Ancient Empires #2

[Heresson]

but the sav platypus posted is for babylonians or something?

[RobRoy]

Originally posted by Heresson
but the sav platypus posted is for babylonians or something?

Yes, that's as it should be. We are playing hotseat mode rather than .net mode, because barbarians seem to work properly in .hot but not .net. So that is one oddity about how we conduct our turns - you always load as the previous player (we could have players increment their own turn, but then we'd get a glimpse of the following player's situation...we've decided that the exposure of the previous players situation would be quicker). There are more detailed instructions in earlier posts, but to summarize:

- You'll load Platypus' file, so you'll be the Babylonians for a second. Try to ignore map, gold, etc. - awkward, I know - but he should have centered the screen on an out of the way place;

- Press ENTER immediately to get to the Assyrians,

- Play your turn (this should include being nice to the Hittites);

- 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), some people also make the map tiny (Shift-X, I think);

- Save (you should still be the Assyrians);

- Upload your Assyrian save for Peaster to play the Egyptians.

Did I mention the enduring Hittite - Assyrian alliance?

[Peaster]

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. These don't sink: Early Sail, Merchant ship.
These sink: Troop Galley, all military ships til Bireme II.

You can get this info from rules.txt, or from player-made charts (IIRC links are in Game#1 or Kull's site).

[Heresson]

here it goes

[Peaster]

IMO RobRoy's comments about teleporting make sense. It appears we will ban unit-gifting which means we don't need rule 6a). Rule 6b) implies that the only way to end an alliance is with civ2dip, which is a problem if either player doesn't have it.

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.

This is the part of your rehoming argument that I don't accept (yet). I imagine that trade micromanagement will pay off with rehoming or without it - which doesn't bother me much.

[Peaster]

Egypt: Down to 8 visible desert barbs; one defeated. Our merchant approaches Minos cautiously - pirates abound.

[RobRoy]

Originally posted by Peaster
This is the part of your rehoming argument that I don't accept (yet). I imagine that trade micromanagement will pay off with rehoming or without it - which doesn't bother me much.

hmmm...is the "yet" a sign of wavering? Or exhaustion? Yes, if you think people will still see an incentive to engage in the more complex exploits, anyway, I can understand your reluctance. Perhaps I'm not thinking sufficiently exploitively and there is abusive potential I'm not really recognizing. 'Van delivery will be more challenging with barbs, but we can't really rely on barbs alone to keep players in line.

But, speaking for myself, if I'm often rehoming 'vans to a STC, I see zero need to engage in an awkward Hides focus for my city sites - I know I'd have plenty of 'vans around to deliver and the constraint won't be 'van supply. And I can't see why I'd be more than slightly concerned with demand if I have access to a reasonable target city (capital or barb) on another continent far enough away. Maybe late game you might get enough techs that the trade bonus cap won't be reached by a normal van from your STC. Or maybe, temporarily, demand management would be useful after you get BW or Navigation, until you build Trade Centers and become Republic or WLTK.

I am making assumptions about the number of 'vans that can realistically be delivered profitably, given limitations on ship resources (probably 2-3 per turn through most of the mid-game, I'd say). If people are able to combine exploits, and maintain multiple ship chains, or generate a land-only caravan route that can generate more than 150 gold, there is probably more abusive potential than I am recognizing, whether rehoming is involved or not.

ISeeALL suggested a hard cap on building 'vans. I countered with a hard cap on delivering 'vans. Maybe we should consider these more seriously? If we exempt food/wonder 'vans, wouldn't a hard cap on delivery check most potential abuses, both those we know about and those we can't really foresee? The cap could be 1/turn or whatever number is enough to generate a science advance (i.e., you can't deliver another 'van if your beakers are full - which might also force earlier acquisition of BW than players might otherwise).

Speaking of ISeeALL, you're up!

[Heresson]

ah, should I have reported the battles? I've killed three barb units i think, 2 of some kind of infantry, and one reminding a ram.

[ISeeALL]

minor barbs killed

[Addled Platypus]

my .0002

these are my offical votes

1) Ban unit-gifts: agreed

2a) Ban/limit tech gifts: limit

2b) Pre-req rule: Passing.... agreed

3a) No van rehoming: agreed

3b) No skipping BW/Nav: BW/Nav -spell it out for me

3c) No slot tricks (rule not clear?): never heard of it-agreed

3d) Anti-Hides (rule not clear?): never heard of it-agreed

3e) No vans: Failing .... agreed

4) Limit hut pops: needs more talk.... huts without techs ?, go ahead pop all the barbs/ money you want

5a) Limit slave gathering: no limit

5b) Slaves can't make cities: close vote.... disagree

6) Ban teleports: Passing.... agreed

7) Time limit: I work nights, overtime comes without notice and the "overtime" season is fast approaching

8) Choosing civs can wait a bit.

9) No diplomacy: Failing.... no diplo

10) Wrath version: Passing... never heard of it

11) No Auto-Settlers: can it go both ways (least important rule to me)

12) Report battles: yes

13) Limit van numbers: no limit

14) Single winner game: Needs talk....

15) Fleece-to-Greece: Passing.... never heard of it

16) Sops to Persia (maybe discuss this last): never heard of it

17) No unsinkable ships: by war yes, if you move farther by mistake yes

[Peaster]

Originally posted by RobRoy

hmmm...is the "yet" a sign of wavering? Or exhaustion?

Well, I've never felt very strongly about rehoming vans... I'm not really arguing at full throttle here. It's illegal in my PEBMs/GOTMS, so this difference would be just one more thing to keep straight in my feeble memory, and it'd probably feel a little like cheating at first.

I know I'd have plenty of 'vans around to deliver and the constraint won't be 'van supply.

Some Game #1 players have told me their supplies are blocked, and they are short on vans (but then they make a Wonder a few turns later....). I have made very few deliveries as Persia, so I haven't had that problem.

ISeeALL suggested a hard cap on building 'vans. I countered with a hard cap on delivering 'vans.

I missed your counter about a cap on deliveries. Yes, that might be simpler. But IMO 1/turn is too low; a troop galley holds 3 vans, often delivering them all in the same turn. Without unit gifting to ease travel, vans on land will probably also travel in packs. And by the time we have 30 cities each, 1/t will be a real hardship... you can run out of worthy things to build after a while.

Dunno about tying the van cap to tech advances; I think some players often keep science at zero, researching nothing. Others, nearing their next tech, would be "penalized" - forced to wait. The rule could get awkward. BTW - I don't mind using an honor system, but this rule seems especially hard to enforce. Should we also require reports of van deliveries?

Anyway, this is another rule I'm queezy on, but don't feel strongly about - if you and ISeeAll can agree on something (preferably with a cap higher than 1) I probably will agree too.

If nobody objects, I will remove proposal 3c), about slot tricks, since we haven't formulated any specific rule about it.

[ISeeALL]

Originally posted by Peaster
Anyway, this is another rule I'm queezy on, but don't feel strongly about - if you and ISeeAll can agree on something (preferably with a cap higher than 1) I probably will agree too.

Heh
I didn't have any special feelings about vans before my first PBEM, where I saw how just a few vans delivered to a distant capital every second turn can make a tech rate of one discovery per turn, which makes the whole economic system of Civ2 useless: no economy is needed, no marketplaces, no libraries, no banks, no roads, just build vans!

I expect the same may happen in this game, though on lesser scale because there are no fast sea transport and just roads (unit gifts would do this job). But still, if there are two allied civs reasonably far from each other, what forbids them to connect their capitals with a road and start sending a line of vans like the trade carts in Age of Empires, each giving 300G+ for mere 50 shields? I only hope that constantly appearing barbarian hordes will stop this or make it so dangerous that the earnings would be less brisky. In that case we mabe don't need any limit on vans at all because barbs would hamper trade well enough.

[Peaster]

ISeeAll - Yeah, I understand that 10 vans per turn could make the game kind of silly, and some Game#1 players have probably come close to that. But that's after years of play, it's with unit gifting, and it has not been maintained (AFAIK) because of blocked supplies, jealousies, etc. I'm pretty flexible about van caps if you still want them - just concerned that a 1/t cap would make trade TOO insignificant later in the game.

P.Rex - I recorded your votes, and you can check if I read your intentions correctly. Looks like 3a) and 17) are passing now, and maybe 11) too [vs van rehoming, vs auto-settlers, vs unsinkable ships].

About the time limit: I think people will understand if you need more time once in a while. Mainly we ask that you tell us in advance [so the next guy doesn't have to check the thread every few hours, etc] and that you don't completely stall the game. For example, if you are going away for a week, you'll probably need to find a sub [or accept some Ctrl-Ns].

[ISeeALL]

Originally posted by Peaster
I'm pretty flexible about van caps if you still want them - just concerned that a 1/t cap would make trade TOO insignificant later in the game.

Well, then we can tie the caravan limit to the number of cities, e.g. the player can't have more caravans at any given turn than half the number of his cities. Like, if he has 10 cities, he can't have more than 5 caravans at any given turn. Although I understand that this limit is so mild that it's means actually no limit at all

[ISeeALL]

Originally posted by ISeeALL
can't have more caravans at any given turn than half the number of his cities.

or maybe not this ratio. 20% sounds fair to me. Like, if you have 10 cities, you can have no more than 2 caravans active, if you have 50 cities, no more than 10 caravans.

Funny thing Civ2 introduces a hard cap on how many units you may have (units require support in shields) but doesn't do the same with caravans. Carvans should have costed support, maybe 1G per caravan active (2G by republic/democracy). This WOULD be fair.

I guess we may just agree on some ratio between 20% and 50%, so that everyone were happy.