Ancient Empires #2

[Peaster]

Assyria: Traded maps with Hittites using F3. Wins vs 3 barbs.

Egypt: Hittites not interested in my techs (F3) and they quickly said goodbye; set atttitude to Worshipful. 15 desert barbs spotted, 3 defeated. Hoping to send a van towards Minos in approx 10 turns.

RobRoy - Do you have civ2dip yet ? If not, it might be easier to do a test barter from Assyria to Egypt. The program takes a few minutes to load and then it ties up my machine until I quit, so I don't like to start it very often.

AFAIK you cannot gift units using F3 (because the AI always says No), so civ2dip is needed for that, at least. It is also convenient for settling deals AFTER your turn is done, which probably is good for keeping the game moving when the diplomacy gets more complicated.

[RobRoy]

Since we still seem to be ST-free, I did all four again.

Originally posted by Peaster
...Hittites not interested in my techs (F3) and they quickly said goodbye...

hmm...I meant the Minoans...so confusing...I took the liberty of doing it myself, since I opened as Egypt - they were happy to trade Fishing for Civil Service, but wouldn't give up H.Arch to threats.

Originally posted by Peaster Assyria: Traded maps with Hittites

Strange...Hittites see the expanded map, but no Assyrian units/cities. You said you did it via F3 screen, not Civ2Dip? Is there an option to supress sharing city site information like there is in the .net diplomacy screen? Do Assyrians see Hittite cities/units? Try again next turn and see if it's different, please. Can also try with Egyptians...

Persian: Popped a hut for cash. Spearmen taking up defensive positions against last few barbs; see a few coming up from south, though...Bab horde?

Greeks: 2 failed attacks by skirmishers! Sparta relies on its terrain, a sole entrenched skirmisher, and the kindness of barbs this turn (3 B.I. should attack it this turn, if they don't vanish).

ST, let me know about maps, and whether you want to change your mind about techs.

Minoans: Defeated one town/slaves. Defended Macedonia with the 1 unit there.

Hittites: One town/slaves. Popped 3 huts: cash, 2 techs (B.Age, Beak). Passed techs to Assyrians, Babs, Egyptians. FYI, I'm pretty sure Beak is the one that makes pirates tougher (Sea Peoples)....let's see if they become more than a nuisance, now.

Originally posted by Peaster
RobRoy - Do you have civ2dip yet ? If not, it might be easier to do a test barter from Assyria to Egypt...

That'd be great. Frankly, I'm leary of strange utilities as a matter of principle. So I wasn't planning to install it until it became apparent that it was necessary.

Originally posted by Peaster
AFAIK you cannot gift units using F3 (because the AI always says No), so civ2dip is needed for that, at least...

Well that USED to be my understanding too. But since I was experimenting with the Egyptians/Minoans, I tried to gift them units and it worked! May have something to do with being mutually "worshipful". They didn't even have to be allied. The Minoans now have an extra Palace Guard and can build Scythian Hordes (J.K., I reloaded...NB need a house rule forbidding gifting of Palace Guard). So that may be one less reason for Civ2Dip. I can't comment about how desirable it is for keeping the game moving, and trading cities is not possible with F3 (though arranged takeovers is still possible). Update: I tried the same thing with Hittites after finishing their turn...could gift units to Persians and Babs, but not Assyrians and Egyptians...strange...no theories, unless their relative tech weakness (Persians) or unit weakness (Babs) enters the equations

[Addled Platypus]

slight delay with wife being ill

1-3 days, see ya soon

[Peaster]

Platypus - Best wishes wrt the wife. Should I play for Babylon then ? In a real game I would prefer to wait, but this is just a quick test.

ST is answering email, but I don't know if/when he can play.

Originally posted by RobRoy
Since we still seem to be ST-free, I did all four again.

hmm...I meant the Minoans...so confusing...I took the liberty of doing it myself, since I opened as Egypt - they were happy to trade Fishing for Civil Service, but wouldn't give up H.Arch to threats.

OK. You can do most anything you want in this test game, but I'd prefer not to get Bronze Weapons... wanna see what "normal" trade is like, with no penalties.

Strange...Hittites see the expanded map, but no Assyrian units/cities. You said you did it via F3 screen, not Civ2Dip? Is there an option to supress sharing city site information like there is in the .net diplomacy screen? Do Assyrians see Hittite cities/units? Try again next turn and see if it's different, please. Can also try with Egyptians...

Yes, F3.
No supress-option that I know of.
Yes, Assyrians see the Hittites.
Will try it again (you are welcome to try too)

That'd be great. Frankly, I'm leary of strange utilities as a matter of principle. So I wasn't planning to install it until it became apparent that it was necessary.

I felt the same way, but this utility is very popular in PBEMS, fairly easy to use, and has caused nobody any computer problems AFAIK (except that the program itself runs slowly). I don't insist on it though.

(J.K., I reloaded...NB need a house rule forbidding gifting of Palace Guard).

Can you give away units that are in your own cities with F3 ? (can't recall how it is supposed to work) With civ2dip, you can give away a stack of units (but not single units from a stack). I don't think they can be inside a city. They also must be on a square visible to the receiving civ.

So that may be one less reason for Civ2Dip. I can't comment about how desirable it is for keeping the game moving, and trading cities is not possible with F3 (though arranged takeovers is still possible).

Maybe I shouldn't comment either, since I have not used F3 in a PBEM. But IMO many delays in Game #1 occur when players try to do diplomacy during their turns. I guess F3 might make that problem worse.

In Game #1, we have a fuzzy rule against trading cities, probably to prevent exploits with Pyramids or trade routes, etc [ but there are ways around it ].

I wonder how other players feel about F3 vs Civ2dip ? This is the kind of question ST can usually answer instantly. In other PBEMs I've played, there was an anti-F3 sentiment, maybe because players once abused it, or didn't report their actions clearly. If we do use F3 in a real game, I'd want to screen the deals in advance , and also get a report of what actually happened.

[Peaster]

Babs: Revolution. Ur still stands, and two barb units were killed. I'd suggest making a LTower or EChar (instead of more skirmishers) next turn, but I left the decision to Platypus.

Someone asked about new sea barbs. I dunno, but a barb swordsmen was spotted near a barb boat. IIRC this is the same kind of unit the Egyptians faced many turns ago.

Assys: 2 barbs defeated.

Egypt: 3 of 14 visible barbs defeated... the horde rushes in like lemmings, but more come.
---------------------------------------------------
Egypt made a civ2dip barter for Assyria. Assyria accepted it already - unusual, but that saved me some RL time. Also, I could check that it worked correctly-

-Egypt sent a skirmisher and a map with cities (no units).
-Assyria sent back 2 gold and a map with cities+units.
-The skirmisher was not re-homed and cannot move until 3230BC

All this is normal for civ2dip. I don't see any problems with it ... unless it has some invisible effect on barb spawning - and I have no clue about that stuff.

I'd guess that ST still cannot play - not 100% sure.

[RobRoy]

Originally posted by Peaster
...I'd guess that ST still cannot play - not 100% sure.

I'll wait the 24 hours. His message didn't specify how long, but I interpreted it as a "few" days.

Originally posted by Peaster
Someone asked about new sea barbs. I dunno, but a barb swordsmen was spotted near a barb boat. IIRC this is the same kind of unit the Egyptians faced many turns ago.

I'm pretty sure they only spawn at the beginning of the turn. Plus, anyone already at sea would still be Swordsmen (or C2s, under some techs)

Originally posted by Peaster
Egypt made a civ2dip barter for Assyria. Assyria accepted it already - unusual, but that saved me some RL time. Also, I could check that it worked correctly-

All this is normal for civ2dip. I don't see any problems with it ... unless it has some invisible effect on barb spawning - and I have no clue about that stuff.

Forgive my ignorance, but why is it "unusual" for Assyria to accept it "already". Is the program execution delay actually THAT long?

I'll peek into the saves over the next few turns to see if we get any new hordes spawned. Everyone should keep a lazy eye peeled for any other anomalies.

Originally posted by Peaster
Can you give away units that are in your own cities with F3 ?

Yes, only units in cities. They "teleport" to the nearest city and were "NONE" homed. The city needn't be known to the receiving player, but the 21 tile city radius become known to the recipient after the transfer (not the city, itself though).

Originally posted by Peaster
But IMO many delays in Game #1 occur when players try to do diplomacy during their turns. I guess F3 might make that problem worse.

I'd actually expect the opposite. With diplomacy more limited, I'd think things should go quicker, no? One thing we would have to do if we limit things to the F3 screen is to separate the technical F3 transaction from broader diplomacy. We don't want to disallow diplomatic "stabbing", but you can't take advantage of the fact that the F3 transactions occur at two different times. Once an F3 transaction is agreed to, the reciprocal agreement MUST be carried out by the other player on his turn, just as if it were a simultaneous transaction in a .net game. We may have to insist that a written e:mail of the transaction be saved in case there are any disagreements, and they can be adjudicated by another player(s).

Originally posted by Peaster
...but I'd prefer not to get Bronze Weapons... wanna see what "normal" trade is like, with no penalties.

One of the truly egregious "brilliant strategies" I've been referring to. That one is particularly problematic because it is scenario-specific. And because it penalizes players who aren't aware of it or aren't micro-managing enough. And because it can only be done at particular times. And because a sub can't "fix" a predecessor's decision.

Like I said, I'd prefer to go minimalist on house rules, but this one screams loudly for a restriction (except maybe for the Persian player).

[Peaster]

Originally posted by RobRoy

Forgive my ignorance, but why is it "unusual" for Assyria to accept it "already". Is the program execution delay actually THAT long?

No. Normally, the Egyptian player would create a barter file like "Egyptian_gift.dat" after his turn, and email it to the Assyrian player. Then just before Assyria's turn, he'd start up civ2dip, to "apply the barter" to the most recent saved game [eg ha_b3240.hot]. That instantly revises the saved game. So, then Assyria starts civ2 and plays his turn from the revised save.

I took a shortcut, mainly so I wouldn't have to start civ2dip again in 3240 as Assyria. So, the Egyptian save has already been revised. I don't think the shortcut should have any real effect on gameplay [but if the Persians, for example, see the bartered skirmisher in 3250BC, it will appear blue instead of yellow].

I'd actually expect the opposite. With diplomacy more limited, I'd think things should go quicker, no?

More limited... how's that ?

In Game #1, most barters (mostly deals to give units and/or gold) are agreed to by email, between turns, so they don't slow down the game. But sometimes a player needs to contact another player about a deal mid-turn, which slows down the game. I imagine that with F3, most of us would wait until mid-turn to discuss deals.

One of the truly egregious "brilliant strategies" I've been referring to. That one is particularly problematic because it is scenario-specific. And because it penalizes players who aren't aware of it or aren't micro-managing enough. And because it can only be done at particular times. And because a sub can't "fix" a predecessor's decision.

Like I said, I'd prefer to go minimalist on house rules, but this one screams loudly for a restriction (except maybe for the Persian player).

Not sure what you object to.... all players need to know the scenario (probably with help from the others). They are responsible for knowing that Bronze Weapons = flight = a trade penalty, and for deciding whether they want it, eg for making barracks. Also, knowing the events.txt file, etc. IIRC ST also posted some useful pdf files for this scenario, including a tech-tree chart, and corrected unit stats (don't trust the civilopaedia!). Very helpful.

Anyway - What kind of restrictions are you thinking about ?

[Addled Platypus]

thanks for playing the last turn for me

I ready to step back in

"Peaster- all players need to know the scenario(probably with help from the others). "

HELP.....lol

[RobRoy]

Persians: Several defenders apparently won their battles versus barbs. Skirmishers killed another. More barbs seem to be appearing to the east...a fresh horde?

Greeks: Sparta held, no apparent damage. Two barbs poised to attack again this turn.

Minoans: Traded H.Arch to Egypt and demanded The Beak. Popped one hut for a tech (Outrigger) but was unable to recontact Egypt.

Hittites: New Horde appears to the east. Popped 5 huts: 3 mercs, 2 techs (Civic Plan, Crop Rotate). Contacted Assyria for maps, refused (don't think they're properly "worshipful" ) Egypt accepted a map trade, but had to go before I could do any techs. Can now see Assyrian cities...weird. Gifted techs to Babylon.

Hittite High Priest realizes he missed YET ANOTHER window of opportunity for starting a revolution. Orders more flagelation. It's not so bad at just one city...starting to get old, though. Somebody PLEASE remind me next time. It's tough when I'm doing multiple nations and the Hittites are always starting the NEXT turn.

Originally posted by Peaster
More limited... how's that ?

In Game #1, most barters (mostly deals to give units and/or gold) are agreed to by email, between turns, so they don't slow down the game. But sometimes a player needs to contact another player about a deal mid-turn, which slows down the game. I imagine that with F3, most of us would wait until mid-turn to discuss deals.

I was thinking that if there were fewer options available, people would spend less time/energy worrying about diplomacy. But I was also thinking that people would have to hammer things out before their turn, too, since it would have to be a clear, reciprocal arrangement that would be implemented over several turns. Yes, if people were trying to hammer out things during their turn, that would be painful.

Originally posted by Peaster
Not sure what you object to.... all players need to know the scenario...

Anyway - What kind of restrictions are you thinking about ?

Well, I haven't been successful, but I've tried recruiting people who've enjoyed CivII in the past, but not necessarily scenarios, or this scenario. One of the selling points I use for this scenario is that it's the "most Civ-like" in terms of its start and feel, and that it's fairly easy with an intuitive tech tree. I'd hate to spring surprises on people that are specific to a scenario and only fully appreciated by some players. Most exploits can be duplicated by newer players once they become aware of them...this one couldn't be. Some civ(s) would have a permanent, unintended, trade advantage over other civs. It's especially unfair to any sub who may enter an ongoing game, later.

As I've said, though, I'm not a big fan of banning exploits. But if we're talking about banning caravan rehoming because "trade is too powerful in this scenario" (not that I necessarily agree with this statement, BTW or object to van rehoming), how can we condone skipping a critical path technology that is designed to bring trade levels back to normal?

But if we want to allow it with restrictions, you could say:

- It's okay to avoid getting B.Weapons, but you can't research any of its dependent techs (Smelting Furnace, Spoked Wheels, etc.). So eventually, you'd have to get it.

- Anyone can gift that tech to another player, requiring a BW-free player to "share the wealth" on an ongoing basis in order to avoid, being subject to such a gift by one of the other six (this would be an exception to the diplomacy rule - that nothing can be done via the F3 diplomacy that hasn't been explicitly allowed by the other player)

- Only certain civs can use the exploit (e.g,. Persians) or certain civs can't use it (e.g., Minoans).

But, please, just because I mention some possible restrictions doesn't mean I want to see them implemented. Trying to limit exploits is a slippery slope, that could just introduce new ones and can easily devolve into a comparison of the relative merits or abusives of exploit X versus exploit Y.

Platy, You're up. Hope everyone there is healthy/happy. You've been receiving techs galore the last few turns, so you should be able to build some more robust units. At this point, I'd focus on some Early Chariots and/or Ladder Towers and stay hunkered down in your capital (defended by your nearly invincible Palace Guard) and wait until the horde(s) spend themselves.

If you'd like to play one of the other civs, too, and get some more experience, just sing out. I don't think anyone would really mind.

[Addled Platypus]

Sure, playing one more civ cant hurt

1 Ladder Tower Built....huzaa

http://apolyton.net/upload/view.php?file=22570_ha_b3240.hot

[RobRoy]

Originally posted by Platypus Rex
Sure, playing one more civ cant hurt

Hittites or Assyrians would make the most sense - one coming just before, one coming just after your turn. I think the Hittites have a couple more units, Assyrians have more cities. Both should have been sharing techs. I could make arguments either way.

Peaster, you have no objection to yielding Assyria do you? Despite the proximity of Assyria and Babylon, Plat could play both (yielding to Pal if he ever gets settled enough to rejoin). Meanwhile, you could take the Persians and the Greeks, until ST resurfaces?

Or would having him play the Hittites make more sense? I'm only hesitant about them since they are the turn initiators...

[Peaster]

Sure, Platy can have Assyria. It has a strong army and should be more fun to play than the Babylonians now

I played 4 civs in 3240 to save time. ST told me he can't play for 3 weeks. I can take Persia and/or the Greeks til then. If Platy does not have civ2dip, maybe I should also play Assyria in 3230 [to complete the 3250 barter, the Egyptian skirmisher must be "unfrozen"]. But Platy might want to look at the Assy position in advance, to give me instructions, or questions. For example, Nineveh will make a granary soon, unless you prefer city walls there [which Pal started].

Assy: Defeated 4 barbs. Worshipful of all foreigners.
Egypt: Def 2 barbs, gave H.Arc away, can't see Hit cities.
Persia: 3huts for 50 gold + C1. No combat.
Greeks: Sparta lives (barely). Contact with Minoans.

Not sure of previous Pers/Greek plans. For example, would the Greeks accept Minoan help with techs? It may be moot, since the Greeks have almost no gold anyway.
----------------------------------------
Platypus: Just let me know what kind of help you need. Do you have ST's pdf's ? Have you looked over the events.txt and rules.txt files ? Have you practiced the scenario in SP mode ?

[Addled Platypus]

will yield Assy when needed, dont need to look in advance

No on the ST's PDF's, and events/rules text...just jumped in with both feet

[RobRoy]

Originally posted by Peaster
Sure, Platy can have Assyria....I can take Persia and/or the Greeks...

Excellent, I don't mind the Greeks, since they're so small, but there's a conflict of interest with the Minoans, so better if you can do all three, especially if we're talking weeks. I find trying to remember four sets of thoughts/plans, etc. too difficult.


Minoans: 2 huts: merc, tech (Seafaring). Made Peace with the Greeks so they'd stop asking. Gifted one tech to Egypt (they wouldn't stay for the other). Egypt keeps want to ally. Is there any concrete advantage/disadvantage to making peace or alliances in a MP .hot game? I guess the ignore ZOC feature, for alliances. I assume we really shouldn't do any of that without explicit authorization, though.

Hittites: 1 Slave Raid. Four huts: cashX2, barb, tech (Fort). First time in awhile for cash... Shared techs with Babs, Assyrians, and Egypt (Egypt wouldn't stick around for one, again). Thinking I might stop goody hut exploration, soon, to ensure I can take advantage of the BW exploit, also. I think there are still lots of huts in the Arabian desert. Who will fall on his sword and share/sell the post BW techs with everyone?

Originally posted by Peaster
...can't see Hit cities....

Interesting, I wonder if only the map trade initiator gets to see cities/units, while the recipient only gets the terrain map? You didn't lose any city views that you already had, did you?

Speaking of city placement and trade exploits, Peaster, is your tight city placement by any chance motivated by a desire to maximize Hides production in your kingdoms? Another "brilliant strategy" that make Caravan rehoming look pretty tame, if you ask me. I'm so ridiculously picky about where I place my cities, I can never bring myself to choose sites just because they are likely to produce Hides. Or do you just favor a rapid, early expansion ala ICS? I hadn't even thought about it, but I'm adhering to one house rule I always use, for SP games: not to build cities with NONE Settlers, just use them as workers (since they are supposed to be slaves, it seems odd to let them build a city). That's one house rule we might want to consider, if we go with any, since it's scenario-specific.

Originally posted by Peaster
Not sure of previous Pers/Greek plans. For example, would the Greeks accept Minoan help with techs? It may be moot, since the Greeks have almost no gold anyway.

ST definitely wanted not to receive the techs. He's doing a test to see how tough the barbs are without our little tech sharing exploit...both civs have some terrain advantages, but Greece is hurting, obviously. He might change his mind if we're continuing the test game after the first round of invasions is spent.

He never answered the question about map trades, though...Minoans could try to trade maps with the Greeks, ditto Hittites/Persians, if everyone's "worshipful". But might ST be more sensitive to his city/road network information that I am?

Absent any notes or directions, I was having the two southernmost units go in the general direction of the Sindbad Spearmen, via any known goody huts. There are two skirmishers lazily heading northwest, toward the Jason Spearmen, again going via suspected huts, but knowing many of these have been pillaged by the Hittites.

You're up, Platy! Just do the Babs this turn, so Peaster can finish whatever he's testing in Civ2Dip with the Assyrians. Peaster, is this still stuff from the 3250 turn exercise you did? Does it always take...what...three turns to close out a transaction?

[Addled Platypus]

One city, 6 units

vs

24+ units

what are the odds- stay tunned

http://apolyton.net/upload/view.php?file=22570_ha_b3230.hot