Ancient Empires #2

[Addled Platypus]

I will go with the majority

[Heresson]

oh, clearly I'm against point 5b

[RobRoy]

Originally posted by Peaster
I may step in later as a benevolent dictator (eg the thread starter) and make some decisions...OK?

That should help move us forward.

@Peaster and Heresson. Did I read your votes correctly on unit gifting? You WANT to include unit gifting? I didn't think we were banning something standard, I'd thought we were choosing not to introduce something highly problematic. Didn't Game #1 players (including you, Peaster) conclude that all kinds of exploits stemed from, or were associated with, unit gifting? But if we want it, since it's handled differently under .hot F3 and .net F3, we really have to be careful how we propose to deal with it in our game. And if we're talking about introducing it as the Civ2Dip utility handles it (with completely different methods on relocation and homing, as I understand it), we all need to understand, better than I do now, why those methods were imposed over the standard F3 approach - were there coding constraints or were these conscious decisions to change these rules? I fear our house rules discussion has just grown more painful.

Clarifying other stuff:

3a) No van rehoming: Seems approx 2-2: Pe+ K+ R- H- I+ Pl?
3b) No skipping BW/Nav: Passing.... Pe+ R+ K+ I+
3c) No slot tricks (rule details and opinions on it are unclear to me): R+ Pe- I+
3d) Anti-Hides rule: Failing.....R+ Pe- H- K- I+

FYI, I recognize that you can't really restrict micromanagement and Hides cities; it's just not feasible. I'm really trying to point out the inconsistency of banning simple exploits like 'van rehoming, while allowing (actually encouraging, IMHO) more complex ones (which tend to have unfortunate game effects and a RL time cost).


4) Limit hut pops: needs more talk.... Pe+ R+ H- K- (Pl-?) I+

Specifically, I think Peaster is referring to the 1/turn limit, which is probably the easiest to implement, although there were several others discussed. Most of these started as discussions on slowing down tech acquisition. But the lucky "rich get richer" phenomena may need addressing in its own right.


6) Ban teleports: Passing.... Pe+ K+ R- H= I+

People wanting to ban "teleports" are aware that they will be changing the way alliances and cancellations work, right? You would be allowing units to stay in now enemy territory when an alliance is cancelled (potentially quite deep in enemy territory). And it means that you cannot cancel alliances via F3, but will have to introduce Civ2Dip or use hex-editing or some other mechanism to effect the cancellation. It also means you could never demand foreign units withdraw from your territory, or face war, via F3 diplomacy.


12) Report battles: Passing .... Pe+ R+ I+

You're also talking here about reporting hut results too, IIRC, right? Which should also make the early game a tad more interesting.

Originally posted by Heresson
oh, clearly I'm against point 5b

You're aware that we're not talking about a unit type, right? By "Slaves", we are referring only to those Settler/Farmer units that are generated via event during a raid on barb towns. "The defeated survivors are enslaved and sent to till the fields of...", and they appear as veteran NONE homed Farmers near the capitals. Since the Kull has voted, I now view those words as desinger intent, not just flavor.

Originally posted by Platypus Rex
I will go with the majority

Platy, I think we will all go with the majority. It'd be more helpful if you could expand your input just a tad, particularly if there is an area that you feel strongly about.

For example, having participated in most of the test game, how do you feel about...say...tech gifting? Do you want something like the hut-based tech sharing network to develop in a real game? Or not? This is the most complex one, IMHO, and I think most of us feel ambivalent about it. The speed of tech development seems awfully fast if we share/gift, but the proposals to check it, also have problems. A complete ban is fairly easy to implement, as is "no restrictions", but both have big consequences. More modest restrictions will have their own issues...

And you may've missed it, but you're up, Platy. For the Babs only. Heresson is back and said he'll do the Assyrians. If you don't get to the Babs before the 24 hours, he'll probably do them for you. Right Heresson?

[Heresson]

I understand point 5b. I've played alone a couple of turns, But I find it restricting in the most basic part of the game, that is building cities, so Im against it.

[ISeeALL]

Originally posted by Heresson
I understand point 5b. I've played alone a couple of turns, But I find it restricting in the most basic part of the game, that is building cities, so Im against it.

True. It would take ages for our civs to get close on such a big map unless we use that free settlers for settling. Also, since barbarian warriors have defense value 2 they are not so easily defeated in the beginning of the game. That's why there should be a reward for defeating them, like a plain free settler. That's why I vote against 5b.

In fact, I would like if all civs were given a dozen of free settlers from the very beginning to get the game running. The map is just too large. If it were smaller, few settler would be ok.

[Addled Platypus]

re downloading save, playing shortly

[Addled Platypus]

it will be several turns before anything to exciting happens, only 3 barb units left

http://apolyton.net/upload/view.php?file=22570_ha_b3080.hot

My only major concern is keeping within the turn limit

I have not played the game a whole lot to know about all those exploit lisited, knew some.

welll do a list breakdown after work

[Peaster]

Originally posted by RobRoy

You WANT to include unit gifting? .... Didn't Game #1 players (including you, Peaster) conclude that all kinds of exploits stemed from, or were associated with, unit gifting?

I have never been 100% sure of which Game #1 exploits bother you. I am not too upset by them. In our playtest, I realized (for example) that Minoan boats cannot help the Assyrian van reach Minos. Just seems unnatural, probably because I'm used to unit-gifting now.

But the votes seem to be in favor of a ban, and that's OK. IMO we should avoid F3 (which AFAIK is very much NON-standard in PBEMS), and I guess only 3 or 4 players have civ2dip. So it might be hard to make gifts anyway.

3c) No slot tricks (rule details and opinions on it are unclear to me): R+ Pe- I+ ...

FYI, I recognize that you can't really restrict micromanagement and Hides cities; it's just not feasible.

I'm really trying to point out the inconsistency of banning simple exploits like 'van rehoming, while allowing (actually encouraging, IMHO) more complex ones (which tend to have unfortunate game effects and a RL time cost).

You're probably tired of explaining this, but I still don't completely get it. Most players (eg in CFC GOTMs) feel the civ2 design team did not intend to allow van rehoming, so it is ruled illegal in GOTMs, and probably in most PBEMs (not 100% sure). The slots/hides techniques ARE considered legitimate, but AFAIK most players don't understand them or don't bother to use them.

I understand that rules should generally maximize the fun of the game, but I don't see how that relates to rehoming vans.

Anyway are you saying that 3c and 3d are not "serious"? Should we remove them then ?

4) Limit hut pops: needs more talk.... Pe+ R+ H- K- (Pl-?) I+

Specifically, I think Peaster is referring to the 1/turn limit, which is probably the easiest to implement, although there were several others discussed. Most of these started as discussions on slowing down tech acquisition. But the lucky "rich get richer" phenomena may need addressing in its own right.

Yes, I was thinking of 1/t, but we can talk about any other ideas. Maybe in the real game, players will have greater territorial instincts, and inhibit the Hittite adventurers more than in the playtest. Game #1 turned out fairly well-balanced (don't know how - I wasn't there at the start).

6) Ban teleports: Passing.... Pe+ K+ R- H= I+

People wanting to ban "teleports" are aware that they will be changing the way alliances and cancellations work, right? ......

I am very much against teleporting via F3-unit-gifts; too easy to exploit that. Teleporting when ending an alliance is OK with me (see recent Game#1 talks on this). Ending an alliance with civ2dip [no teleporting] doesn't seem bad either, but might require more rules to prevent abuses. And civ2dip seems way more reliable than F3.

BTW - there is a universal PBEM rule which we need not even vote on - Never use F3 without permission of the other King.

12) Report battles: Passing .... Pe+ R+ I+

You're also talking here about reporting hut results too, IIRC, right? Which should also make the early game a tad more interesting.

Ermmm. Yes. If nobody objects, I suggest we report

*battles (barb ones only briefly - but player vs player ones should include location and unit types at least)
*actions by envoys (thefts, embassies....)
*huts, barb villages, and other events (eg the Fleece)

] Originally posted by ISeeAll
It would take ages for our civs to get close on such a big map unless we use that free settlers for settling.

Not sure. In the playtest, I think RobRoy has a zillion Hittite slaves making roads. He may actually bring the distant civs together faster that way than by settling.

I am more afraid that [with no tech trading] we'll all be in despotism until Sept 2007, unable to make more than 5 cities because of unhappiness. Maybe even worse - that one of us will NOT be in despotism that long!

I will update my votes-post to include Heresson's 5b and ISeeAll's votes. I guess we can start play soon, probably within a week ? This thread is now one year old, and I've seen several players come and go.....

[Bostero]

unit gifting via civdip is drastically a problem to implement. i see that feature was really bad coded in that tool. i dislike it!
i wanted to make it to know you people!

[Peaster]

Let me introduce Bostero aka Dario. He is a crazy from Argentina that plays 10 PBEMs at a time, mostly with the other EVO players. So, he probably has good ideas about rules.

Dario - Why don't you like civ2dip gifts ? The homing problem ? Does this mean you vote for the rule against giving and trading units, or maybe you like the F3 method better ?

You can vote on all the proposed rules.

[Peaster]

Looks like these will pass:
1) Ban unit-gifts
2b) and 3b) Pre-req rule
3a) No van rehoming
7) 24hr Time limit
10) Wrath version
11) No Auto-Settlers
12) Report battles
15) Fleece-to-Greece
17) No unsinkable ships
18) Other Game#1 rules

And these will fail:
3d) Anti-Hides
3e) No vans
9) No diplomacy
3c) "no slots tricks" can't pass 'til someone writes a rule!

Some of the close calls could be split up or improved a little. Maybe we'll get more of a consensus that way. Please comment or re-vote on these:

Let's split proposal 2a) into:
2aA) Ban tech gifts/trades entirely: Pe- Pl- R+
2aB) Limit them (eg No player can get more than 1 tech per 3 turns via gifts/trades (does not include thefts, conquests, or beakers)): Pe+ Pl+ R-

Split 4) into:
4a) Limit to 1 hut pop per turn: Pe+ R+
4b) Some other limit on hut pops (pls specify asap): Pe=

Since we are banning unit gifts, 6) is really:
6b) Ban teleporting via F3 end-of-alliance: Pe= R- Pl+(?)
Note: you can only end an alliance thru F3 or Civ2dip.

I guess people can suggest other ways to handle the close votes, and it's not too late for new proposals. But it's more fun to play than legislate, so I hope to settle all this within a few more days.

Other Remarks:
3c) Anyone have a specific rule in mind here?
5a): IMO a limit of 1 village per turn would have almost no effect, but RobRoy says it would. IMO incluson into 4a is a decent compromise. More comments ?
5b), 13) and 14) : Let's wait for more votes.

[Heresson]

I got lost. tell me when it's my turn

[ISeeALL]

Originally posted by Peaster
and it's not too late for new proposals. .

I have question about the Early Sail unit. is it supposed to be free from trireme disadvantage of sinking when away from coast?

[Addled Platypus]

surf board crash, and other woes

will try again later tonight

[RobRoy]

Originally posted by Peaster
Most players...feel the civ2 design team did not intend to allow van rehoming... The slots/hides techniques ARE considered legitimate, but AFAIK most players don't understand them or don't bother to use them.

I understand that rules should generally maximize the fun of the game, but I don't see how that relates to rehoming vans.

Opinions on the design team's intent are mixed and not particularly useful arguments, IMHO. Most players also doubt that they intended for Hides caravans to be practically inexhaustable. Most players also doubt they intended to allow mining of a hilltop city. Most players doubt we were intended to know which years are best for engaging in revolutions. I'm sure I can find many more if I try; the game we have includes flaws or features that many of us don't like. But our attempts at guessing and correcting them generally introduce more problems than they solve, IMHO. Hence my initial prejudice that NO HOUSE RULES is probably the best course of action.

For trade, just go to the Great Library section at Apolyton. There are several useful threads about overall trade management and opening up supply and demand slots. ST contributed to many of them. But the recognized master is/was Samsun, I believe.

The problem with this type of micromanagement is its complexity and the RL time it will consume. Perhaps some players enjoy it. I do not. Yet if you restrict simple, easily understood, easily copied exploits, like 'van rehoming, you encourage people to find other ways to increase their 'van returns. Because you know that some people will have the time/energy/interest to maximize trade returns, you will feel some pressure to engage in the same practices. And you'll need to do some of it in the very early game. For example, cities in locations that produce Hide are just better, and will trump other placement criteria (like spacing, defensibility, access to good terrain/specials, and historical precedent).

I don't really think it's desirable to ban these type of exploits, probably not even feasible. But if we're banning 'van rehoming, we must recognized that we're encouraging the use of these methods. With the simpler exploits available, there is little incentive to engage in the more complex, boring, and time consuming ones, since you get about the same "bang", in my experience. You just won't need to.

Originally posted by Peaster
Please comment or re-vote on these:

2aA) Ban tech gifts/trades entirely: Pe- R+
- I'd prefer no ban or a complete ban. K.I.S.S.

2aB) No player can get more than 1 tech per 3 turns via gifts/trades (does not include thefts, conquests, or beakers): Pe+ R-
- Crossing 1 turn might be feasible, I'm likely to forget what I did two turns ago.

Split 4) into:
4a) Limit to 1 hut pop per turn: Pe+ R+
- If we're going to limit huts, this is easiest to implement.

4b) Some other limit on hut pops (pls specify): Pe=

Split 6) into:
6a) Ban teleporting via F3 giving: Pe+ R-
- Not an issue if we don't include unit gifting, which I'd be happy to exclude. But if we do allow it, my prejudice is to do it they way it was designed, which does include telporting in some situations.

6b) Ban teleporting via F3 end-of-alliance: Pe= R-
- I don't see the abusive potential here. I see abusive potential if your former ally, now enemy, is suddenly deep within your territory. Isn't this a clear and undesirable change to the game's design?

5a): IMO a limit of 1 village per turn will have almost no effect. A limit of 1 every 3 turns, or 5 turns (or including villages into 4a) would have some effect. Comments ?
- 1 per any other number gets harder to implement. Include it with a simple 1/turn hut limit or don't limit them at all.

I think you also asked for clarification on my unit gifting thoughts. My concerns about how it's used in Game #1:
- That your attempts to limit abusive exploits, by introducing Civ2Dip, have actually modified the way certain mechanisms work in the game (relocation and rehoming is changed). Perhaps those are improvements, but to me there is a higher bar for introducing new, different, or changed mechanisms into the game than there is to limit or ban a practice that already exists within the game engine;
- I thought all of the players from that game (you, ST, Kull, maybe even Straybow) that had come here and commented about it implied that most of the undesirable exploits found in that game were related to the way you handled unit gifting. Didn't Kull just call them "horrifying". But perhaps, I misunderstood... Some of the trade exploits, combined with unit gifting, strike me as a bit extreme, since you can't quite replicate them using the standard rules; and
- It'll take way too much RL time to engage in some of these practices. But if we introduce them, some people will take advantage of them, pressuring the rest to do so, as well (just like trade micromanagement).

Originally posted by ISeeALL
I have question about the Early Sail unit. is it supposed to be free from trireme disadvantage of sinking when away from coast?

Yes

Originally posted by Heresson
I got lost. tell me when it's my turn

It's your turn.


Edited: clarified unit gifting concerns and 5a. 5a is referring to slave raids on barb towns, right?