have been obvious that such a large Russian army in Persia must have had Roman collusion, if not troops, and the fact that Russia suddenly got richer by 3 nice Mayan cities did cause 'significant' IG diplomatic questions to be asked. Why was Russia getting those cities for doing nothing? Why didn't Rome object to a large Russian army crossing her soil? How did Russia get so many troops there so quickly when no railway existed? When those kinds of lease/lend agreements are made then I see no reason for public declaration. Greece giving Japan tanks was the same, more overtly, as it was a master to vassal to open a Western front It is for the world to judge and make its' own mind upon these events. Where I would draw the line is at a situation where 2 allies can simply decide to work as if this was a 'Team Game'. Maybe Priest's idea of America announcing a massive trade deal with India to completely equip them with Patriot Missiles to protect them against Russia's TU57's that could flatten Delhi is OK but where do you stop? I would ban it.

[Robert Plomp]

Regarding the map: it's of course only a concept, and the size will be larger
I think we should ask someone not involved to create it. Maybe Ozzy wants to do it. (he said he would not be involved in this game)

[Robert Plomp]

It is wonderful to see so many new faces join this soon to be EPIC adventure!

Absolutely! Though I'm glad that we use anonymous logins so that I don't have to type "Hendriks de Infiedielen Dooder" out all the time

(translation: "Hendriks the infidiels kiiller", spelling errors on purpose; in translation, as well as in dutch, as I have been told)

[St Jon]

I agree, brilliant to see so many people interested in playing.

Not sure about all these shifty Dutchmen though. Always ready with a knife to your back!