Ancient Empires #2

[SlowThinker]

>>>You can always escape [an alliance] via civ2dip (but you may need some 3rd party help).

>>How can you do it? I don't understand ...

>Yes, you do! We (Persia-Babylon) cancelled our alliance this way in Game#1. Our rules do not allow the second player to say No. If either player does not have civ2dip, they will need help from someone who does, like me or you.

Huh?
I didn't force you in peace and you mentioned you would accept if no war for 2 turns or something like that. So you conditioned your approval by something... (although IIRC you did it AFTER you accepted the barter)
I was persuaded you are never forced to accept any civdip barter.

>>If you want I can replace static barbs so that you can enjoy revealing of the map. This way I could also make some civs easier and other ones harder.

I meant barb Warriors and Palace Guards. Replace = edit the starting map and put them in different positions. Revealing of the starting map would be forbidden of course.

[RobRoy]

Originally posted by Peaster
I prefer not to make the game any harder (eg with barb EC's). I am OK with temporary Raging Hordes, if the game-mechanics experts (ST and RobRoy) are sure this will work correctly. I'd prefer not to playtest again, though.

You could change the bit that controls barbarian level mid-game. But I don't know if it would have any side effects, without some testing. It would probably be safer to save and restart as a new scenario at that point (would be double production that turn), which still might have some other side effects (we elected not restart as a new scenario during the test, when trying to resolve another problem).

I'm not sure I see a real need or advantage, anyway. Barbs won't show up until around turn 15 or so, anyway, IIRC. And it's random after that. And I thought that was one of the funnest parts of the test - trying to resist barbs with just skirmishers. And the test taught us a lot about what strategies and tactics worked better (maybe we should write up a "lessons learned" for players who may've missed that phase of the test and don't care to reread the thread).

As for tougher spawned barbs, they do get tougher, depending on techs. Pirates can be C1s or C2s before we reached Sea Peoples, but we leapfrogged those techs. Later on, we'll get Iron Infantry and Catapults in the land hordes.

Originally posted by Peaster
Huh ? "Static barbs" means the motionless ones, and "replace" means "remove" ? If so, how does this help us ?

Mixing up barbs or huts or special tiles would make things interesting and limit the huge advantage of knowing the map. But the map was so carefully constructed that I think there would be more drawbacks than benefit and more work to produce something satisfactory than you may anticipate. The best equilizer is just to encourage people to play the game in SP mode a few times, IMHO.

Originally posted by Peaster
Are people tired of talking, and eager to start ?

Yes, but I don't think anyone wants poorly thought out rules or restrictions implemented just because of that.

If multiple people really want to continue the test, I could try to participate. It has been kinds quick and fun. But there were a lot of things done "experimentally" that people probably wouldn't have done had they known the game would continue or had they known what we know now. If people want to play multiple games, it might make more sense to start multiple new ones. But let's get one off the ground first.

Sops for Persia - A clarification: Assuming van limits rather than other types of trade restrictions, my proposed trade exemption for Persia was essentially the third exemption of the original proposal, not an unlimited waiver of the 'van limits (i.e., they could do more than the 2 foreign deliveries if that didn't fill their beakers, until they did fill their beakers)

But in any event, I was halfway serious about the "Play that Civ" approach to sops for Persia. That way, you ensure the player assigned them will be satisfied and you get them out of the way first.

[ISeeALL]

btw, just saw the first post of of yours in this thread, Peaster. If we are supposed to do some role-playing, I think Egyptians (as you posted there) would be cool for me, since I am not a pro in history and know something only about Egyptians and Greeks.

It's a pity that Palaiologos doesn't have time to play - I really enjoyed playing with his in WWII pbem.

[Peaster]

ST: I still don't know the exact alliance rule in Game#1, but IMO it is clear for Game#2 - a civ2dip offer to end the alliance MUST be accepted. The players can agree to use F3 instead, maybe even in a pre-nup, but they must avoid teleporting.

RR: Unless some other player speaks up soon, I'll consider your comments to be a veto of the "raging hordes" idea and the "replace static barbs" idea (I am neutral about these. But thanks to ST for the offer! ).

I didn't realize you enjoyed the skirms-vs-barbs part so much. Hmmm... I'm a little biased against the randomness of the hordes, but they do add flavor.

"Lessons learned" = good idea. I'll start:
1) The hordes are not as quite as nasty as they seem, at least if you have decent techs. So, think twice before spending all your gold on walls. Trust your Palace Guards.
2) Speaking for Egypt (and other kingdoms set in plains/grasslands) - You can probably defeat any horde-barb near your city with an e.chariot (or a vet skirmisher) before it can attack you. Keep back-up units nearby. Roads help, to connect your cities, and to keep the suburbs under control too.
3) Speaking for Persia and probably Greece/Hittites (hills) - A fortified spearman on hills can probably survive
a b-ram, especially if it's a vet, and that's a relatively cheap defense. But I didn't play these civs very long... somebody else should speak up.
4) Dunno about Sea Peoples - they scare me a bit. But a vet Chariot I + a few minor units did the job in Egypt.
5) Assyria lost 2 cities to Storms in the test. They should make some kind of plan to deter that (eg post some skirmishers as a sacrificial wall?).
6) IF (a very big if) you can kill the stack at the center of a new swarm, you might take out 40-50 barbs at once (I saw this idea in a thread at CFC).

"Sops" - OK... If someone will take Persia today, they can have auto-settlers. If nobody accepts soon, I'll gradually sweeten the pot - or take them myself. Any objections to this plan?

ISeeAll - OK. You can have Egypt. You can still change your mind later and take Persia if you want. IMO we don't have to know a lot of history to play, but Game#1 provoked me to read a little about the period. And it's fun to write up pseudo-historical reports about your turns.

[Peaster]

Sounds like some players want to continue the playtest. I don't mind continuing rather mindlessly a while, but don't consider this a real game, and am willing to give Egypt to anyone who wants it. I asked Heresson to Ctrl-N for Platypus last time b/c we'll do that in Game#2. In the test we could continue to sub for each other instead.... (?)... Anyway, I decided to sub for Babs (48hrs late) + Assyria (24hrs late) instead of a Ctrl-N this time.

Babs: Freed the pinned Hittite chariot - hope that's OK with Platypus.
Assyria: Defeated 2 rams + a barb envoy (+200g!). A hut produced the same tech Assyria was already working on (hush hush).
Egypt: Traded maps with the Hittites. Apparently, a barb defeated our chariot in the desert and a pirate failed (just barely) to defeat our indignant wool merchants' ship. Do pop-up messages appear at the start of the turn about such battles ?

[RobRoy]

Originally posted by Peaster
I'll consider your comments to be a veto of the "raging hordes" idea and the "replace static barbs" idea.

A "veto"?! I have a veto? Wait, let me get my list of things I don't like.

Naw...I just don't think those changes will be worth the effort required. I think they have less game impact than some of the other stuff we're talking about. I'll save any vetoes I may have, please.

Originally posted by Peaster
but they must avoid teleporting....but AFAIK Game#2 players oppose teleporting.

Well, I'm not sure the sentiment is as strong as you suggest. The anti-teleport comments have primarily come from game #1 players and always in the context of discussing unit gifting exploits. There is a significant problem with alliances if you make breaking them difficult or impossible, IMHO, or if you allow units to stay deep within their former ally's territory (a change in how hotseat diplomacy normally works).

But, I agree we should table that issue, since it shouldn't affect civ selection and we have time to discuss it when everyone is properly engaged. Give priority to finalizing the tech gifting and trading limitations, if any. I think you can always err on the side of no limitations, without too many people objecting - partial measures are so liable to have unfortunate side effects.

Originally posted by Peaster
"Sops" - OK... If someone will take Persia today, they can have auto-settlers. If nobody accepts soon, I'll gradually sweeten the pot - or take them myself. Any objections to this plan?

LOL, this could take forever. Working the opposite way would be quicker, I think. As far as I'm concerned, you (or anyone else) can have them for what I bid:

- No hut limit (or mayb 2X the limit);
- No tech gift limits (should presumably expire once huts are exhausted);
- Auto-irrigate; and
- The third 'van cap exemption (or no rehoming prohibition if we go that unfortunate route). Acquiring Navigation would presumably end any trading exemptions.

That's my own indifference point. I'd still prefer other civs at that point, but only because of affinity for their history, not because of perceived advantages or disadvantages. BTW, in a wrath game, the value of Central Asia will probably be less. I'd expect to see several other barb cities, either by accident or player design.

We'd also talked about letting Persia, only, skip BW or even removing invention. Those could be options too, but I think the above would be sufficient and these options strike me as more problematic.

Originally posted by Peaster
Do pop-up messages appear at the start of the turn about such battles ?

No, the Hittites have never seen anything like that. And they have also suffered mystery damage, generally near black space, both on land and at sea.

Did you mean to attach a file for ISeeALL? I don't see one.

[ISeeALL]

Originally posted by RobRoy

- No hut limit (or mayb 2X the limit);
- No tech gift limits (should presumably expire once huts are exhausted);
- Auto-irrigate; and
- The third 'van cap exemption (or no rehoming prohibition if we go that unfortunate route). Acquiring Navigation would presumably end any trading exemptions.

Here is what I bid for Persia:
- Can't take any huts at all
- Can't recieve any techs from human players through exchanges/gifts
- Auto-settlers NOT allowed to Persia
- foreign van deliveries FORBIDDEN

- Monarchy tech given for free from start!

[Heresson]

I got completely lost in this rules meddling.
Please, let it be enough and let us play. I am going to leave my house soon and I don't know if I will be able to play...

[Peaster]

Ooops. Where did that save file go....? OK, that's better.

RR: "veto" just meant a 1-0 vote (it seems nobody wants to debate rules much longer).

Persia: IMO ISeeAll's bid is a bit better, but it's a case of "apples-and-oranges".....

Rules on gifts and vans: I never got much response to post 494... so guess I'll have to decide myself, but I will re-read the posts by RR and ISeeAll first. I'm a little busy tonight, but I'll try to finish this up by tomorrow, and also assign civs - probably approx as on page 1, unless people speak up soon - except I may give Persia to ISeeAll.

[ISeeALL]

Major barbarian respawn to the east of Persia (see attached screenshot). But I am still optimistic
3 barb rams killed in counterattacks, a few b.infs also.

[ISeeALL]

Greeks kill 2 rams and buy walls in Sparta.

[Peaster]

After reviewing all votes and recent comments, I want to start play with the rules I already posted, except:

A) Van deliveries are limited to 2 per turn (not including vans for food, wonders or domestic trade).
B) We'll postpone a final decision on bribing, though I expect we will still allow unit-bribing, at least.
C) We'll postpone a final decision on F3-teleporting at the end of an alliance. Until then, the default rule is the one above (no teleports).
D) Persia will play under special rules [maybe still under discussion], probably those that ISeeAll offered above.

Note1: I don't really like rule A) myself, but the voting was not very clear-cut. Two players seemed to really want something like A) while the others didn't seem to care as much.

Note2: I am keeping the rule about 1 tech gift per 3 turns (with reporting), because I see no better option. RobRoy prefers either "no gifts" or "no limits", but these options were voted down (by 2-1 each) and I want to respect the votes. IMO a rule of "1 tech per turn" is essentially the same as "no limits". I studied the tech rates of my civs in Game #1 and the play-test:

Game #1: 36 techs in 100 turns. This seems about right, but maybe a little fast. Most of these techs were gifts, though a few came from the GL/conquest/etc.

This Play-Test: 42 techs in 44 turns. This seems much too fast. Almost all these were gifts, but a few were from huts.

My conclusion is that 1 tech gift per 3 turns is about right - maybe a little fast. But most Kings probably won't actually get 1 tech gift every 3 turns anyway. IMO this will not be hard to keep track of; I assume most players keep notes about their games, anyway. If not, I'll keep track for you, based on the reports.

Note3: I'm still willing to change this, or any other rule, based on majority opinion. But it seems that our lust for debate is waning, and we should move on, and play the game.

Note4: AFAIK we are ready to start. I will move Persia to ISeeAll (unless someone else "bids" soon), and IIRC that means Heresson will get Egypt. RobRoy - Can you adjust the scenario so that Persia starts with Monarchy ? [If not, I can probably do it, but I'd trust you more]. Also, you mentioned using time zones to assign players - I don't think I want to get into that myself, but if you want to suggest better assignments, feel free. Otherwise, I will start a new thread very soon, with the updated rules, and we will start.

[Addled Platypus]

surfboard up and running, ready to play

[RobRoy]

Originally posted by Peaster
RobRoy - Can you adjust the scenario so that Persia starts with Monarchy?

Sure, we could do that (does that mean I'm the Hittites, again?) But why do we WANT to do that? As I've said, I'm extremely reluctant to change ANY game file, myself.

I grant that his proposal is a whole lot more challenging than anything I was proposing for Persia - I thought he was joking, actually. But the "sops" should mitigate Persia's hut/tech, trade, and perhaps terrain disadvantages. This proposal doesn't address those at all, it actually makes them worse! Then it tries to compensate by introducing a new tech into the game early (is it tradeable? or are we just making Persia a monarchy?).

I'm missing the logic here. One of the few advantages of imposing all these house rules is that we now have an easy way to compensate Persia, without doing any violence to the scenario design, simply by giving Persia targetted exemptions. Were the exemptions insufficient or otherwise undesirable? I'd prefer he play Persia with my bid, unless you object.

Originally posted by Peaster
I assume most players keep notes about their games, anyway. If not, I'll keep track for you, based on the reports.

Notes!? No way man. But you're welcome to keep track. If nothing else, I've consistently argued against things that will suck RL time or make the game more complex to play. I'm hardly going to start imposing complexity on my lazy self. If I can't remember back three turns, I'll probably just avoid giving/receiving techs, unless I start feeling too disadvantaged. It'll really depend on how fast the game moves.

Generally, I hope that without unit gifts/exchanges and with less need/incentives to micromanage trade, the RL time commitments of this game should be less than your other game.

Originally posted by Peaster
But it seems that our lust for debate is waning, and we should move on, and play the game.

Hear! Hear! If I'm the Hittites, I'll start it tonight! Just let me know, definitively, about the Persians. At this point I'll accept it, just to move on, even if I think it's a bad idea.

If ISeeALL or others want to continue playing around with this test, or something else, I might go along, after we get the "real" game (oxymoron, BTW) going, but with a lower priority.

[Peaster]

Originally posted by RobRoy

Sure, we could do that (does that mean I'm the Hittites, again?) But why do we WANT to do that? As I've said, I'm extremely reluctant to change ANY game file, myself.

Yes, you will play the Hittites, if you don't mind.

As I see it, everybody wants to start play, but maybe Persia has gotten a bad rep, and I'm not sure anybody wants to play them now. So, I want to accept ISeeAll's offer.

I grant that his proposal is a whole lot more challenging
.....

Yes. If nobody objects, I think we might allow Persia to pop huts, and to receive tech-gifts (perhaps after 3000BC). But if ISeeAll is willing to start play this way, let's do it. If he wants to change his bid (today), it's OK with me. I don't think the sops have to be very logical, as long as they don't ruin the scenario for anybody.

I've consistently argued against things that will suck RL time or make the game more complex to play.

This scenario is nice because it's like regular Civ2 (but with more historical flavor) and it doesn't involve shuffling 400 units around each turn. I think it will not be too complex, and don't think the tech-gift rule will suck much RL time. I do like to get absorbed in a game, and spend at least an hour a turn, once the civ has grown a bit. Everybody can put in as much effort as they want - up to 24 hours.

Hear! Hear! If I'm the Hittites, I'll start it tonight! Just let me know, definitively, about the Persians. At this point I'll accept it, just to move on, even if I think it's a bad idea.

Let's start! ISeeAll asked for the monarchy tech, so you can start Persia in despotism and he can switch whenever he wants. I guess he can also give/trade this tech whenever he wants. And he is required to research the monarchy pre-reqs before any other techs.

Let's give people until tonight for any final objections to rules or civ assignments. That should also give me time to start a new thread and update the rules.

BTW - What about this "barb lessons learned" idea ? Am I the only one willing to share?