Ancient Empires #2

[SlowThinker]

RobRoy wrote:
>I suspect that might include limiting unit trading/gifting, and maybe some other features/exploits/strategies associated with Civ2Dip.

The Seeds #1 game is a diplomacy game: IMO diplomacy is the most important part of the game, much more imporant than luck or Civ2 skills. Therefore people spends lot of time in talks with other leaders.
A game where unit gifting (and maybe tech gifting too) is completely forbidden is a reasonable option IMO. It will reduce diplomacy and simplify rules (since many of exploits are based on unit gifting).
(But my problem is I often may not to be able to catch the 24h limit, I am not always home.)

>But I'm a bit confused about your statement that unit gifting via F3 was banned in Game#1, because the teleporting could be exploited. I don't really see the abusive possibilities you're talking about (my imagination may just be too limited), whereas I do see lots of possibilities to exploit gifted units that remain stationary.

IMO teleporting is very unnatural thing. It may induce some sofisticated city placement and strategies (allies may use one army together) etc.

>But, more fundamentally, are you saying that in Game#1 you HAVE been able to gift units via the F3 screen, during your own turn?

I don't know, we don't try it, it is forbidden. We use CivDip or MP swap.

>The more likely scenarios for teleportation happen when you demand a unit withdraw from a city radius or cancel an alliance - but again, this seems a relatively minor exploit to my unimaginative mind.

'Cancel alliance' and teleporting may cause very strange effect. Farmers and new cities is a very dangerous weapon if you want to cancel an alliance. Read Seeds #1 thread for more details (several weeks back).

>But are these the F3 teleport exploits you're referring to, rather than unit gifting?

I am referring to teleporting caused by unit gifting by F3.

**************************
RobRoy wrote:
>Of course, it could be something completely bizarre, like the barbies simply vanish before attacking a city defended by unit type X or strength Y, or other circumstances.

No, I remember I saw the Sparta's skirm to be wounded.

**************************

The BW penalty thing and an intuitive gameplay: IMO you must get basic knowledge about the scenario if you want to play it. If you play intuitively then you think a C4 is slightly stronger than a C3, but the truth is it is more than 4x stronger. Etc., etc.

[Addled Platypus]

I would like to keep the Bab's-who's remarkable defense is still holding

http://apolyton.net/upload/view.php?file=22570_sa_b3150.hot

[RobRoy]

Originally posted by SlowThinker
The Seeds #1 game is a diplomacy game: IMO diplomacy is the most important part of the game, much more imporant than luck or Civ2 skills. Therefore people spends lot of time in talks with other leaders.

I can appreciate that. I'd just like to think about cutting out things that suck RL time without, necessarily, adding to RL fun. I think diplomacy can be just as involved, and fun, but less time consuming, if you aren't encouraged to engage in complex transactions. Witness the old boardgame, "Diplomacy"...the mechanics couldn't be simpler, but it's got tons of intrigue that basically boils down to "let's you and me attack him".

Originally posted by SlowThinker
A game where unit gifting (and maybe tech gifting too) is completely forbidden is a reasonable option IMO. It will reduce diplomacy and simplify rules (since many of exploits are based on unit gifting).

I agree about unit gifting, the more I think about it. I assume "gift" includes "trade"? Interesting thought about restricting tech gifting, too. It would have the happy side-effect of making it harder to engage in the BW exploit, without actually banning it. You'd HAVE to get an Envoy or two to steal the dependent tech(s), since you couldn't trade for it or buy it. Or you'd have to capture a city. Still doable for most civs, but not trivial with only the early techs, and would probably cost some valuable units. A ban would also shut down the hut-based "tech-sharing" network we used in the test game, meaning people would be much more proprietary about "their" goody huts. 'Course, "trading" sacrificial cities in phoney wars becomes a more attractive exploit - but that exploit requires actual units, movement, a potential cost, and a risk or betrayal, so it doesn't seem quite so abusive.

Originally posted by SlowThinker
(But my problem is I often may not to be able to catch the 24h limit, I am not always home.)

I think it's just me pushing that, at this point. And Peaster has already said if we do it, we'd need to be generous with extensions. We're also not sure whether it'd be appropriate for all phases of the game, anyway.

But if that's your only "real" issue, can we count you as solid for a real game? Once you're back to regular net access, of course, and/or your time constraints can be satisfied.

Originally posted by SlowThinker
IMO teleporting is very unnatural thing. It may induce some sofisticated city placement and strategies (allies may use one army together) etc.

Probably, especially if combines with unit gifting. But there are situations where the lack of teleporting will also be exploitable. Peaster and I will probably experiment exploitively with Caravan trading in a few turns between Crete and Egypt (both via F3, if possible, and Civ2Dip, and perhaps even via a MP .net session), though a complete ban would probably nix any brilliant strategies. And the break alliance teleport, while exploitable, also has advantages...you could more easily exploit the lack of teleport when breaking alliances, I think.

Originally posted by SlowThinker
I would like to keep the Bab's

NP, sounds like Bostero is talking about joining up once we start a "real" game, anyway.

But Bostero, please feel free to jump into the test game. It's partly being done to help us nail down what, if any, house rules are really necessary or desirable for our final game. And whether the uber-barbarians might effect those calculations. The Hittites, Minoans, and Assyrians are all confirmed as available. With the exception of Egypt (which was also offered, actually), these are some of the stronger civs right now, I believe.

BTW, Platy, did you register my question about the Hittite/Bab war? Is this intentional? If not, set the Babs attitude to "worshipful", without contacting the Hittites (via the F3 screen).

[Peaster]

Egypt: Sacrificed two skirmishers trying to weaken a Sea People while still on grassland. But it's still at about 60%.

One defensive strategy that just occured to me, probably a bit too late - to move my Palace Guard to the threatened city by boat. Any objection to this "exploit"?

Spies note another city missing in Assyria - maybe the result of the recent storm ?

A no-tech-trading rule ? IMO most civs would be in the situation of Babylon, Persia and Greece (before ISeeAll came) - eg, in Despotism, barbs everywhere, with no decent plan for growth. The 1-2 civs most successful at hut-popping would gain a huge lead. Do we want that ? Alternative ideas:

* Limit tech trades (eg none past monarchy or BW? or "accept at most one tech per 2 turns"? or whatever)
* Limit hut-popping to 1 per turn (per King) with no limit on tech trades. This probably helps Minos + Greeks + Persians a bit.

[SlowThinker]

I don't feel for a real game now, don't count on me.

>I agree about unit gifting, the more I think about it. I assume "gift" includes "trade"?

I think trade = 2x gift.

>no-tech-trading rule

A total no-tech-trading would again decrease amount of diplomacy. A possible limit is you must have both prereqs if you want a tech.
What if people are obliged to reload if they get a tech from a hut?
And you can set 'no tech from conquest'

[ISeeALL]

Cleared some more barbs. Bad times for Sparta seem to have passed.

[RobRoy]

Originally posted by Peaster
...move my Palace Guard to the threatened city by boat. Any objection to this "exploit"?

didn't even occur to me that people might consider this abusive. I've already done it. Certainly feel free in this test, but if you think someone might object in a "real" game, guess it's good to get it out into the open. There is a significant cost, however: the unit can NEVER be fortified again, since it has zero movement. Guess it gives "coastal" civs a bit of flexibility that the Hittites, Persians, and Assyrians don't have, but it strikes be as marginal. Hmmm...I wonder if I can use an abusive teleport to move the Hittite Guard around...

Originally posted by Peaster
Spies note another city missing in Assyria

Hmmm...yeah, the storm, I guess...Those things are looking pretty nasty. Haven't you had any of them in the other game? Platy did you notice a missing city for the Assyrians? And was it threatened by standard barbs before vanishing, or no? Where was it, BTW?

Originally posted by Peaster
A no-tech-trading rule? IMO most civs would be...in Despotism, barbs everywhere, with no decent plan for growth. The 1-2 civs most successful at hut-popping would gain a huge lead. Do we want that ?

Yeah, Huts already tend to make "the rich get richer". And we've seen that barbie luck is also important. Without some of the tech sharing, I also suspect a few other civs would've been hard pressed. Maybe that IS what we want? But do we want luck to play such a big role in determining BOTH who's challenged so severely AND who's blessed so much?

Possible Tech Trading Limits:
- Limit tech trades past monarchy or BW?
- accept at most one tech per 2 turns? or whatever
- you must have both prereqs if you want a tech.

I could live with all of these, BW would make more sense to me, since people seem to sort of stop there and rest tech-wise, and it allows Trade to be shared. Note that ST's suggestion neatly limits the BW exploit...you couldn't avoid it forever.

Possible Hut Limitations:
- Limit hut-popping to 1 per turn (per King) with no limit on tech trades.
- What if people are obliged to reload if they get a tech from a hut?

I could live with hut limits too, but I'd resist the reload option. To me, reloading is a huge No-No. If there are situations where it's acceptable, some people might become accustomed to thinking along those lines when they are tempted... it is the path to the Dark Side.

Here are some other hut option from some .net MP games I played ages ago:

- can pop huts only if in a city radius (might've been a 3 tile radius); or
- can pop huts blocking river/road movement or an Isthmus; or
- Settlers can pop a hut If they are going to build a city or a road in a hut tile.

FYI, we also restricted Warrior hunting, similarly. And that's also where I picked up the habit on never using NONE homed Settlers to build cities.

The side effects were pretty predictable: virtually no NONE homed military units, no Advanced Tribes, no hut barbs (but that's not a problem for a Wrath game), slower tech development, quicker development of road network, and a fair number of huts lost to barbies. The central powers still had an advantage, but less so - and they couldn't exploit it so quickly. More importantly, you didn't get the lucky runs by one of the central powers allowing them to raid everyone else's huts (kinda like the Hittites in this game).

BW/Caravan tangent: since some of the tech/hut talk is concerned with the BW exploit, maybe you could link that exploit to 'van rehoming, permitting both, instead of banning either, but effectively forcing players to choose one - "Caravan rehoming can only be done once your civ acquires BW, Navigation, or Persian Tech". You'd provide a reasonable, if less lucrative, path for people who don't really want to micromanage trade so much, and would increase the likelihood that the micro-managers can find a sacrificial lamb for BW. This might also help compensate the Persians' trade handicap.

Originally posted by SlowThinker
I don't feel for a real game now, don't count on me.

Sigh...wrong answer...

Back to six or five, depending on Straybow's interest level.

Originally posted by SlowThinker
And you can set 'no tech from conquest'

True, but I'm much more loathe to actually change the scenario, itself. If we went that path, there are probably lots of tweaks we could consider. We might even want to consider wiping huts? Or replacing huts with defended barb cities?

[RobRoy]

Minoans: 1 slave raid plus a barb leader. Several Sea Peoples, waiting to pounce, but checked by weak Minoan units.

Hittites: 2 slave raids. Barb horde dispersing slowly; killed 1 BRam. Sea People continue toward the capital, ignoring more vulnerable cities. Some mysterious damage to a unit in the Arabian Desert. Platy, are you attacking me? Made peace with Babs, anyway. Map trades with everyone but non-worshipful Babs.

Platy, you're up.

[Addled Platypus]

BTW, Platy, did you register my question about the Hittite/Bab war? Is this intentional? If not, set the Babs attitude to "worshipful", without contacting the Hittites (via the F3 screen).

quite the accident

[Addled Platypus]

played Bab's only

in case Assy's want to taken over

if not post for me to play Assy

http://apolyton.net/upload/view.php?file=22570_ha_b3140.hot

[Peaster]

Platypus - AFAIK you are still playing Assyria. If you don't play them by Thurs AM or so, I can play them for you.

[Addled Platypus]

playing them now...just got home from work

[Addled Platypus]

and its done

http://apolyton.net/upload/view.php?file=22570_sa_b3140.hot

[Peaster]

Egypt: Our visitor from the Sea Peoples wanders aimlessly among our cities, punch-drunk from Egyptian attacks last year, not quite ready for another fight. We have brought in a vet Char I to defend this region.

Our finest diplomat met again with our enthusiastic allies, the AI-Minoans [the ones so eager to declare war twice already]. This time they did not instantly declare war, but they did instantly dissolve our alliance.

RobRoy - I got a message that all offsides Egyptian and Minoan units were teleported back home. I think no Egyptian units were affected, but probably some Minoans were. If you object to this, I don't mind replaying, with no F3 contact. It seems F3 isn't very reliable in a PBEM.

IIRC the designer can create a permanently negative Minoan attitude towards Egypt that might explain this problem. Not sure - it's been years since I tried design.

I have no objection to shipping PGuards about. The reason I asked is this... In a similar situation, but in a different scenario, I asked the designer, and he said he had made it impossible [IIRC the Guard was in the helicopter slot]. So, he didn't want it done, but it seems OK to me. I don't think Egypt will be able to do it soon, though.

[ISeeALL]

Barbs are not a problem for both Persians and Greeks now.