Ancient Empires #2

[Peaster]

the Egyptian save:

[Addled Platypus]

I could stick with the same two

busuiness trip now moved to Oct 13

[RobRoy]

Originally posted by Peaster
With 6 players now, maybe we should settle those old rules debates, and get ready to start. If I get some time, I'll try to organize that a little bit. Perhaps one of us could play 2 civs at first, until we get a 7th, or until one of the 1st 6 gets creamed by barbs... ?

I could probably do two also. But it should be two with as few conflicts as possible. Hittites/Minoans were okay at the start, but a bit of conflict of interest, now, I perceive. Ditto with the Bab/Assyrian combo. ISeeALL's Greek/Persia combo works okay, though. But we may all end up playing different civs - I'd kinda like something random or a preference list.

If you don't get to it, I'll try to summarize some of the issues/concerns/proposals for house rules in the next day or so.

Speaking of ISeeALL, you're up.

[ISeeALL]

btw, there aren't many new barbs generated in the scenario, are there? Now that we nearly cleared all of them out we can finally start expanding.

[RobRoy]

Originally posted by ISeeALL
btw, there aren't many new barbs generated in the scenario, are there? Now that we nearly cleared all of them out we can finally start expanding.

LOL...Sorry ISeeALL. We're playing with uber-barbarians. Every so often a new horde and/or some pirates will be generated by the game system. Plus there are a few really nasty barbarians generated by event.

But now that you've got better tech, you should be able to expand, as long as you're careful about it. We're pretty sure though, that the barbs become relatively stronger once you're at about 7-8 cities.

Minoans: Sea People on Crete all killed by Guards; some still trying to land at Akrotiri. After turn was over tried to make peace with Egypt and gift stuff - couldn't do units. Still at war...

Events: Poseidon gave Minoans a fleet.

Hittites: shared maps, except for Babs. Sea People now wandering off west. New horde dispersing around Kussara and moving toward capital; killed a BRam.

Platy, you're up.

[ISeeALL]

Originally posted by RobRoy

LOL...Sorry ISeeALL. We're playing with uber-barbarians. Every so often a new horde and/or some pirates will be generated by the game system. Plus there are a few really nasty barbarians generated by event.

Wow that's a good idea. I suppose you can set this in scenarios only by attaching events to turn numbers or something like that.

[Heresson]

I want to play Assyria. I think I used to have the scn downloaded, but am not sure if I still got it, so gimme a link, please. Also, tell me when it's my turn

[RobRoy]

House Rules Debates
My personal prejudice is to avoid most/all House Rules. That said, a number of people have raised legitimate concerns about various brilliant strategies/cheesy exploits and have discussed ways to limit them. Per Peaster's suggestion, in no particular order, some proposals and areas of discussion:

1) Ban unit gifts

2) Ban Tech trading/gifting or limit it by:
- no tech trades past monarchy or BW;
- at most one tech per 2 turns? or whatever; and/or
- require possession of both prereqs if you want a tech.

note: 1 & 2, together, would probably make Civ2Dip pointless, since money gifting seems to work fine with F3, (except for the Minoans).

3) Limit Trade exploits:
- Ban caravan rehoming;
- Ban skipping the trade reducing technologies (Bronze Working and Navigation);
- Ban caravan rehoming, unless the civ has one of the trade reducing technologies (BW, Nav, or Persian).
- Ban tricks to open up supply/demand slots;
- Ban Hides production after first one produced; and/or
- Remove Caravan unit.

4) Limit Hut popping (might obviate need to restrict other areas, such as tech trades/gifts):
- Limit hut-popping to 1 per turn;
- Obliged a reload if the hut result is a tech;
- Can pop huts only within X tiles of a city (2, 3, 10, 20?);
- Can pop huts blocking river movement, an isthmus, a city site (settler only), or road construction (settler only); and/or
- Remove all huts.

5) Limit Slaves (event gifts for killing barb warriors):
- Modify events file to give only money not settlers; and/or
- The veteran NONE homed Settlers can only improve tiles, they can never build cities.

6) Ban unit teleportation:
- via alliance cancellations; and/or
- via peace withdrawal demands through F3.

7) Turn limits:
- 12 hours with generous extensions;
- 24 hours with generous extensions;
- 36 hours; and/or
- 48 hours or more, especially in certain phases of the game.

8) Civ selection:
- Random;
- Preference list;
- Less experienced players select first; and/or
- Being the first to post "dibs" for country X

9) Other Diplomacy Limits:
- Ban any diplomatic contact at all. Civs all stay at permanent war; and/or
- Alliances can exist only if established at game start and have to remain in place throughout the game.

These are the ones I remember or can find easily. I'm sure there are others. Please post any other proposals or areas of concern. We'll try to centralize these discussions, vote, and move on, since we're at or near seven. We especially want to hear from you if you haven't expressed your thoughts earlier on some of these issues.

Personal prejudice, again: Proposals that move the game along faster are especially appreciated, by me. Proposals that promise to take more RL time need a whole lotta justification in my book.

[RobRoy]

Originally posted by ISeeALL
Wow that's a good idea. I suppose you can set this in scenarios only by attaching events to turn numbers or something like that.

Yes, check out the events.txt file to see them all - some are turn based, some random. Plus this variant uses the in-game barbarian setting (Raging hordes, Restless Tribes, etc.) at a souped up level called Barbarian Wrath.

Originally posted by Heresson
I want to play Assyria. I think I used to have the scn downloaded, but am not sure if I still got it, so gimme a link, please. Also, tell me when it's my turn

Yay! I think that's seven!!!! Let's continue the test, though, while we discuss whatever restrictions we might want to use, if that's okay with everyone, to give everyone a bit of practice facing dozens of barbs.

Kull's site is still good. Download the PBEM (the events file) and the Barbarian Wrath version (to practice in SP if you'd like):

http://cullivan.com/civ/scenarios/sog/index.htm

Herreson, you play right after Platy finishes with the Babs.

Platy, you're still up. But just do the Babs, assuming you're still willing to part with the Assyrians. You can have the Hittites if you're really eager to play two.

[ISeeALL]

I am novice in multiplayer Civ2, so my suggestions are mostly for limiting tricks which advanced players may use:

1) Ban unit gifts
2) Ban Tech trading/gifting or limit it by:

- I would suggest any diplomacy between human players should be forbidden, because it wasn't designed for multiplayer in the first place. All human players set Enraged towards all other human civs and be in permanent state of war. Still, humans may contact AI civs, trade techs, share maps etc. If an envoy from human civ tries to contact us, send the envoy away.

Hovewer, if someone plays 2 civs at once (like I am playing Persians and Greeks), then they should be allied and able to exchange techs/units/money without limitations. But it won't be so that one player plays two civs?

Also, if some players want to be allied, they should agree on that before the game starts and remain allied until the end of the game or only they two remain on the map.


3) Limit Trade exploits:
- since I don't know how to use any of those caravan tricks, I would love if caravan unit would be banned completely. Caravan system is designed very poorly in Civ2.


4) Limit Hut popping (might obviate need to restrict other areas, such as tech trades/gifts):
- I have no special opinion on this, but wiping out all huts sounds fair, since lucky huts in the beginning of the game may give some players too many advantages.

5) Limit Slaves (event gifts for killing barb warriors):
- I don't have anything against free slaves. The game is much more dynamic with them, also it rewards for attacking all those barbarian warriors in the beginning of the game.

6) Ban unit teleportation:
- as in 1) and 2) I would like any diplomacy between human players forbidden

7) Turn limits:
- I would prefer 12 hours actually, but I guess most players won't be able to post this often. 24 hours looks like fair.


8) Civ selection:
- I don't see any problems here. I would take any civ which is free. Since we all start with a single city, the difference is not crucial.

[Addled Platypus]

I am novice in multiplayer Civ2, so my suggestions are mostly for limiting tricks which advanced players may use:

24 hour turn (give or take)

no limit slaves

why not no huts ? everyone needs to earn every last advance

can the game go on with everyone playing one civ?

those who would play two, have a big advantage in maps after a while

[RobRoy]

Originally posted by ISeeALL
Hovewer, if someone plays 2 civs at once...they should be allied and able to exchange techs/units/money without limitations.

As you say, hopefully we won't have one person playing two. But I'd say the reverse - that person should try to sincerely play them as if they were completely seperate. And we'd presmably try to set it up to minimize potential conflicts of interest and potential to cooperate (Greeks and Persians, for example are one of the few combos that could work okay, IMHO).

I added your other thoughts to my post, to centralize suggestions. Banning caravans is kinda radical, moreso even than banning huts...have to think about that one. I dislike the permanent alliance one, though...it's a 3000+ year time period, after all.

Originally posted by Platypus Rex
why not no huts ? everyone needs to earn every last advance

Well, that's just one, more radical, thought to limit some of the inequities or exploits that huts can produce. One civ can easily start to "run away" with huts and take more than their share, if they get lucky. With seven humans, one WILL get lucky, I'm sure. It also addresses the trick we pulled in the test - sharing techs - meaning we all had everything leading up to Bronze Working while some of us still had one or two size 1 cities. But some of the other, less radical, proposals may suffice. Or maybe we don't want to limit this luck factor so much, and don't mind the tech sharing?

Note: if it wasn't clear to everyone, these proposals are not a set, by any means. Some suggestions are even mutually exclusive with others. So please comment on whether any of the less extreme suggestions in an area are better/worse/same for you. Like Platy, do you think some lesser limit on huts (number per turn, a range or border) would be desirable or no? If you prefer no limits on huts at all, speak up. I might interpret your post as objecting only to a complete ban.

And let's continue the test game, if we can, Platy. You're up for Babylon only. I'd like to give Herreson a few turns practicing as Assyria.

[ISeeALL]

Originally posted by RobRoy

As you say, hopefully we won't have one person playing two. But I'd say the reverse - that person should try to sincerely play them as if they were completely seperate. And we'd presmably try to set it up to minimize potential conflicts of interest and potential to cooperate (Greeks and Persians, for example are one of the few combos that could work okay, IMHO).

I added your other thoughts to my post, to centralize suggestions. Banning caravans is kinda radical, moreso even than banning huts...have to think about that one. I dislike the permanent alliance one, though...it's a 3000+ year time period, after all.

I also hope that there will be 7 folks up for the game. Your point about the advantages the allied nations get is grounded. I just can't imagine myself playing sincerely for two competing civs. It may end up with 3-4 people playing the game intended for 7 players, so in the end it may turn out that each player controls two (or even three) civs. In that situation making alliance between two civs under your control is not optimal, too. Much better, as I see it, is for one civ to disband all it's units or send them against closest neighbor and let the other civ take all it's cities. The reason is that Wonders work only for a single civ, and nursing two civs would mean only half of the cities recieves wonders' effects.

Btw, since there are not as many willing folks as there should be, maybe we just start a game with 3-4 players and give the remaining civs to AI. A funny idea would be to start 2 or even 3 (or even 7) games at once, with each player playing for a different civ in each game. That way the game would be much more action-filled (at least you wouldn't have to wait a few months of real time before any serous wars start). When playing this scenario thru in single player, I liked that it's balanced, but disliked its enormous length. The civs start with 1 city and are so much apart that the war only took place in my case not sooner than I discovered Chariots IV and connected half of the map with roads. I can imagine how many months it would take this scenario in multiplayer to rich this point if we have to wait 6 days (in worst case) to make a single turn. The constantly appearing barbs would introduce some variety and strain (because all of us will be struggling with them during the whole game), but in the end this may postpone any pvp wars so much, that most players will just leave the game well before civs get close on the map.

So, I suggest that starting 3 or more games at once with only 3-4 players each is better than starting a single game with 7 players.

I think most of you guys would agree that making 3 turns in 3 various games and then waiting for 2-3 days is better than making 1 turn in a single game and waiting for a week.

[Heresson]

what version are we playing? FW? MGE? TOT?

[Peaster]

Heresson - MGE. Hotseat mode. If you need instructions, look back thru the thread about how to load, play, Ctrl-N and save your game.

Can you play PBEMs with the other Civ2 versions?


ISeeAll - I prefer 7 players too. But PBEMs often start with less and it works out OK. The over-loaded player can treat his 2 civs as allies, trying to gain some advantage, but the other players are free to form alliances themselves. Or, we could ask that player to keep the civs separate - and I'd trust most people to do that.

It is almost certain that someone will drop out eventually, so we must be prepared to allow doubling up [unless we can find subs].

BTW - if you are a novice to PBEMs, this is a pretty good scenario to start on (Seeds #1 was my first). You can probably ally yourself with a veteran, if you want, and get lots of good free advice that way.