Ancient Empires #2

[SlowThinker]

Trade - why don't you cut revenues by some simple method? Caravans are in freight slot, so you can move them back to caravan slot. Or you can give navigation to all if you want bigger cut (and to give another trade-decreasing tech to Persians).

[Peaster]

Slowthinkers suggestions are OK with me, though some of us would have to make a 2nd folder for this scen. And I think we have enough anti-trade measures in place already.

Heresson: I think it's been over 24hrs. You can play Babs + Assyria.

[Heresson]

here it comes

[Addled Platypus]

please do suffboard and other woes trying to get sorted out this weekend

[Peaster]

Egypt: Killed one of three remaining desert barbarians. BTW - Does anyone know where the word "barbarian" comes from ? Apparently it means "strange people whose speech sounds like `bar bar bar...' " (seriously).

The Egyptian wool merchants shake their heads. They dodged between two pirate ships, to reach the coast of Minos, as announced last turn. But the entire eastern coast of the island is covered with raucous Minoans on vacation. No place to land! Which proves my point "we have enough anti-trade measures in place already."

Poor Pharoah also faces unhappiness in several remote Egyptian villages, and begins to contemplate a Wonder.....

Note: Game#1 was at King level, and AFAIK happiness has not been a major issue. But this test game is at Deity, with only one Hanging Gardens available.... is that OK with everyone for Game#2? I wonder if we are making this all TOO difficult... Barb Wrath, Deity, possible ban on tech gifts and/or strong anti-trade rules.

Also note: in SP you can get Monarchy as the 4th or 5th tech, but here it is at least the 9th. Currently Egypt must wait 144 turns between techs (with science at 30%, assuming no help from huts, gifts or deliveries). Of course that's partly due to our massive tech-giving earlier.

[ISeeALL]

Persians slowly expand to the east, Greeks are stuck in defense, though position is secure.

[Peaster]

ISeeAll: Did you mean to post a .rar file ? Not sure if RobRoy will know how to open it.

BTW- It is amazing to me that Persia can go east so soon. A few turns before you took over, that area was swimming in barbs. Now it sounds like most civs are feeling safer.

[ISeeALL]

Originally posted by Peaster
ISeeAll: Did you mean to post a .rar file ? Not sure if RobRoy will know how to open it.

BTW- It is amazing to me that Persia can go east so soon. A few turns before you took over, that area was swimming in barbs. Now it sounds like most civs are feeling safer.

Actually, these barbs (Bronze Infantry and Battering Rams) are not much of a threat, because they move only 1 tile per turn. They are easily killed with Chariot 1, and even Skirmishers kill bronze infantry more than in 50% cases. With walls in cities you only have to kill rams only, for which two skirmishers and a spearman are enough per city. What if we add some other unit types to the barbarian respawns? Like Early Chariots and Horsemen?

Maybe it looks secure so far because neither Desert Raiders nor Sea People have bothered Greece and Persia in those turns I played.

Ok, here the .zip-ped file

[Peaster]

Code of Laws (proposed house rules, Game #2): These are based on the rules for Game#1 compiled by SlowThinker, and on the various proposals and votes taken in the playtest for Game#2. Any rule can be added, deleted or changed by a +1 vote (eg 4-3) until the game starts. After that, a +3 vote is required to make changes (such as 5-2 or 3-0).
--------------------------------------------------------------------

General

Settings: Deity, Barbarian wrath, MGE:Hotseat mode

Game speed: 24 hour deadline. If you can't make it, post here before the deadline. We will probably give you some more time, if you have a good excuse. After 24 hours (with no excuse), the next player's clock starts. They should hit Ctrl-N for the late player, and play their turn. After you do your turn try to send e-mail (or PM) to player(s) that play after you.

Reloading: You can reload typos and similar mistakes ONLY under following conditions:

1. You can take back only 1 'action' [a movement, or other order to a unit, a rushbuild, an improvement sale].
2. You didn't intend that action - you did it by mistake.
3. The action cannot be taken back if ANY kind of new information is revealed by that action
4. You can NEVER take back fortuitous actions: combats, hut popping, tech stealing etc.
5. You must correctly repeat all actions between the last save and the mistake that is taken back. The game cannot be reloaded if there is any fortuitous action (combat, hut popping, tech stealing etc.) among actions that are to be repeated (so it is suggested to save after combats, hut popping etc.).
6. You can reload if the AI declares war when using F3.

Getting info from saves: Revealing the starting map is legal. Also, you can inspect event.txt and rules.txt. Opening savefiles of past turns to get some lost info is legal [but in SP mode only, and only as your civ].

Reports: Players must report all battles and the results. For human-vs-human battles, report exact locations, and all units invlolved. You must report all diplomatic actions by envoys (tech-thefts, bribes, new embassies, etc). A declaration of war must be announced to the other player - but this can be done either privately (email) or in the thread. In this scenario, the turn-based Event messages are intended for everyone, although in a PBEM only the first player sees them - hence the requirement for the white player to make them public. You must report all techs received as gifts.

Playing a turn: DL the previous save, open it in hotseat mode [it will open at the end of the previous player's turn], then (without watching the screen) hit Enter twice to start your turn, play, hit Ctrl-N, center the screen on a black area, save the game, exit with Ctrl-H [or you may use F11 at this point], and post the save. Do not open the Demographics screen during game play; but you can save, hit F11, and then reload if you like.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Diplomacy: Diplomacy can be managed privately (by e-mail, PM...) or publicly (in this thread). Giving units or cities is not allowed, but mutually agreed captures and bribes are allowed. Giving gold, techs, or maps (after MapMaking) is allowed. But you may receive at most one tech every three turns, and must report these. Lying is permitted and agreements may be broken. Barters cannot.

As long as both sides agree you can use F3, civ2dip or a MP session (please see the Game#1 rules for more details on all this). Basically:
* You may use F3 for diplomacy with another King ONLY with their permission, and ONLY for actions previously agreed on. If the AI tries to initiate contact, you must refuse.
* Warning: AI diplomacy can bring problems - for example, some unwanted info about opponent's civ may be revealed.
* The AI may declare war for no reason. Save your game before using F3. You can reload (and use another method) if the AI declares war.
* You cannot use F3 to end an alliance if this would cause units on either side to teleport. If you use civ2dip to end it [possibly with 3rd party help], the other player must agree (warning - this will NOT teleport units, which might be a problem for you if the other player decides to sneak attack). Since this rule is not perfect, players are encouraged to choose their allies carefully, make "pre-nups", and to refrain from such exploits.

Contact: No diplomacy is allowed until after the first physical unit contact between two civs. But players are allowed to publicly declare their progress on the thread.

Until Map Making: No map trades, no screenshots, no use of map coordinates allowed. But you can say "about 10 squares east of Nineveh".

Barters cannot be broken or crooked (unlike arrangements). For example if you agree on exchanging map screenshots then you cannot refuse to send your map after you get the opponent's one. Also the screenshot must be true (but you can blacken some areas - if you announce it).

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Tricks and ploys

Not allowed:

1. Double click on a revealed area - this reveals cities (terrain help is not shown on a city).
2. Left click on black or revealed areas - this reveals cities (the map is not centered on a city) - so, center the map with a right click only.
3. Unsinkable boats and non-crashing aircraft
4. Caravan re-homing
5. Stealing shields and immediate tech use (see Game#1 rules)
6. Renaming of cities must be reported, also re-using names of dead cities.
7. Automated settlers (to irrigate with no adjacent water}
8. Blatant cheats (revealing the map through the cheat menu, editing stats in rules.txt, reloading hut and combat outcomes, cheat-o-matic (this is a tsr that allows the game parameters to be changed on the fly while the game is running.) etc.)
9. Only Greece can attack the fortified barbs intended for Jason [just east of the Black Sea]. Likewise only Persia gets the Sinbad barb [in the far SE corner of the map].
10. No more than 1 tech gift received per 3 turns [does not include thefts, techs from your own beakers, from conquests or from the GL].
11. No tech gift may be accepted unless you have its pre-preqs. This includes tech from conquest. Accidental exceptions (from theft etc) must be corrected ASAP by researching the pre-reqs of the new tech.
12. You can only pop one hut (or barb village) per turn.
13. An alliance cannot claim victory - only a single player can win.

Allowed:

1. city bribing
2. unit bribing
3. incremental buying
4. pre-worked settlers
5. food caravans
6. ship chaining
7. diplo-guiding (using a diplomat or spy (or other unit that ignores ZOC) to lead other units through an enemy's zones of control.)
8. reading 'near city' notes

Footnotes:
* Since there was no clear consensus, I decided not to ban tech gifts, but to limit them to 1 per 3 turns. Some other kind of limit is OK, if we decide NOW.
* if the GL does not work properly, we may require ALL tech events to be reported, to correct this bug.
* There was no specific proposal against trade exploits (Hides/Slots) so I dropped that.
* I combined the huts/village limit.
* I allowed normal black-clicking, since you can reveal the starting map anyway.
* Please object by 9/23/06, or hold your peace. Then we can give something to Persia/etc if necessary, assign civs, and start play!

------------------------------------------------------------
If you break a rule by a mistake nothing horrible happens. But you have to announce it and warn other players.

[ISeeALL]

Originally posted by Peaster
1. city bribing
2. unit bribing

was there a vote on these ones?

I am against bribing cities/units. Are you for bribing, Peaster?

[RobRoy]

Originally posted by Peaster
* You cannot use F3 to end an alliance if this would cause units on either side to teleport. If you use civ2dip to end it [possibly with 3rd party help], the other player must agree (warning - this will NOT teleport units, which might be a problem for you if the other player decides to sneak attack)...

So you could be forced to stay in an alliance forever then? And there is no way to get rid of non-national units in your territory?

Originally posted by Peaster
Tricks and ploys

Not allowed:
...
4. Caravan re-homing
10. No more than 1 tech gift received per 3 turns [does not include thefts, techs from your own beakers, from conquests or from the GL].

* There was no specific proposal against trade exploits (Hides/Slots) so I dropped that.

I thought most people expressed support for either a 2 van/turn limit, or X%, with the exemptions discussed, rather than banning rehoming or imposing other trade restrictions. And ISeeALL wanted even more limitations, IIRC. Did you see some other problems with those trade restrictions.

On tech gifts, I'd still prefer not to have limits that cross turns, especially three turns, especially when you need to coordinate it with other people who'll be doing the gifting. I'd prefer either no gifts, or no limits, or a 1/turn limit, or techs that are specifically allowed/restricted as gifts.

[RobRoy]

Originally posted by Peaster
The Egyptian wool merchants shake their heads....Which proves my point "we have enough anti-trade measures in place already."

Poor Pharoah also faces unhappiness in several remote Egyptian villages, and begins to contemplate a Wonder.....

... I wonder if we are making this all TOO difficult... Barb Wrath, Deity, possible ban on tech gifts and/or strong anti-trade rules.

Was this why you removed the trade restrictions? I really thought the proposals out there were fairly close and generally reasonable; all of them were better than restricting some trade exploits and not others. And they seemed to be getting support (or did I misinterpret people's posts?)

Minoans: Made peace with the Egyptians, again...deja vu. Killed a barb town and the Trojan guard! Yay, Minos has a dip! So, as ISeeALL asked, do we have any diplomat restrictions in the real game? FYI, Peaster, Minoans "coast guards" are there to keep the barbs from landing, not merchants, and will be removed as circumstances allow; which they don't, currently, as you can see. Just keep sailing west or wait till Minos kills the barb boats or they vanish.

Hittites: Map trades. Took some risks, also, popping a stray hut for gold, killed a barb town. Killed a few barbs swarming around cities. Philistines heading safely for the Palace Guard, again. Babylonians still blocking a Hittite unit. Is this intentional Platy? Hittites trying to set up a competing cruise line.

Sops for Persia?: since they already have handicaps that affect trade and huts, why not just exempt them from some of the house rule handicaps we're talking about imposing on everyone else: so they DON'T suffer the limits on goody hut, tech gifting, or trade (assuming we impose some on trade). I'd also exempt them from the auto-irrigation handicap - given that they already have a terrain handicap, too, IMHO. And I think a nay vote on a sop for Persia should be translated as lodging a bid for Persia.

We could always remove Invention from them, but that involves changes to the scenario file, which I'm prejudiced against, and it would change the graphics.

You're up Platy.

[Peaster]

ISeeAll: I included it because it is allowed in Game#1 and there was no objection to it until now. I haven't really thought much about it. IIRC it has not affected warfare very much in Game #1, since the envoy unit appears fairly late in the game, and it is usually easier/cheaper to attack than to bribe anyway. Note that envoys = dips (not spies) and they cost 50 shields. Bribery becomes REALLY effective after a capitol falls, but the capitols are well-defended by Palace Guards in this scen.

In another PBEM, I thought unit-bribery worked out well. When players A and B fought a war nearer to A's capitol, player A had a small advantage (lower bribery costs), which seemed reasonable. Of course, you can avoid unit-bribing by stacking, and can also make city-bribing expensive (big cities + decent treasury).

I guess I favor unit-bribing, since it makes warfare more interesting. I slightly favor city bribing too ... but am not 100% decided. Why are you against it ?

BTW - this reminds me that some players loan gold to their allies to disguise their treasuries and/or change bribery costs. I doubt we could make a decent rule against loans, but if this bothers anybody, they should speak up now.

[Peaster]

Originally posted by RobRoy
So you could be forced to stay in an alliance forever then? And there is no way to get rid of non-national units in your territory?

You can always escape via civ2dip (but you may need some 3rd party help). About the non-nationals - we must decide if we want them teleported or not. Both choices have problems, if the player(s) want to exploit the situation, and we haven't really solved this in Game#1. But it hasn't been a real problem.

The voting here (and in Game#1) seems clearly against teleporting, except for version "6B" which got little response at all, and so I wrote the rule. But it is not too late to change it.

BTW - This latest rules list is based on my post near the bottom of page 15, which splits the proposals into pass / fail / need-more-input (which includes "ending alliances"). If you haven't checked it lately, please do so.

I thought most people expressed support for either a 2 van/turn limit, or X%, with the exemptions discussed, rather than banning rehoming or imposing other trade restrictions. And ISeeALL wanted even more limitations, IIRC. Did you see some other problems with those trade restrictions.

There was a 4-2 vote against rehoming [P+ K+ I+ L+ R- H-].

About other restrictions on vans, I couldn't find a consensus in the thread [I saw it as a stalemate], so I refered to the voting. It seems pretty evenly split [I+ Pl- P= R? (not sure about your vote)]. IIRC I said I'd go P- in case of a tie.

If people can agree on precise limits within 1-2 days, I'll go along. I repeat - IMO the main options are these:

a) no limits on van numbers
b) 2 dels per turn (with exemptions)
c) 10% of N per turn (N= number of cities)
d) SlowThinker's idea

and I vote for a).

On tech gifts, I'd still prefer not to have limits that cross turns, especially three turns, especially when you need to coordinate it with other people who'll be doing the gifting. I'd prefer either no gifts, or no limits, or a 1/turn limit, or techs that are specifically allowed/restricted as gifts.

Again, I followed the page 15 voting, which was 2-1 against a total ban, but 2-1 in favor of some limit (in addition to the pre-req rule). I suggested the 1/3 rule, and there seemed to be few objections. IMO that would be simple enough to track, especially if we require reports on these gifts. We can re-open voting, but let's stick to the options below, and see if a consensus emerges within 1-2 days:

a) one tech accepted per turn
b) one tech accepted per 3 turns
c) tech gifts only up to monarchy and the wheel.

and I vote for b).

[ISeeALL]

Originally posted by Peaster
I guess I favor unit-bribing, since it makes warfare more interesting. I slightly favor city bribing too ... but am not 100% decided. Why are you against it ?

Once I was playing in hotseat against a friend in WWII scenario, he was Axis, I was Russians. He moves all his tanks at me and easily captures Minsk, and at the same turn stacks about 15 tanks and 5 bombers in the newly captured city, which became size 5 after all of the attacks, also the city has a riot. I don't have any defenses in the area, but I have a diplomat - I buy the city for mere 500G with ALL his attacking army, effectively stopping his attack and doing a super counter-attack on the same turn. He was very angry at this unfairness in the rules. I agree that current rules in Civ2 where cost of city bribery doesn't depend on the number of units in the city is unfair. Also, I can't understand why units NEAR the city are bribed, too.

I just don't want to have a situation, when, suppose, I launch a massive assault with quite a few good attacking units, these units go pretty far from the capital, and at some moment a diplomat comes out from nowhere, bribes a city I just captured for funny sum, and my attack is stopped forever. Or, it can bribe one of the units and destoy all or most of the rest of my squad.

I think that defending should be based on building walls, fortresses, improving terrain to hills, and stacking units with high defense factor. Bribing is very far from tactics and may exploit holes in the rules and lead to unfair results.