Ancient Empires #2

[Palaiologos]

I'm in.

[Addled Platypus]

k

[RobRoy]

Originally posted by Peaster
...I have almost no online experience, so I think RobRoy should organize this and give directions...

Darn, I was hoping you could host. I've got a router, and that tends to screw things up if you host, even if you redirect the port.

I'll see if I can redirect satisfactorily and/or disable it this evening without screwing up my system. Late evenings EST work for me, in general, but weekends can be iffy. So a 10:00PM target seems good, for now, maybe as early as tonight or tomorrow, if you're game. Palaiologus and Platypus Rex, you both implied a high degree of flexibility, and if I read your time zones correctly, that might be convenient for you also. Let us know.

Also let me know if either of you can host. Peaster, I can walk you through the procedures for hosting, if you're willing to host, though. There's only one thing I want to try that's a bit complicated in the .net experiment, and we could skip that test if it looks dicey. If someone else can host, we might be able to start tonight. I'm not going to be able to tell if I can get my router to behave until tonight, so the earliest I'd be able to host would be tomorrow, I suspect. If I strike out, and no one else can host, by tomorrow, or if the time coordination start to look too difficult, I'll just start a hotseat game, tomorrow evening.

I'll probably need to reinstall ICQ or some IM service. What are you people using these days? Or do you just use e:mail? My e:mail is robroy3@hotmail.com.

How about advertising? The mods here are/were quite reasonable. But would it be appropriate for...say Palaiologus... to post an invitation in...say Scenario League (you being the most active/recognizable poster there) to shill for any stringers who might be interested? I saw one guy looking for a multiplayer game in the multiplayer forum, so I'll let him know.

[Palaiologos]

I've already asked around, but none seemed to be interested.

22:00 GMT today or tommorow sounds fine.

I am using Msn as my im service.
PericlesDervisis@hotmail.com

[Addled Platypus]

if you testing online, I wont be able

I an a pbem kinda guy

[RobRoy]

Originally posted by Palaiologos
22:00 GMT today or tommorow sounds fine.

Ackk...no. Sorry, for some reason, I thought you were on Pacific time, I'm talking East Coast U.S. time. It'd be 3 or 4 in the morning for you, I think....that'd never work.

Sounds like I misunderstood PlatRex, too, so the online sounds unlikely, just now.

Originally posted by Platypus Rex
if you testing online, I wont be able.

My day for misunderstandings, I think. We were just hoping that could be a way to jump start the game and move through the first 10-20 turns faster. Oh, well...

Maybe I'll just start up and post a test hotseat game tonight, and we can toy around with that, just using the nation's Peaster assigned us. We'll see if any of the maybes or new people are able/interested in participating as Persia, Greece or Minoans, after Peaster plays Egypt. Else we can double up on them for the trial run - I think Palaiologus expressed some interest in Greece, and me for the Minoans, or perhaps we should alternate or play by committee?

[RobRoy]

SEEDS of GREATNESS
Barbarian Wrath Version
Hotseat Mode PBEM
Test Game

Has now begun!

The objectives are:

1) To confirm that we actually will get barbarian hordes using hotseat mode, as previous tests have indicated, in a manner that does not disadvatage any civ too much.

2) To identify the disadvantages of using hotseat mode for PBEM, to assess how serious these really are, and to develop acceptable work-arounds if possible.

3) To enable both newer and older players to revisit the game from a fresh perspective and assess what, if any, house rules might be desirable or undesirable, long-term.

4) To have some fun while we do the above.

House Rules
----------------

We won't have any hard and fast house rules for this trial, except the following:

- No reloading
- No loading as another player, except as outlined below
- No "cheat mode"
- No use of external programs

Also, I'd suggest using most of the F3 diplomacy guidelines established in the other PBEM, although we won't be able to use Civ2Dip. Generally, this means not contacting another civ via the diplomacy screen, and rejecting AI attempts to contact you, unless specifically authorized by the player responsible for that civ. When contact is authorized, only the authorized activity is permitted.

Hotseat Loading/Exiting Procedures
---------------------------------------------

After selecting Multiplayer Game, be sure to select the first option (Hotseat) and load the saved hotseat game. Although the game will work if you open it as a network game or an internet game, it will lose its hotseat file structure.

Upon opening the game, you might be prompted for the password of the PREVIOUS civilization. Enter this password, then press the "Enter" key, twice. The first time you press the "Enter" key, you will briefly see the previous players map. This is one of the biggest potential problems we want to assess. The second time you press the "Enter" key, you should be prompted to enter your own password (if you've set one). Enter this and play your turn. If the map size was shrunk by the previous player (CTRL-X), use CTRL-Z to return it to normal size.

Upon completion of your turn, press the CTRL-N combination, but do not press the "Enter" key that would start the next player's turn. Center your screen on a black area and Right-Click on a tile. Feel free to experiment with setting the map size tiny (CTRL-X). Save the game, then exit using CTRL-H. Upload the saved file.

Update on passwords based ST's input: use CTRL-H to exit, not CTRL-Q. Passwords do not seem necessary or useful, after all. Please remove them.

Likely Problem Areas
--------------------------

- Briefly exposing the previous player's map;

- Diplomacy is limited to whatever can be achieved via the F3 screen;

- Monarch names can only be entered at the time the Hittite player establishes the game or via hex-editing.

Participants
---------------

RobRoy (Hittites)
Platypus Rex (Babylonians)
Palaiologus (Assyrians)
Peaster (Egyptians)
SlowThinker (Persians) - if available

have expressed an interest in participating in this test and will control the countries initially assigned by Peaster. The maybe players are encouraged and welcome to participate, as are any new players. Any player nation not claimed will be played by other players, based on turn sequence, or rotating among interested players.

[RobRoy]

Hittites kickoff turn attached.

Platypus Rex, you're up with the Babylonians. Don't forget to assign a password, preferably "babylonians".

[SlowThinker]

Originally posted by RobRoy

Originally posted by SlowThinker
...Outside programs are blatant cheats? IMHO any program that does what you could do with paper and pencil is perfectly legal. It only saves your time.

Yes IMHO, they are, as are reloads. The fact that y'all allow such in the other game amazes me, Particularly when you're so quick to ban fairly straight-forward exploits.

I think allowing these things exaggerates a players natural desire to execute a "perfect" turn every time, to have zero tolerance for mistakes, to micromanage each turn to the nth degree, to identify and utilize every possible exploit not specifically identified and disallowed.

To me, mistakes are a vital part of the game. Maybe others enjoy spending hours micromanaging each turn? I don't. I prefer to do a turn fairly quickly and deal with my many mistakes and consequences. Seems a tad more realistic to me. If things get tight, I freely use exploits, but never reload.

OK, you are saying you don't like to micromanage. But I don't see why micromanagement should be called 'blatant cheating'.

[SlowThinker]

Likely Problem Areas
- Briefly exposing the previous player's map;

Just close eyes before the 2 Enters.
Also it is good to center (right-click) the map in black before you end your turn.

- Diplomacy is limited to whatever can be achieved via the F3 screen;

Any problem with civdip?

Passwords will facilitate the loading and exiting of the game after the first game turn.

Why?

I don't know if you have read this: http://home.tiscali.cz/cz045662/civ2...ot-NetPBEM.htm
(I attached it in the Seeds #1 thread already)

[RobRoy]

Originally posted by SlowThinker
OK, you are saying you don't like to micromanage. But I don't see why micromanagement should be called 'blatant cheating'.

Well that's a bit of a leap. But I take your point.

The primary reference is to things like a editors, cheat-o-matic, etc. But I suspect that ANYTHING external is going to open up more possibilities for exploits and/or encourage players to use them. You'd have to be specific about your reference if we want to consider allowing them in the real game.

But, more importantly for the test, ANY outside program has SOME possibility of screwing the game up.

Originally posted by SlowThinker
Just close eyes before the 2 Enters.

Yes, my hope is that we can get used to that somewhat odd work-around and trust that everyone will do it. If so, it becomes a non-issue.

Originally posted by SlowThinker
Also it is good to center (right-click) the map in black before you end your turn.

Good thought.

Originally posted by SlowThinker
Any problem with civdip?

No specific problem. Three fears:

1) It MAY be one cause, or a contributing cause, of the anomalies you're experiencing in your current game;

2) It might even not work for hotseat mode (or work correctly). While the file structure is similar to .net files, some of the data is different;

3) It enables, facilitates, and encourages diplomatic and other exploits that dwarf the stuff y'all have banned. (Again, not that there's necessarily anything wrong with any exploit, but I'm uncomfortable disallowing internal exploits, while introducing new ones, even when heavily regulated)

For the test, at least, we have to exclude it and anything else that might monkey with saved files. Plus, it might be nice to assess whether limiting the diplomatic options leads to a more or a less satisfying diplomatic experience. We might want to allow it in the regular game, but it'll make the house rules discussion more complicated, as you know.

Actually, as I write this, I think we SHOULD test it AFTER we get our first barbie horde to confirm whether it works at all (confirm or deny #2 above), and whether we can detect any changes in barbie appearance after introducing it (#1 above). Then the discussion can be limited to exploits (allowing, banning, introducing, regulating, etc. - #3)

Originally posted by SlowThinker
Why? (ref. passwords)

I don't know if you have read this: http://home.tiscali.cz/cz045662/civ...Hot-NetPBEM.htm
(I attached it no Seeds #1 thread already)

No I hadn't seen it. Darn... I knew I was reinventing the wheel, as I was writing procedures. Useful stuff. I didn't use CTRL-H, but CTRL-Q to exit, hence the need for passwords - to avoid having to cycle through all the other players. Why don't some of you try it without passwords and make sure there's no downside (e.g., I was also thinking that a password entry point might make it easier to double "ENTER" and avert your eyes).

Can I assume from your renewed interest that you've decided to participate? At least for the test? That'd be great! Peaster has you down for Persia. And I'm currently thinking we'll rotate any remaining players (i.e., just Greeks and Minoans, now, I hope).

[SlowThinker]

The primary reference is to things like a editors, cheat-o-matic, etc. But I suspect that ANYTHING external is going to open up more possibilities for exploits and/or encourage players to use them. You'd have to be specific about your reference if we want to consider allowing them in the real game.

'Helper programs' do only things that you are able to do yourself with paper&pencil. They count beakers you have cumulated, count expected caravan revenue, show position of huts and specials (but only after you input some starting information), count supply and demand...

But, more importantly for the test, ANY outside program has SOME possibility of screwing the game up.

The helpers don't write in the save. They read only.

Yes, my hope is that we can get used to that somewhat odd work-around and trust that everyone will do it.

You must always trust in Civ2 PBEM.

CivDip:

1) It MAY be one cause, or a contributing cause, of the anomalies you're experiencing in your current game;

We started to use it around round 50. But I agree it is better to test barbs first.

3) It enables, facilitates, and encourages diplomatic and other exploits that dwarf the stuff y'all have banned. (Again, not that there's necessarily anything wrong with any exploit, but I'm uncomfortable disallowing internal exploits, while introducing new ones, even when heavily regulated)

The exploits of built-in diplomacy mechanisms are much worse.
BTW the game #1 is a diplo-oriented game, maybe you could suppress diplomacy (for example to forbid unit giving). This way you would get rid of many exploits while keeping rules simpler.

IMO limited diplomacy would cause less diplomacy and make alliances less important.

Why don't some of you try it without passwords and make sure there's no downside

I and Peaster played about 100 turns of a no-password .hot duel. Only problem is if you don't finish your turn. Next player gets a game centered on a flashing unit of his opponent.
Ctrl-X would help but there is some trigger in the save that identifies 'scenario'. I have no clue how to find it.

Can I assume from your renewed interest that you've decided to participate? At least for the test?

I can help if I go around, but it may be easier if 1 player takes 2 civs.

[Peaster]

I am not quite sure which Game #1 exploits RobRoy has been refering to, but I suppose they could be prevented if we forbid giving units to each other. Unit-giving was considered OK in all 3 PBEM games I've played in, but the game might be cleaner without it. Either way is OK with me.

I agree we should test civ2dip after the barbs appear, and probably allow it in the real game. Even without unit-giving, it can be useful for repairing build orders. [If you lose a city, a bug in civ2 may give the AI control of your production temporarily]. I would prefer to disallow private MP sessions for diplo-stuff, mainly because they are hard to arrange, and they can slow the game down.

BTW - Game #1 has had a few bumps, over rules and lack of rules. But on the whole, it has been the longest, smoothest, most-fun PBEM I've seen. I don't insist on using those same rules, but I think they are not bad. I think I imported a simplified list into another PBEM once. If I can find that, maybe I'll post it here, and we can vote each rule in or out. IMO there are fewer problems if we do that in the beginning.

[RobRoy]

Originally posted by Peaster
I am not quite sure which Game #1 exploits RobRoy has been refering to, but I suppose they could be prevented if we forbid giving units to each other....

Remember, I don't propose to forbid any exploits. I'm just trying to point out that it is inconsistent to ban some exploits and permit/encourage others. We EITHER need to go farther if we're trying to discourage things that can be perceived as abusive OR go very minimalist. The latter is far easier, since it completely eliminates the discussion about whether exploit XYZ is worse than exploit ABC. I'm not sure we CAN be successful in identifying all potential exploits nor in agreeing which ones are more subject to abuse.

The other point I've been trying to make is that, sometimes, banning one exploit just encourages players to engage in other exploits. These other exploits might be more objectionable, in certain ways (not that they're necessarily more abusive, it might only be that they lead players to make odd decisions that they would not otherwise make). I hesitate to give example, because it's not appropriate for a nosy third party to reveal the inner workings of any of the civs in the other game. Again, "one man's cheesy exploit is another man's brilliant strategy"; I would not appreciate my brilliant strategies/cheesy exploits being discussed in such a manner.

That's actually part of my concern. How "fair" is it if certain exploits are not widely known or practiced? How about exploits that can only be practiced at certain points in the game and are unavailable to players who didn't choose them or know about them when they had the chance? How about exploits that are only realistic for certain players, due to their start position? How about the poor sub, who inherits a position that did not take advantage of allowed exploits, whereas his opponents did?

I'm only referring to CivDip a bit here. If we decide we want to allow things like unit trading and city trading (which, sure, are highly exploitable), then we'll probably need something like CiVDip, and we'll probably need to restrict them, probably in the manner you've done in the first game.

Originally posted by SlowThinker
I can help if I go around, but it may be easier if 1 player takes 2 civs.

I think that's a qualified "yes"? I'll add you to the participants.

'Course, it doesn't look like we can even get a test game off to much of a start...

Platypus Rex, you still willing to participate? You're on as Babylon. (see above)

Else, I guess we said, what 48 hours? Or was it 36 for the first few turns? So Palaiologus could take the file tonight and do both Babylon and Assyria, if Platypus Rex is still out of action? Probably better to do both rather than skipping, IMHO.

[Peaster]

Since this is just a test game, we could even try for 24 hour turns. Sometimes it helps to notify the next player by email/PM. I'll try to email Platypus now, but IMO Palaiogolus doesn't have to wait, and can play both civs this turn.