Originally posted by Bulgaria (DoF)
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Domination of Barbarians [Diplo Game] [Setup Thread]
Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
-
Last edited by Sommerswerd; March 22, 2012, 18:47.
-
Originally posted by Sommerswerd View PostIt seems like your concern with this rule is it interferes with conquest, and makes it harder to take land via war. But that is kind of the point of the rule. What I suggest is you say what your goal is... like "I want a system where I have more freedom to engage in conquest." Then tell us how you suggest to modify the rule:
1. Keep it very, very, very, very simple and easy to understand/remember
2. Make sure it keeps things fun and enjoyable for the person who is losing the war. If a rule makes it easy to quickly crush a person, to the point where they want to quit or lose the will to log in and play, then that is not a good Diplogame rule.
3. The rule does not likely lead to a need for reloads, pauses, mandatory turn order, administrative rulings, or anything that stops or slows down the game
Just so I am clear... You are suggesting that we leave the measured War rule as it is, but just get rid of the rule that you have to wait until the other guy logs in to take his cities, right?
The reason we need that rule, is because it prevents you from taking the cities of someone who is away for a day or two, not paying attention, and it also makes it very difficult for you to use a double-move to capture a city., without enacting mandatory turn order with administrative reloads
I would also point out that the rules as written mean that the Civ who declares war (attacker) starts to lose the war he is totally vulnerable to having his cities captured and cannot use this metagame defense of not logging in. This would discourage other small civs from coming to the aid of the original victim. Example: All-mighty Rome attacks weak Greece. Greece convinces weak Germany to attack Rome. Greece employs the no login defense. Rome as the defender against Germany conquers German cities instead regardless of turn order.
Finally the objective of the rule is to encourage people to continue playing however it actually rewards players for NOT playing!
My rule proposal: Any Civ that loses 25% or more of the cities that it started with in a war (rounded up) may sue for immediate 10 turn peace with all opponents.
2-4 cities = lose 1 city; 5-8 cities = lose 2 cities; 9-12 cities = lose 3 cities etc.
Once a Civ has been reduced by the above number of cities then no more cities may be captured or razed by any opponent until the player has indicated (either in game or in the forums) whether they wish to invoke the measured war rule.
If a Civ decides to continue the war they may still invoke the rule on subsequent turns assuming the conditions still apply but until they do their cities may be captured or razed normally.
The above rule is intended to replace Measured War rule 3 and eliminate Doublemove rule 3. I believe the above rule meets all your stated objectives.
Exploit
Comment
-
Originally posted by 2metraninja View PostLOL, you are at the same category as me, so then I should be tier 5 too.
Based upon previous posts about Tier levels, I break the field down as follows:
Undeclared Tier: Sommerswerd, WarningU2, Dick76, Rome(DoF), Toni
Tier 1 Candidates: Beta, OzzyKP, damnrunner?, Calanthian?
Tier 2 Candidates: Black Knight 427, Elkad, Skirnir, Donovan Zoi
Tier 3 Candidates:
Tier 4 Candidates: nabaxo, MNGoldenEagle
Tier 5 Candidates: Exploit, 2metraninja?
Tier 6 Candidates:
There are more candidates in Tier 1 and 2 then civs. Is the plan to have the Tier 1 players pick civs from the Tier 1 and once those are gone then pick from Tier 2, repeating the process down the Tiers?
Exploit
Comment
-
Well Exploit, I can't say which level you are, but having 2metraninja down as a level 5 does not seem correct.
2metra, you are just too experienced
Toni sure knows how to develop an economy, so I would put him at Tier 2..
And I don't know if Egypt (DoF) is around, but if so, then he's definitely a tier 1.
And Bulgaria (DoF) is also an accomplished player.
BTW I am still curious about how cramped the situation in Europe is going to be. Or to formulate it more clearly: how much difference there is going to be in the quality of the positions? As Civing is justs the same as the selling price of your house, it's location, location, location.
PS. I do think that Europe should have quite some marble and stone available: 0,5 each per civ.
So if 8 civs in Europe 4 stone and 4 marble. Without this and with no room there is no option to go economic.
And on assigning civs:
1) I would distribute the map (without the resources which become available by teching)
2) and then do a reverse pick: so from tier 6 upwards.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Exploit View PostThere are more candidates in Tier 1 and 2 then civs. Is the plan to have the Tier 1 players pick civs from the Tier 1 and once those are gone then pick from Tier 2, repeating the process down the Tiers?
Here is how we will do it:
1. I will post all the Passwords for all of the anonymous IDs in the OP
2. You will pick your Civ and Login to the Corresponding Anonymous ID - change the password to a new one
3. PM me from the Anonymous ID letting me know they are taken
4. I will update the OP that the civ is taken so no one else tries to pick it.picks it. I will pick the same way, so no one knows who I picked either.
PS, Exploit, I am reading your Measured rule suggestion. It sounds reasonable, but it has some problems we need to talk about. I will respond to that post seperately once I read it all.Originally posted by Calanthian View PostBTW I am still curious about how cramped the situation in Europe is going to be. Or to formulate it more clearly: how much difference there is going to be in the quality of the positions? As Civing is justs the same as the selling price of your house, it's location, location, location.
However, focusing on the start is missing the point. All the starts are very powerful in different ways. But first off, your start is small potatoes. Its just a springboard to propell you to your remote colonies. Don't get caught up in how good your start is, because you will never (at least not in the early game) get to the point where you are even using all the juicyness your start will have. If you actually ever get to the point where you run out of resources to work at your start, then you probably are doing something wrong because you arent expanding enough. The start is designed to overwhelm you with the great options available to you.
Second, you would be a fool to let your neighbor get his hands on Stone or Marble early in the game. If your neighbor builds an early Wonder, you are toast in terms of culture. Of course, all the starts are designed to make Wonder grabbing easy, but if you just peacefully sit back and let your neighbors Wonder grab, you are essentially ceding your position in Europe right from the start. Try to reach agreements with your neighbors to limit culture until you at least get some colonies established. Try to negotiate who will get what Wonders and ultimately, who should leave Europe and who should stay, cause' that town aint big enough for all of you and you will end up fighting over it otherwise.Originally posted by Calanthian View PostPS. I do think that Europe should have quite some marble and stone available: 0,5 each per civ. So if 8 civs in Europe 4 stone and 4 marble. Without this and with no room there is no option to go economic.
Originally posted by Calanthian View PostAnd on assigning civs:
1) I would distribute the map (without the resources which become available by teching)
2) and then do a reverse pick: so from tier 6 upwards.
As far as picking, why do you think going in reverse is better?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sommerswerd View PostHere is how we will do it:
1. I will post all the Passwords for all of the anonymous IDs in the OP
2. You will pick your Civ and Login to the Corresponding Anonymous ID - change the password to a new one
3. PM me from the Anonymous ID letting me know they are taken
4. I will update the OP that the civ is taken so no one else tries to pick it.picks it. I will pick the same way, so no one knows who I picked either.
Exploit
Comment
-
That's done , in fact, waayyy more than that, especially stone. However, again, you're not going economic early. You've got to REX, and that means barbfighting... And not the cushy, easy, powderpuff barb fighting that China and Russia will be doing. They will have their Capital to fuel their military machine against the barbs. The Frontier civs are basically fighting right outside their castle walls. You on the other hand (Europeans) will be Fighting in remote locations, so you have to arrive in force, which means you need a Navy. You think you're gonna have time for that and Wondergrabbing or cottaging?
Leave room for different strategies. If it is not possible in Europe to have 3 decent cities, then it is too cramped in my opinion.
Early economic build up, while keeping neighbours and barbs at bay, and then later colonial expansion should also be feasible with excellent diplo playing.Trade is the name of the game..
Comment
-
In a contested border (culture fight), being forced to give a city back will hurt a lot. As you'll lose all your culture in it and the surrounding 8 tiles, even if some of the culture came from your own cities.
So what happens in a multiple opponent war?
Player A attacks Player B and captures a city.
Player C declares on player A and captures the same city.
Can B take the peace and get the city back, even though he isn't at war with player C?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Exploit View PostBased upon previous posts about Tier levels, I break the field down as follows:
...
Tier 2 Candidates: Black Knight 427, Elkad, Skirnir, Donovan Zoi
...
Comment
-
I will respond to everyone, but let me address Exploit rule suggestion first. A reminder to everyone, we need one more player to start.Originally posted by Exploit View PostI want a system where I am not restricted as to what time I can make my moveOriginally posted by Exploit View PostI have other real world commitments and I have no desire to continually login to a website to see if I can go or not.3. A Civ who declares war (attacker) may not capture cities, on any turn, until the defender (the Civ who the city is being taken from) has at least logged into the game that turn
Does that make any difference to you? Or are you really saying that you don't want any restriction on when you can capture cities? Keep the goals of the rule in mind, especially my point about players who are out of contact for a few days. Do you see that this rule places no restriction whatsoever on when you can move?Originally posted by Exploit View PostI would also point out that the rules as written mean that the Civ who declares war (attacker) starts to lose the war he is totally vulnerable to having his cities captured and cannot use this metagame defense of not logging in.Originally posted by Exploit View PostThis would discourage other small civs from coming to the aid of the original victim.Originally posted by Exploit View PostExample: All-mighty Rome attacks weak Greece. Greece convinces weak Germany to attack Rome. Greece employs the no login defense. Rome as the defender against Germany conquers German cities instead regardless of turn order.Originally posted by Exploit View PostFinally the objective of the rule is to encourage people to continue playing however it actually rewards players for NOT playing!
The second part of "playing" is logging in and moving units etc, but the only point of that, from a diplogame perspective, is (to have fun of course, and) to give yourself something to talk about in your diplomacy. A player who is not logging in to protect his cities is still playing because he is still doing what matters in terms of winning, ie posting on the story thread, telling all kinds of propaganda about how much of an evil warmonger you are for "attacking his defenseless villages, killing civilians etc"
Originally posted by Exploit View PostMy rule proposal: Any Civ that loses 25% or more of the cities that it started with in a war (rounded up) may sue for immediate 10 turn peace with all opponents... Once a Civ has been reduced by the above number of cities then no more cities may be captured or razed by any opponent until the player has indicated (either in game or in the forums) whether they wish to invoke the measured war rule.
Here is my concern. Without Doublemove rule 3, a person who is away from the game could return to find 25% of his cities were razed while he was away. That person will quit. Well maybe they wouldn't (I wouldn't) but they will be very sad. We need an automatic mechanism to protect absent players who like you and I, are busy and dont have time "to check some website everyday" agreed?Last edited by Sommerswerd; March 23, 2012, 14:11.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Exploit View PostI would not normally consider myself a below average player however there seems to be an exceptionally strong field of experienced diplogame players. I think there are at least 12 more experienced diplogamers than me in this game, including yourself, which would place me in Tier 5.
Based upon previous posts about Tier levels, I break the field down as follows:
Undeclared Tier: Sommerswerd, WarningU2, Dick76, Rome(DoF), Toni
Tier 1 Candidates: Beta, OzzyKP, damnrunner?, Calanthian?
Tier 2 Candidates: Black Knight 427, Elkad, Skirnir, Donovan Zoi
Tier 3 Candidates:
Tier 4 Candidates: nabaxo, MNGoldenEagle
Tier 5 Candidates: Exploit, 2metraninja?
Tier 6 Candidates:
There are more candidates in Tier 1 and 2 then civs. Is the plan to have the Tier 1 players pick civs from the Tier 1 and once those are gone then pick from Tier 2, repeating the process down the Tiers?
Exploit
Tier 2 Candidates: Sommerswerd, OzzyKP, Beta
Tier 3 Candidates: Black Knight 427
Tier 4 Candidates: Rome(DoF)
Tier 5 Candidates: WarningU2, Dick76
Tier 6 Candidates:
I don't really know the rest. Only that Exploit insisted he be put in tier 1 for DoE and then quit like 20 turns into the game.Captain of Team Apolyton - ISDG 2012
When I was younger I thought curfews were silly, but now as the daughter of a young woman, I appreciate them. - Rah
Comment
-
I just realized something. With the scores turned off, there is no easy way to verify whether a city was taken before or after a login. I don't want to have to rely on screenshots. Those things are a royal pain. So Doublemove rule 3 is not going to work as written and needs to be amended (as Exploit said). Here is my proposed amended rule:
3. On the turn when War is declared, the attacker is free to capture cities. On the next turn, the attacker must wait for the defender to log in at least once, prior to capturing any additional cities. Once the defender has logged in at least once, the attacker may resume capturing cities, in all following turns.
No-Login Defense - The turn after the defender announces (in game threads, by PM to opponents and in-game message to opponents) that they are using the no-login defense, no one may capture any cities from the defender. If the defender logs in on any turn after the turn they invoke the no-login defense, then they lose the right to the defense for the rest of the continuous War. Defenders can not invoke the no login defense if they captured any cities during the war.
If an attacker takes cities, after the defender announces they are using the defense, then the defender is entitled to immediate 10 turn peace, from the violator, and any wrongfully captured cities must be immediately returned, regardless of who currently owns the city. If the city was razed, the defender is entitled to either (a)choose between one of the attackers non-Capital cities to recieve as compensation, or (b) recieve 100% of attackers GNP for 10 turns. The defender is entitled to know what the GNP is before choosing. Defenders may not fraudulently induce city capture and then invoke this rule.
This rule means attackers don't need to wait for a defender to login to capture cities once the defender has logged into the game at least once. This also means that defenders can't use the 'wait until the last minute to play' trick, because if they log in at all, capturing their cities is legal again. Third, this rule means an attacker can capture (or raze) any city he wants, regardless of the no-login defense, as long as he is willing to pay the stiff penalty. Finally, this rule means you can't stemroll an absent player. What do you think? A little longer, but better right?
Originally posted by Exploit View PostMy rule proposal: Any Civ that loses 25% or more of the cities that it started with in a war (rounded up) may sue for immediate 10 turn peace with all opponents... Once a Civ has been reduced by the above number of cities then no more cities may be captured or razed by any opponent until the player has indicated (either in game or in the forums) whether they wish to invoke the measured war rule.
Now add another variable. Let's say that Rome, knowing that they can sue for immediate Peace from all opponents, just happens to have its Navy in position to capture 5 coastal cities from Portugal in one fell swoop. So Rome captures 5 cities from Portugal, and then promptly sues all opponents for immediate peace citing the rule that they lost over 25% of the cities they had at the beginning of the war with France. Is that how you intend the rule to work?
There is also a problem with verifying how many cities a Civ had at the beginning of a War. I mean you can use the event log to see when war was declared and use the city windows to check when each city was built, but gosh, do we really want to have to do all that?
How about changing the Standard Measured War (SMW) rule to this:
SMW - Any Civ (attacker or defender) that loses 5 or more different cities in a continuous period of war is entitled to invoke an immediate 10 turn peace with any Civ who captured/razed or currently owns one of the 5 cities that were captured/razed. An attacker who invokes this rule must return all cities he captured in the war to the Civs he captured the cities from, unless they refuse to take them.
Comment
-
OK so here are the changes I am proposing to the rules. Everyone should realize, that most of you will probably never have to invoke any of these rules of even look at them, but if we don't iron this stuff out beforehand it could really mess the game:(Added to Doublemove rules)- On the turn when War is declared, the attacker is free to capture cities. On the next turn, the attacker must wait for the defender to log in at least once, prior to capturing any additional cities. Once the defender has logged in at least once, the attacker may resume capturing cities, in all following turns
- No-Login Defense - The turn after the defender announces (in game threads, by PM to opponents and in-game message to opponents) that they are using the no-login defense, no one may capture any cities from the defender. If the defender logs in on any turn after the turn they invoke the no-login defense, then they lose the right to the defense for the rest of the continuous War. Defenders can not invoke the no-login defense if they captured any cities during the war.
- If an attacker takes cities, after the defender announces they are using the defense, then the defender is entitled to immediate 10 turn peace, from the violator, and any wrongfully captured cities must be immediately returned, regardless of who currently owns the city. If the city was razed, the defender is entitled to either (a)choose between one of the attackers non-Capital cities to recieve as compensation, or (b) recieve 100% of attackers GNP for 10 turns. The defender is entitled to know what the GNP is before choosing. Defenders may log-in to collect the penalty without losing their right to the defense. Defenders may not fraudulently induce city capture and then invoke this rule.
- If you are protecting your cities by intentionally refusing to log in, your attacker is not allowed to induce you to log in with a fraudulent offer of peace.
- This rule does not apply to situations where allies or friends are cooperatively declaring War and capturing each other's cities for convenience purposes (like to destroy a city in a poor location).
(additions/changes)- Once a Civ has 10 cities total, they are considered a Major Nation, and can ask for Major Measured-War (MMW). Any Civ can ask for Standard Measured War (SMW), regardless of size, and any Defender can ask for Defender's Measured War (DMW) regardless of size.
- Major Measured War (for Major Nations only)- Any turn after a Major Nation is attacked, they can ask for the attacker’s terms for immediate peace. This should be done in-character. The attacker can’t attack any of the defender’s cities until he responds in-character. He has to ask for something that the defender can actually give and it has to be possible to give it either before a peace treaty is accepted or during the 10 turn peace treaty. If the defender accepts and does what the attacker asked for, peace must be accepted. If the defender refuses, war may go on 5 more turns, then, 10 turns peace must be accepted.
- Standard Measured War (for all Nations) -Any Civ that loses 5 or more different cities in a continuous period of war is entitled to invoke an immediate 10 turn peace with any Civ who he is a war with. An attacker who invokes this rule must return all cities he captured in the war to the Civs he captured the cities from, unless they refuse to take them.
- Defenders Measured War (for all defender Nations) - Any turn after a Nation is attacked, they can call for Defender's Measured War- War may continue for 10 turns. After 10 turns, a 10 Turn peace treaty must be accepted, and the attacker must give 3 (if available) of defender’s captured cities back to the defender. The attacker chooses which cities to give. However, if the attacker took the Defender’s Capital in that war, he must return it. If the cities are available, but no longer in the attackers possesion, the Civ who currently has them must return them. If the attacker lacks 3 cities to return because of razing them, the attacker must give 500 gold per razed city over the course of the 10 turns peace. If he is unable to do this, he must give 3 of his own non-Capital cities of the defenders choosing. If the Defender has captured any cities in the War, he can not invoke Defender's Measured War, until the cities are returned to the parties the cities were captured from, or refused by those Civs.
- Only 1 Measured War rule may be applied at a time.
There was another point I keep forgetting to mention, which is why we need such Measured War rules in this kind of game. My thinking is, if a player is willing to temporarily not log into the game to stop you from taking his cities, then he is probably willing to permanently not log into the game (quit) if you take his cities. The object of this game is for everyone to stay involved until the end, and enjoy the game until the end. If you are desperate enough about keeping your cities to quit, I would rather give you a tool to keep your cities without quitting.Last edited by Sommerswerd; March 23, 2012, 17:53.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Exploit View PostIt's not clear to me if this would be a top down sequence or just a first-come-first-choose basis. If I believed I was Tier 4 could I just pick a Tier 4 civ right away or would I have to wait until all the Tier 1-3 civs were picked first?
ExploitOriginally posted by Carthage (DoF) View PostFrom a gaming perspective you must not push players too much to a single approach.
Leave room for different strategies. If it is not possible in Europe to have 3 decent cities, then it is too cramped in my opinion.
Early economic build up, while keeping neighbours and barbs at bay, and then later colonial expansion should also be feasible with excellent diplo playing.
2. I thought about what you said and looked at Europe again. I can say now that there is enough room for all the Europeans to squeeze 3 cities together with all their small crosses or BFCs touching the capital. But it will be a really tight squeeze, especially for the Tier 1 Civs (which is why they are Tier 1). If that makes you uncomfortable, I suggest picking a latter Tier team that has more space. The earlier Tiers have higher resource/ lower space starts. That is the point of having unequal starts, so different skill levels can be competitive.
3. What you are describing that you want to do "Early economic build up... then later colonial expansion" sounds very much like a Tier 6. If that is the strategy that you have already committed to emotionally, then go with one of those. If you also want to add the "while keeping neighbours and barbs at bay" parts, then great that is Tier 4 and 5, pick one of those. There is plenty of room for different strategies and paths to victories in this game. Also remember, just because you have a grassland pig doesn't mean you have to pasture it, especially if Pig is plentiful and you dont need it for trade. Maybe a cottage would be more useful... go for it. The European starts will generally have way more resources than you can use. You have to make choices about them.
Comment
Comment