Ancient Empires #2

[Heresson]

Yup, You can play hotsit with other versions. There's a mod for it

[Kull]

Originally posted by 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:

RobRoy asked my to drop by and offer some thoughts on the proposed rules. I was pretty naive when I designed the sceanrio, as many of the exploits encountered in Seeds #1 are almost horrifying. As a general rule, the idea of the scenario was to reproduce the "feel" of operating an ancient era empire:

1) Ban unit gifts (Agree - totally nonhistorical - at least to the degree it's used in PBEM)

2) Ban Tech trading/gifting or limit it by:
- no tech trades past monarchy or BW; (Yes - the amount of tech trading in S1 has radically advanced the technology far beyond the game-year)
- at most one tech per 2 turns? or whatever; and/or
- require possession of both prereqs if you want a tech. (Absolutely!!!)

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; (Yes)
- Ban skipping the trade reducing technologies (Bronze Working and Navigation); (Yes)
- Ban caravan rehoming, unless the civ has one of the trade reducing technologies (BW, Nav, or Persian). (Offering some advantage to the Persians - not necessarily this, is OK. Offsetting the impact of the Techs, No)
- Ban tricks to open up supply/demand slots; (??)
- Ban Hides production after first one produced; (??)and/or
- Remove Caravan unit. (No)

4) Limit Hut popping (might obviate need to restrict other areas, such as tech trades/gifts):
- Limit hut-popping to 1 per turn; (meh)
- Obliged a reload if the hut result is a tech; (No)
- Can pop huts only within X tiles of a city (2, 3, 10, 20?); (No)
- Can pop huts blocking river movement, an isthmus, a city site (settler only), or road construction (settler only); and/or (No)
- Remove all huts. (Really No)

5) Limit Slaves (event gifts for killing barb warriors):
- Modify events file to give only money not settlers; and/or (No)
- The veteran NONE homed Settlers can only improve tiles, they can never build cities. (Yes)

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

7) Turn limits: (Good Luck!)
- 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: (No opinion)
- 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. (maybe)
- Civs all stay at permanent war; (No)
- Alliances can exist only if established at game start and have to remain in place throughout the game. (No)

[Addled Platypus]

Originally posted by RobRoy



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.

will play as soon as the save shows up

[RobRoy]

Originally posted by Kull
As a general rule, the idea of the scenario was to reproduce the "feel" of operating an ancient era empire

Thanks for your input Kull. Sounds like most people are leaning toward bans on unit/tech gifting, rather than any limits on goodie huts. I'm thinking the one/turn suggestion could still be considered in a Wrath game, though. Maybe an "offset" for Persia is that they (only) CAN be the recipient of tech "gifts" via F3?

I still think people make way too big a deal out of Caravan rehoming and ignore the micromanagement consequences of a ban. But I'm suspecting I'm a minority here.

Kull, FYI the last couple of trade points refer to some of the micromanagement techniques you can use to boost trade. You can calculate, even influence when/whether/how supply and demand slots will open up in a city - see a couple of threads on it in the Great Library. You can also center your civ around city sites that produce Hides (supply doesn't get blocked off normally), which leads to city placements that really bug me. My bigger concern, though, is that trade micromanagement takes a lot of RL time. But there is a strong incentive to do all these if you can't rehome vans. There is little incentive if you can.

Yes, not banning rehoming would encourage the capital or some other site to become a Super Trade City. But that's better than a bunch of oddly placed Hides cities IMHO. And in my experience, the STC doesn't really outperform a medium sized city that has demand in its favor, given the maximums for the one-time trade bonus. (Although, I'm generally assuming the 2 continent bonus and a capital or decent barb as destination).

@Peaster, the "Slaves can't build cities" constraint is one of the few house rules that I impose on myself in SP, and it works our fine, I think. Did you or someone else voice some concern about that one earlier? Of course, I think the test game suggested that early city building hindered hut exploration, anyway, if you got a horde (which we all did, except the Minoans).

Originally posted by Platypus Rex
will play as soon as the save shows up

Was something wrong with the one posted (post #395)? 'Cause I've probably already deleted it, if there is. I can replay it if you need me to.

[ISeeALL]

Originally posted by RobRoy

My bigger concern, though, is that trade micromanagement takes a lot of RL time.

In fact, I never build caravans in single-player games except for hasting wonders. It's a game, not a job in the end. Also, all these tricks with caravans are so far from reality which Civ2 tries to emulate (managing the empire), that I doubt that Sid Meyer expected any such tricks to exist, and if he would, he would have made a special patch preventing them. He just designed the caravan unit for hasting wonders and for giving a _small_ trade bonus primarily to democratic and republican civilizations. It makes sense to start building caravans when you have built all improvements and aren't in any war. Also, it makes sense, if you build a few caravans, place them on transport and deliver them to some distant city on another continent after a dangerous voyage.

It is obvious, that ship chains were not indended by the designer as well as caravan rehoming, and tweaking trade output of the cities for boosting revenues etc. If we were playing for money, I would understand people who take so much time to exploit game mechanics, but if we are playing to have fun, I don't see the point.


Maybe we should not ban caravans but just introduce a rule forbidding any player to have more than a given number of caravans (active and in production) at any turn. Say, 1 caravan (active or in production) at any turn would be fair. With this house rule, we don't need any bans on rehoming, ship chains or tedious micromanagement.

[Peaster]

Thanks to RobRoy for organizing the rules talks! My opinions:

1) I am OK with a ban on unit gifting - but has anyone played a PBEM that way ? I wonder how a unit would cross thru friendly lands, with ZOC problems and scarce roads.

2) Tech; I like the rule about pre-requisites, which might be enough to slow us down. Also, this play-test has been very non-competitive, but I guess a real game would involve fewer trades (Game #1 tech probably went faster than Kull intended, but much slower than in this playtest). The other tech-rules-ideas are OK with me (IIRC they were mine!) but maybe unnecessary.

3) Vans - Let's keep it simple. No van rehoming + no skipping techs. I don't see how we can rule out hides cities (and I still don't see how rehoming would discourage that). Same for freeing up slots.

I am not SURE what has happened in Game #1, but I suspect most of these subtle trade tricks came from SlowThinker, since he knows them all. I don't - but if anyone else wants to invest the RL time to learn them and use them, it is OK with me. Let their hard work be rewarded! But IMO such tricks do not affect a game as much as barbs, huts, alliances, wars, etc.

4) Hut-popping. IMO "one hut per turn" is reasonable, simple, and good enough. We might also require that all popped huts have to be reported - including results and location (so a King knows when his "turf" has been invaded). IMO barb villages should count as huts in the one-per-turn rule.

5) The proposal that NONE farmers (eg slaves) cannot make cities seems random to me. But I do not object.

6) "No teleporting" is OK with me. But we've seen that an alliance + F3 can cause it.

6b) Diplomacy (eg gold gifts, map trades, etc) is a nice aspect of Civ2. But we should rule out F3 completely, as done in most (all?) other PBEMs. It has too many unpredictable problems.

The alternatives are MP sessions (I hate them, but do not object to others using them) and the Civ2dip utility. I don't insist that everyone uses Civ2dip, but it is probably the standard method now. It should be allowed, at the very least, for those that want to use it.

7) Time limit ... background info: Game #1 has a 72 hour limit, which has been rather hard to enforce. Most players slip up once in a while (overtime at work, bad internet connection, travel, forgetfulness, etc) and hesitate to "punish" their fellow players. AFAIK the EVO players usually have faster limits, but similar problems. There is no perfect solution. I suggest -

* Every player must commit to checking the thread every day and playing promptly, while accepting that they may have to wait a week or two between turns.
* Send an email reminder to the next player, if they say it helps them (this has worked well in Game #1)
* I suggest 24 hours per turn until 3000BC and 48 hours after that. A player can request a specific amount of extra time, but only:
----- before their time is up
----- and they must give a reason
----- the other players should usually say OK, but can say "no" if the reason is poor, or if it happens too often.
* when player "A"s time expires, the clock of player "B" starts. B can wait longer on A, but it comes out of B's playing time (Player C, etc, may not want to wait).
To play, B hits Ctrl-N for player A, and plays his own turn.
* This system would work better with a non-player referee - who is not TOO nice, who can hit Ctrl-N without worrying about seeing any secret stuff. Maybe I can ask ST to help, or maybe my daughter (who has helped in Game #1 a few times).
* A player who must be away more than a few days should arrange for a sub. IMO this could be another player in the same game (though I'd prefer a ref or a non-playing Civ2 friend) - any objections ?

..........................................

The rules used in Game #1 are here (post 694):

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=61306&perpage=30&pagenumber=24

The list may seem long, but IMO they were chosen carefully to prevent exploits, especially ones that novices would never think of trying. I suggest we use them unless they conflict with decisions we make here. All players - Please look them over and state any objections asap.

..........................................
Other ideas:

* ISeeAll suggested running several games at once. My civ2 plate is already pretty full, with Game #1 and CFC GOTMs. But if you want more action, a player in Game #1 is willing to give up his civ (Greece). And the ex-EVO players seem to start new games every week or so.

* Some PBEMs require that you report all battles and/or diplo-acts (such as tech-theft, etc). Maybe even Wonders near completion. This makes the threads more interesting and maybe it hinders cheating. In Game #1, there is no such rule, but most players share news each turn - and I like that. A PBEM is no better than SP if no stories are shared.

Also, I expect my allies (if any) to answer short emails between turns. No rule required - this just makes the game more enjoyable.

Maybe we should not ban caravans but just introduce a rule forbidding any player to have more than a given number of caravans (active and in production) at any turn. Say, 1 caravan (active or in production) at any turn would be fair.

ISeeAll: Many players love to trade; it's one of the 3-4 main features of the game. IMO one van at a time is harsh! If you want to have a limit, it should not include vans for wonders (or food), and IMO it should be much higher... maybe 5 or 10 vans. It takes a long time to send each van across the map.
..............................................
Platy - you're up!

[Peaster]

Hmmm... forgot the last 2 items....

8) It seems that most of us are flexible about which civs we get, and the differences are not as great as in some other scenarios. If a few players can list their top 2 or 3 choices (and the other players are flexible) I can probably assign the civs without problems. If there are conflicts, I'd probably favor the novices and then the players who have been waiting the longest (eg myself ).

9) IMO diplomacy with humans is the main attraction of PBEMs over SP. So, I think there should be no rules on it. However - - - the game should NOT degenerate into "Let's all beat up on the evil Minoans!" unless the evil Minoans did something evil in public to deserve that. So, I think we should try to avoid forming large alliances, and tech-trading networks, but I can't suggest a specific rule on that. I do suggest

* The game should have a single winner, not an alliance. If the games ends early, we should discuss who was ahead, and perhaps agree/vote on a winner.

Platy - see above....

[Peaster]

One more minor rule - In Game #1, Persia (me) stole the Golden Fleece, several turns before the events file created Jason to take it for Greece. I thought this was a brilliant exploit of the events.txt file, and nobody said it was a dirty trick (nobody used the word "brilliant" either, though). But IMO Greece really should get that 500g, as Kull surely intended. I propose -

* Jason's 500g must go to Greece, and Sinbad's 500g must go to Persia. Eg, no other civ is allowed to attack those 2 barbs (the other 5 civs cannot get a reward anyway).

[RobRoy]

Originally posted by Peaster
1) I am OK with a ban on unit gifting - but has anyone played a PBEM that way ? I wonder how a unit would cross thru friendly lands, with ZOC problems and scarce roads.

Haven't played it PBEM, but have in .net sessions awhile ago. Crossing "friendly" lands was never really feasible without alliances. Road networks tended to be fairly robust, probably because all the slaves were out there building roads, not cities.

So we need to allow alliances, at least, which means we need to think about breaking them. I still don't think teleporting when an alliance is broken has nearly as much exploitive potential as the possibilities of staying in position when an alliance is broken. The only examples anyone gave really were unit gifting exploits.

Originally posted by Peaster
2) Tech; I like the rule about pre-requisites, which might be enough to slow us down. Also, this play-test has been very non-competitive, but I guess a real game would involve fewer trades ...The other tech-rules-ideas are OK with me (IIRC they were mine!) but maybe unnecessary.

Along the keep it simple theme, why don't we just go back to a complete ban on diplomatic tech gifts, with the possible exception of the Persians as recipients. If people wait before building up cities and/or don't try to defend them, everyone should get a reasonable number of hut techs. We'd keep the prerequisite rule to cover thefts, city looting, etc. If players want to set up and exchange a border city as a means of sharing techs, that doesn't seem so bad since it commits significant units and resources, carries some risk of exposure, and is limited by its nature.

Originally posted by Peaster
3) Vans - Let's keep it simple. No van rehoming + no skipping techs. I don't see how we can rule out hides cities (and I still don't see how rehoming would discourage that). Same for freeing up slots.

I am not SURE what has happened in Game #1, but I suspect most of these subtle trade tricks came from SlowThinker, since he knows them all. I don't - but if anyone else wants to invest the RL time to learn them and use them, it is OK with me. Let their hard work be rewarded! But IMO such tricks do not affect a game as much as barbs, huts, alliances, wars, etc.

But banning 'van rehoming doesn't keep it simple - quite the opposite! Maybe it's not feasible to rule out Hide cities and trade micromanagement. But you won't even need to, if you don't ban rehoming. Personally, I won't see much need to engage in them if I can rehome caravans, 'cause I'll get the same bang per buck with less RL effort. If I can't rehome, I perceive a strong incentive to center my civ around Hides cities, rather than "special" tiles, or defensive terrain or historical precedent, even if they are 2-3 spaces apart. And even if I'm not in ST's league, I absolutely will feel compelled to carefully plan my moves and trading to free up supply and demand slots. So much for the quick, fun, casual game we had during our test.

The simpler exploit obviates the need to engage in the more complex exploit and the need for rules to control them. I don't think we should be rewarding that kind of hard work, mostly 'cause I'm lazy and don't really want to do it.

Originally posted by Peaster
4) Hut-popping. IMO "one hut per turn" is reasonable, simple, and good enough. We might also require that all popped huts have to be reported - including results and location (so a King knows when his "turf" has been invaded). IMO barb villages should count as huts in the one-per-turn rule.

1/turn sounds reasonable. Like the reporting, though perhaps not the location (too much information?). Barb slave raids could also be limited to 1/turn (in addition to or instead of?)


On other rules, I don't think the auto-irrigation feature banned in game #1 is a big deal. And I think it unevenly hurts Persians, who don't need any more hurt.

Civ selection. Yeah, a mini-preference list to you would probably work. But let's wait until we decide on rules. I don't want to be bidding for Minoans then have everyone ban ship chaining. And the Persians still need help, I think.
You should consider time zones and schedules, too, perhaps. There were a few times when you to ISeeALL to me to Platy enable us to get an entire turn done in a single day!

Possible sops to Persians: Allow them to buy techs (i.e., tech gifting even if we ban it for others)? 'Van rehoming (even if we ban it for others, which I don't think we should do)? Any other possibilities?

But yeah, we probably shouldn't let Persian steal the Fleece.

[Addled Platypus]

could not see the forrest through the trees and trying to keep up with the ideas


playing shortly

[Addled Platypus]

turn on

http://apolyton.net/upload/view.php?file=22570_ha_b3100.hot

[Peaster]

Originally posted by RobRoy

So we need to allow alliances, at least, which means we need to think about breaking them. I still don't think teleporting when an alliance is broken has nearly as much exploitive potential as the possibilities of staying in position when an alliance is broken. The only examples anyone gave really were unit gifting exploits.

The other Game #1 players seemed very much against teleporting, even in this case. But no perfect solution emerged. I am OK with it. With "reasonable" players [not trying to take undue advantage] a civ2dip divorce also works OK.

Along the keep it simple theme, why don't we just go back to a complete ban on diplomatic tech gifts
.....
We'd keep the prerequisite rule to cover thefts, city looting, etc.

Ouch! I played a few turns for Persia and Greece in this test - both intentionally deprived of monarchy and military techs. Pretty frustrating IMO. I was hoping for a balance between the free-for-all that Assyria + Egypt + Hattas + Minoans enjoyed in this playtest, and the prolonged caveman stage of the Persians + Greeks.

I hadn't thought about tech-thefts. These have not occured in Game #1 AFAIK. And I forget - does the thief have a choice of the tech, or get one at random (causing trouble for our pre-req idea)? IIRC you DO have a choice when city-looting, so this cause no new problems.

But banning 'van rehoming doesn't keep it simple - quite the opposite! .... The simpler exploit obviates the need to engage in the more complex exploit and the need for rules to control them. I don't think we should be rewarding that kind of hard work, mostly 'cause I'm lazy and don't really want to do it.

Maybe I am missing something, but I'd expect that rehoming + Hides cities is better for a civ's economy than rehoming without Hides. So, planning on Hides still pays off - probably even more than in Game #1. I don't see how the science cap helps, since Hides are about unlimited quantity of vans - not the size of the bonus.

ISeeAll's idea of a limit on the number of vans would probably exert more control over Hides. Maybe on the free-slot exploit , too.

1/turn sounds reasonable. Like the reporting, though perhaps not the location (too much information?). Barb slave raids could also be limited to 1/turn (in addition to or instead of?)

I am flexible about all this, but imagined one hut OR slave raid per turn per civ.

On other rules, I don't think the auto-irrigation feature banned in game #1 is a big deal. And I think it unevenly hurts Persians, who don't need any more hurt.

You understand that it allows irrigation in regions far from water ? It seems odd, but I agree it is not a big deal.

Possible sops to Persians: Allow them to buy techs (i.e., tech gifting even if we ban it for others)? 'Van rehoming (even if we ban it for others, which I don't think we should do)? Any other possibilities?

Well do I know the Persians have some problems, since I have played them for 2 years in Game #1! But in that game, Persia suffered many Ctrl-Ns before I took over. Also, IMO the previous player did not negotiate decent borders, didn't accept free tech gifts, etc. But I think the civ is quite playable at the start [good defensive terrain + access to Asia]. A few limits on mega-trading, maybe even the Wrath feature alone, should be enough to give the Persians even chances. If we DO ban tech-gifts, we might make an exception for Persia b/c of the hut problem.

Bostero (aka Dario), Straybow, Heresson - feel free to join the rules talks.

Heresson - your turn, to play the bloodthirsty Assyrians. Pls let us know if you have any problems with the scenario/etc, or if you are not yet ready to go.

[RobRoy]

Originally posted by Peaster
Ouch! I played a few turns for Persia and Greece in this test - both intentionally deprived of monarchy and military techs. Pretty frustrating IMO. I was hoping for a balance between the free-for-all that Assyria + Egypt + Hattas + Minoans enjoyed in this playtest, and the prolonged caveman stage of the Persians + Greeks.

Yeah, I played 'em a bit too. But I'm thinking that the tech sharing got out of hand, 'cause it was SOOOO mutually beneficial. Everyone won, even if some won more than others - too bad real life's not that way. But one lesson learned from the test was that hut chasing seemed to outperform early city building, under Wrath, at least. Do you disagree? The Greeks should've been able to take most of the huts the Minoans stole, which would've given them something, if they weren't trying to defend those other two cities. The Persians don't really count, 'cause they're an exception either way. I waffle on this one - a run of bad luck could hit anyone. A limit on gifts/trades to Monarchy or BW seemed reasonable when you first proposed it. But now I'm thinking it might mean everyone quickly gets to BW or Monarchy or whatever. Maybe that's a good thing? Or we could designate a few key military techs as tradeable? Leather Armor, The Wheel? Prereqs have to be included/go first, I guess.

Originally posted by Peaster
I hadn't thought about tech-thefts. These have not occured in Game #1 AFAIK. And I forget - does the thief have a choice of the tech, or get one at random (causing trouble for our pre-req idea)? IIRC you DO have a choice when city-looting, so this cause no new problems.

Yeah, thefts are random for standard dips, which I think is what the Royal Envoy is. If someone gets Spoked Wheels, say, before BW, not a huge problem, they just HAVE to select BW next time they can choose (and no setting research to zero in that case). As long as they have to get it eventually, the intent is still being honored. Some civs will still delay BW, but that's okay...they'll have to get it eventually or be left in the Bronze Age.

Originally posted by Peaster
Maybe I am missing something, but I'd expect that rehoming + Hides cities is better for a civ's economy than rehoming without Hides. So, planning on Hides still pays off - probably even more than in Game #1. I don't see how the science cap helps, since Hides are about unlimited quantity of vans - not the size of the bonus.

ISeeAll's idea of a limit on the number of vans would probably exert more control over Hides. Maybe on the free-slot exploit , too.

Two different issues: supply management and demand management. But if I can rehome, I'm not worrying about supply at all, and demand only sometimes. I'll have plenty of cities that can produce vans: some will always have an open slot if you're often rehoming them to the STC (which, don't forget, means you forgo the ongoing bonus after the first three, so people will choose not to rehome in many situations). Since I know I'll have plenty of 'vans, why would I try to get eight Hides cities in otherwise suboptimal locations? A Hides city is only valuable to me if I'm in a situation where I might run out of 'vans. And most civs will get one or two, anyway, without really trying, if you need them for some demand reason (unlikely, IMHO).

There is a practical limit on delivery, anyway, of two-three per turn, given that the most profitable deliveries are going to be at the end of ship chains; that's usually enough for a tech advance, through mid-game. But that might be a candidate restriction if we want to go with ISeeALL's idea for a hard limit - "can't deliver more 'vans than you need for a tech advance". That may not be much of a limit maybe? Hard limits seem to violate the K.I.S.S. principle, so I'm a bit skeptical about them (vagueness, unforeseen consequences, slippery slope, and all that), but I could live with them, I guess.


Other things:

- Slaves=huts for 1/turn House Rule restriction sounds okay. Reporting would also help people remember that they shouldn't do more than one per turn (I'd be likely to forget if I didn't report it). Anything that generates an event message, like slaves, need to be reported, anyway, since we don't all see those in hotseat mode (and Hittites will still need to assume a special responsibility for reporting barb and event messages to everyone).

- Yes, irrigation far from water would be possible, but I doubt anyone but Persians will do it, since everyone else has plenty of water and you always forget about 'em and find them X turns later doing something stupid. Plus, at the risk of engaging in a pointless realism argument, lots of RL irrigation is well/aquifer based. White noise anyway, to anyone but the Persians.

- Speaking of one-sided white noise, I don't like the "unsinkable ships" ban you've got it game #1. It's another tiny issue, but it dis-proportionately affects the Minoans, or naval wannabes. I've never understood why on earth you would force a player to risk sinking their ship. The exploit costs the player a significant reduction in movement (33%, I believe), a fair cost for a bit of safety, IMHO.

- Persians: I know you've experienced them, but you'll want to play someone else this time, I suspect. The corner, Asia, and some defensive terrain are helpful, but they're much more barb-exposed than the other two corner civs (Greeks, Minoans), although Persians have slightly better access to huts. The more I think about them, the more I think THEY, at least SHOULD get an exception from any tech sharing limitations (since they have an involuntary exception to receiving techs from huts). Similarly, I'm becoming attached to the idea of THEM at least, being allowed to engage in the evil practice of 'van rehoming, since they get that involuntary trade penalty, even though I don't think it'll help them that much trade-wise. 'Course, I still think everyone should be allowed to rehome, but I sense I'm not convincing anyone.

@ISeeALL - I don't see a big problem with ship chains, though some people don't like them. With the road multiplier at 4 and units with 3-4 movement points, you can move land units quite a ways across the map in a turn. Ship movement SHOULD be faster IMHO. And if you have enough boats it CAN be, but it requires a significant resource investment. I don't like arguing desinger's intent, but I've got old manuals and "official" Strategy Guides that mention the practice, so it doesn't seem quite as egregious as some exploits. More importantly, for us, banning it hurts the Minoans dis-proportionately, I'd say. But you do get a nice side benefit from Wrath, as I can attest from the test game as the Minoans...lots of pirates. Even when they were too weak to threaten Palace Guard(ed) cities, they certainly made my boats run to ports. Those ship chains WILL take casualties in this game (assuming we stick with Wrath mode). And caravan delivery, especially by sea, IS going to be more problematic.

Multiple games and/or smaller, quicker games might be an interesting option, but let's get one 7-player one started first. Certainly when we were four, we moved more quickly than seven will. If people drop, and subs aren't available we can either double up or let the AI handle the civ. I don't like the idea of one civ "taking over" another, though. As Peaster said, the EVO-immigrants seem to be starting new games frequently, if you've enough free time and interest, and I don't think they're restricting the new ones.

So, Bostero, Straybow, Heresson, should we assume you're okay with whatever the consensus comes up with? Silence is consent? Straybow, you expressed reservations about Wrath, itself, but I was sorta assuming we'd keep it up, since we'd gotten it working reasonably well, and I'd thought it added a big, interesting, but manageable twist to the game. But if you're REALLY hesitant about it, sing out sooner rather than later, 'cause our House Rules debate generally assumes we're talking about a Wrath, deity, hotseat, etc. game, as in our test.

@Heresson - you're up for the Assyrians, let us know if you have questions, problems. Better to get problems out of the way in a practice session. Remeber we're doing hotseat mode. You'll load Platypus' file, as the previous player (so you'll be the Babylonians for a second, try to ignore map, gold, etc. - awkward, I know), press ENTER quickly to get to the Assyrians, play your turn, press Ctrl-N when you're done (but NOT ENTER), center the map on an out-of-the-way area (I use upper right corner), and save (you should still be the Assyrians). Then you'll upload your Assyrian save for Peaster to play the Egyptians. And don't forget the Hittites are your best friends...and you hate the Babylonians...and Persians...and Egyptians...

[Heresson]

Sorry, bad luck. I'm just leaving (leaving my house in 5 minutes or so) to Warsaw for my firend's wedding party. I'm coming back the day after tomorrow. Sorry for delay.

[Peaster]

@Heresson - OK, no problem. Unless someone objects very soon, I'll play Assyria this turn, since Egypt follows them anyway. Let's see - Platy said they were at war with the Hittites and Minoans ?