Reply With QuoteYep that was probably my problem. I can't currently get into the game though. Anyone else. Get the initial connection ok but when trying to connect to my civ ... times out.
This has come up before. What it always ends up being is that the player was typing their Civ password on the screen where you are supposed to type the game password. You type it and type it, and you know its the right password but it doesnt work...WTF?!?Its just that you are typing it too early
. Just remember, game password first, then Civ password.
Yep that was probably my problem. I can't currently get into the game though. Anyone else. Get the initial connection ok but when trying to connect to my civ ... times out.
There seems to be some problem with the game at the moment. I could connect, but it took more than a minute after I had typed in my password until my game actually downloaded the savedata. And the Civstats uploader is disconnected as well. Just FYI, Sommerswerd.
Whatever it was it seems to have sorted itself out. People seem to be logging in and playing fine. Maybe the internest went out during th eelectrical storm last night
I'm currently (as of 21:12 EDT) not able to connect. Has nothing to do with password age or alcohol induced password confusion. I just can't get it in to connect right now.
No need to slander alcohol by saying it induces confusion! Better to say wine enhances spiritual awareness which is a confusing state to the uninitiated.Originally Posted by China (DoB)
Please pause the game ... not able to connect still as of 21:50 even in an enhanced state of spiritual awareness.
"Connection attempt to the host has timed out" Could I also request that we slow down the turn time to one turn per 24 hours? I am out of town this weekend and shall miss a bunch of worker turns that I had planed to queue up tonight. If the game is back up tomorrow morning it won't be an issue, but I expect other folks are also at the point where micro managing every 12 hours is getting a bit tricky.
I believe this is turn 79 and from the earlier part of this thread dealing with the game rules and setup the intended turn timer durations were: Turn 0 - 20 (12 hours), Turn 20 - 40 (12 hours), Turn 40-60 (12 hours), Turn 80+ (24-48 hours).
So I believe starting next turn we were going to move to a 24 hour timer anyway (48 hours is extremely long and it will take many years for a marathon game to finish at that pace so I am not in favour of that). The game adds time every time players log in (the last 12 hour turn took 13.5 hours to complete for instance) so I would recommend that the timer be set to 22 or 23 hours which will work out to being 24 hours.
France is correct, it is time to increase the timer. This was about the time we calculated that turns would start to become too complex for a short timer. I set the Timer to 21 hours, which should work out to 24.5 hours in RL. We can go with that and see how it works, and if we need to lengthen it some we can, or if folks are comfortable shortening it some we can do that too. But we should work everything out through the timer, not with pausing.
There are two timer issues, one is as France points out that the clock stalls whenever someone logs in which makes the timer run longer, also, the Pitboss clock actually runs slow, IIRC it takes about 7 seconds of Pitboss time to do 6 seconds of real time. Anyway, the timer has been lengthened, so this should hopefully address everyones issues.
It was a port forwarding issue that was blocking everyone BTW...To anyone who hosts Pitboss. Remember that if your power goes out the Router scrambles the internal IP suffixes and you have to go into port forwarding and set your forwarding to the new IP suffixes or no one will be able to login to the game... Just putting it out there in case someone is going crazy looking for the solution.
gmae down
odd I just played my turn ok
Yeah just signed in again without issue and believe me I have lots of issues (abnormally)
Game on mara speed with a 24hr timer will seriously slow down and progress will be super slow (years). Any chances we can continue with the old timer.
We can play with whatever speed eveyone is comfortable with. Timer was increased because England asked for it, and because France rightly pointed out that in the OP pages we said that the timer would go up to 24 hrs at turn 80. As I said before, we can raise it or lower it, as the game goes along, we just need to keep in mind that pauses are absolutely unacceptable gamekillers. We need to have a long enough timer that pausing will NEVER be necessary or requested.
So lets start a discussion on a nice comprimise of timer length that will give everyone some of what they want. England has already said that the 12 hr timer was getting too fast for them. So what should we do? Vote? Offer suggestions and reach consensus? Everyone who has an opinion speak up
Also, remember that England is out of town for the weekend so we would need to hear from England especially since he was the one who first brought up raising the timer.
The official position of France can be summed up as:
Preference: 12 hour timer
Acceptable: 24 hour real time timer
Oppose: Anything longer then the 24 hour real time timer
I agree with france. There is nothing happening ingame right now and with how slow th game is a 12hr timer would help speed things up a bit.
France's proposal is approved by Odin.
China adds their preference for a 12 hr turn.
Persia votes for 12 hour turn until turn 105 when the barbarians should arrive and a 24 hour turn after that.
Based on what everyone is saying, we will switch back to the 12 hour timer and hopefully England can manage. If its a big big problem, maybe we can add a few hours (like maybe go to a 15 hr timer) and that will be enough. Anyway, thanks everyone for being patient and cooperative
I support France's 12 hours. Increase timer when the barbarians show up to 15.
France, well played. PM is to you
Last edited by Netherlands (DoB); May 21, 2012 at 07:47.
"In the service of Netherlands, always" - Captain Eriksen, Royal Netherlands Navy
The Netherlands is using the letter of the rules to circumvent the spirit of the rules. France accepts that as the rules are written that the Netherlands can invoke the Defenders Measured War however as per the Measured War description the spirit of those rules are such that "
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."
The France/Netherlands war is a defensive pre-emptive war with the specific objective of denying the Netherlands access to the strategic Copper resource which will allow the Netherlands to build Axemen and overwhelm France in the near future. No cities have been taken from Netherlands and no units have been attacked. The loss of one resource tile cannot realistically be construed to be "crippling".
On the other hand this war has been costly for France, who has built up 4 times the army as Netherlands, but France is being denied the ability "to make real gains from the war". Delaying the Netherlands access to copper for 10 turns, less than the number of turns that it would take for a worker to mine the tile in a marathon game, cannot be realistically construed as a "real gain". It took many more turns then that just to build the French army.
While France considers the Netherlands tactics to be a sleazy, cowardly abuse of the rules, it will not challenge the Netherlands right to abuse the rules since it is correct according to the letter of the rules however since the Netherlands are going to abuse the rules as written then France will reluctantly respond in kind.
As written the rules only call for the attacker to make peace for 10 turns and do not prevent another nation from declaring war on the defender during the 10 turn peace period therefore 2 nations should be able to tag team a nation by alternating their peace/war periods. In this particular case, France along with an ally should be able to occupy the copper tile indefinitely as the rules are written.
To be clear France considers the proposed tactic an abuse of the spirit of the rules on par with the Netherlands abuse of the rules and would prefer not to use such a tactic. France calls on the Netherlands to withdraw their abusive Defensive War declaration since they are not even remotely in danger of being crippled, as was the stated intention for the rule. In return France will not seek to ally with other nations to tag team the Netherlands.
Let's return to the spirit of the Diplogame and deal with events through diplomacy, roleplaying and good stories instead of abusing rules. (As an aside, in case anyone is under the false impression that France is warmongering the Netherlands, France has tried to make peace with Netherlands twice, only asking that all espionage efforts cease between our tribes, but Netherlands has refused demanding French resources in exchange for peace. Diplomacy has been tried extensively and exhausted therefore the only option remaining to France was to escalate to war to achieve its objectives).
France is not unreasonable and a diplomatic solution is still open to the Netherlands (although it may not be as favorable as my earlier offers since they have forced me to divert my resources to this war and thus significantly slowed my advancement).
Just to be clear. Using the rules, is not abusive. All players are encouraged to use the rules to preserve the life, viability and thus the fun of their Civ. Players who are in War should feel free to use whatever diplomatic pressure they can, to persuade their opponent not to use Measured War to his advantage, including calling him cowardly or sleazy for 'hiding behind' Measured War... This is part of the game and fair play. But I want it to be clear that the rules are there to be used when the player wants to use them and that using the rules is not abusive in any way. If a rule can be used in a way that was not anticipated, and that unanticipated use of the rule creates a situation that ruins the fun of the game for everybody, then the rule was poorly designed, and we will amend the rule to compensate.
France is correct that the rules are intended as a check on the players to help 'enforce' the Diplogame spirit, ie., not making the game un-fun for others or crippling them. France is also correct that preparing for War takes time and resources, which a player should be allowed to 'gain' from. It should also be noted that what constitutes 'gain,' as well as what makes a player feel 'crippled,' or what makes the game 'un-fun' is highly subjective... it will be different for each player... which is precisely why there are specific rules to enforce the Diplogame spirit. No two players, especially not players at war, are going to agree what is 'fair.'
Finally, France is correct that if multiple players are allied against a Civ, they can do all sorts of things to make the life of that Civ difficult, that they would not be able to do acting alone. The Measured War rules are not intended to be an absolute shield aginst all damage or hardship for any Civ.
I would like to encourage Netherlands (and France) to have this argument IC rather than have an OOC argument about IG stuff (like whether to invoke mandatory peace or not, or whether a peace offer is reasonable or not).
How I break the spirit of the rules when I use the rules fair and square? I compliment your good play, and I use the rules to get me out of the bad situation that my poor play gets me into. That is what the rule is for.The Netherlands is using the letter of the rules to circumvent the spirit of the rules. France accepts that as the rules are written that the Netherlands can invoke the Defenders Measured WarLook honest at what you propose so-called peace to me. I must give up working all my land tiles except 2? I must not use any of my forest? I cant use none of my metal? I cant use slavery civic for rest of game? If I dont agree to your outrageous terms you will double team me with allies? Double team me to do what? Cripple me that's what. What other reason can be there? I have only 1 city, I have 1 warrior in my army, just 1. I have nothing on my tiles but wildlands. You have Stonehenge which is taking all my tiles from culture. I am already crippled, and with this choke move you are trying to keep me crippled. With these peace terms, you try to keep me down for the whole game.No civilisation should be crippled with the result that the game stops being fun for the player involved.
To me Measure war rule is the only way to try to escape this choke move you use to cripple me. You complain about espionage, but you have far more espionage against me than I have on you. And with your puppet Germany, who puts all his espionage against me and tells you everything you have much the bigger advantage there too. To me the Measure war rule is for just this, I have no way to break the choke and with the choke in place I am cripples. Dont even say for the fact that it was you who ask for short timer, then you use the short timer to sneak you choke warrior into my land. With the long timer, I would have seen this coming and move my warrior to the hill.
EDIT: I have to point out this oneSo for France to occupy the Copper forever is not abusive, but to get with your allies to occupy the Copper forever is abusive? This makes no senseFrance along with an ally should be able to occupy the copper tile indefinitely as the rules are written.
To be clear France considers the proposed tactic an abuse of the spirit of the rules on par with the Netherlands abuse of the rules and would prefer not to use such a tactic.
. Both ways you occupy the Copper and I cant do nothing about it. And then How you can look badly on me for doing what you say is abuse but then same breath you treats to do something you say is abuse? It seems to me that what you mean is "I am going to choke that Copper forever, no matter whether I commit abuse or what!"
So since you will choke no matter what, either the choke cripples me or it does not. I say it does you say it don't. Who is right? The rule say I can ask for Mesure war, that is the solution. Now you say you will get an ally to make it so the solution dont work, and you say it is abouse, but its OK because I abuse first by playing by the rules? Either you think its abuse to occupy my copper or it is not. If it is abuse, how can you say with straight face that you will do it anyway to punish me for playing by the rules? I think this is what happens. I was suprise by you attack, I did not calculate for that, so I say "Good tactics, you got me good
All this other thing you say "cowardly" and others, I will leave this alone for other to decide what they think. As you say I will now "return to spirit of the Diplogame" and will say everything else in IC. This argument have nothing to do to stop me from writing the stories.
Last edited by Netherlands (DoB); May 21, 2012 at 15:19.
"In the service of Netherlands, always" - Captain Eriksen, Royal Netherlands Navy
I address this to France, and to the game admin.
The latest storythread addition by France in the story thread was posted in spite of a pm that I sent to France. I would like to ask that the post is either edited (by removing all references to Rome) or removed, as I specifically requested a timeout on diplomacy in the PM to get myself up to date.
This is not meant as an attack, or as whining. I just need a few days to get up to speed, and address how to continue the Roman story from where is has been dropped, and the French demands in that storyline thread will push me into taking hasty decisions (which is one of the things I wanted to avoid by the timeout I requested). Again, all I need is just a few days, and then the diplomatic demands etc can proceed.
I would also appreciate it if France asks in a PM to me from this point on if he wishes to make posts in the storythread that tells a story of how the Roman people react to the French (I refer to this in the French post: The Garcons de Paris and the Dutch Defenders have been sent into Rome to help the Roman tribesmen overthrow their insane immortal despot. Some Roman refugees have thrown flowers on the ground, welcoming the French forces as their saviors.). I consider collaboration on storylines a very good idea to make the stories more interactive and fun, and I would love to cooperate with everyone in the game on this (my closest neighbours are of course the obvious first "targets", like France), but I would also like to have a word in what goes on inside my borders. Had France written "...sent to the Roman borders to ask if they could assist the Romans", then that would have been appropriate as it gives me the benefit of my free will to react to it as I wish while taking my own storyline into consideration. However, "...sent into Rome" is not appropriate, in my opinion, unless an actual invasion is taking place of course.
I hope this is a minor and easy matter to resolve, and that it can be resolved quickly without any bad blood!
Sorry for any confusion. France declared war on Rome last turn and invaded Rome capturing a worker (who did their animated little bow down before us and have been renamed Roman Refugees). As per your comment above, about an actual invasion, the original description is appropriate. Feel free to develop the storyline as you see fit and I will respond accordingly. I am merely presenting the French point of view. Welcome to the game.
Last edited by France (DoB); May 24, 2012 at 12:21.
So is this resolved then?
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks