Tweet
Platypus: I think you can find the pdf's in the Game #1 thread (and/or Kull's website). They display rules.txt info more clearly. You should print them and study them a bit. The only "dangerous" tech I see before the Iron Age is Bronze Weapons which allows barracks etc, but carries a trade penalty and obsoletes skirmishers. AFAIK about half the Game #1 players have it.
I don't know exactly which govts are possible - probably Mon, Com and Rep. Nobody has switched to Com in Game #1 (see rules.txt about corruption etc).
You should study the scenario a bit, and maybe even read the Game #1 thread. You will probably learn some tricks from your allies if we ever play a real game. If you have problems or questions, pls ask.
Right. AFAIK "peace" or attitude (worshipful etc) has no effect except when using F3, which we never used in Game #1. The "ignore ZOC" feature is very important with trade routes and lots of units traded back and forth. In Game #1 there was some concern recently about how to cancel an alliance (wihout using F3). I assume using F3 would teleport offsides units, as in SP, and some players thought this could be exploited.
Sounds like the Hittites are using a hyper-exploration strategy, combined with a slow growth rate [and maybe some luck with disappearing hordes]. I am interested to see how that works out.
Egypt does NOT volunteer to take BW, and IMO the Persians/Greeks are no-go's too. In Game #1, I took BW as Persia, hoping to make/sell veteran units to Babylon, but that didn't really happen. I imagine some silent deal was made about BW in the West too... dunno.
IIRC Egypt has never had a view of Hittite cities. AFAIK map trades work correctly with civ2dip, not sure about F3.
Speaking of city placement and trade exploits, Peaster, ... Or do you just favor a rapid, early expansion ala ICS?
Yes. Just a habit of making cities ASAP.
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.
IMO "slaves" is just a label Kull used in the events to add flavor to the scenario, so the players can use them however they want.
OK. I will let the Persian/Greek experiments proceed, though it would be nice to have some instructions from the player in situations like this. Both civs look pretty ugly, with lots of barbs about.
I doubt that ST cares much about revealing his cities, but he seems to enjoy exploring, so let's wait and let him decide about a map trade. BTW in Game #1 we had a house rule against trading maps before both civs had the "map making" tech (Persia/Greeks don't have it). Do we want this rule in Game #2 ? Does F3 enforce it, as it does in SP ? (I assume civ2dip does not).
Sinbad = OK. Jason = Not yet. Those barbs have forts and are probably too tough for skirms.
Peaster, is this still stuff from the 3250 turn exercise you did? Does it always take...what...three turns to close out a transaction?
When trading units, it requires civ2dip 3 times, within a "2 turn timespan". But something odd happened - the skirmisher could not move in 3240 OR 3230 ! Maybe ST or some lurker can explain this, as I am not really a civ2dip expert:
Late 3250BC: Egypt gives the skirm to Assyria (Egypt makes the barter).
3240BC: Assyria accepts it, but it is frozen (as expected). An unfreezing barter is made.
Early 3230BC: Assyria applies the unfreezing barter. The skirmisher should be able to move, at least in a network game, but it cannot.
3220BC: The skirmisher can move (I played ahead to check this).
I have played to the end of 3230BC; report follows.
I don't know exactly which govts are possible - probably Mon, Com and Rep. Nobody has switched to Com in Game #1 (see rules.txt about corruption etc).
You should study the scenario a bit, and maybe even read the Game #1 thread. You will probably learn some tricks from your allies if we ever play a real game. If you have problems or questions, pls ask.
Originally posted by RobRoy
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.
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).
Who will fall on his sword and share/sell the post BW techs with everyone?
Who will fall on his sword and share/sell the post BW techs with everyone?
Egypt does NOT volunteer to take BW, and IMO the Persians/Greeks are no-go's too. In Game #1, I took BW as Persia, hoping to make/sell veteran units to Babylon, but that didn't really happen. I imagine some silent deal was made about BW in the West too... dunno.
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, ... 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.
ST definitely wanted not to receive the techs.
But might ST be more sensitive to his city/road network information that I am?
But might ST be more sensitive to his city/road network information that I am?
I doubt that ST cares much about revealing his cities, but he seems to enjoy exploring, so let's wait and let him decide about a map trade. BTW in Game #1 we had a house rule against trading maps before both civs had the "map making" tech (Persia/Greeks don't have it). Do we want this rule in Game #2 ? Does F3 enforce it, as it does in SP ? (I assume civ2dip does not).
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
There are two skirmishers lazily heading northwest, toward the Jason Spearmen
Peaster, is this still stuff from the 3250 turn exercise you did? Does it always take...what...three turns to close out a transaction?
Late 3250BC: Egypt gives the skirm to Assyria (Egypt makes the barter).
3240BC: Assyria accepts it, but it is frozen (as expected). An unfreezing barter is made.
Early 3230BC: Assyria applies the unfreezing barter. The skirmisher should be able to move, at least in a network game, but it cannot.
3220BC: The skirmisher can move (I played ahead to check this).
I have played to the end of 3230BC; report follows.
Shared maps with Egypt, and COULD see the Hittite cities...interesting. It appears that the Egyptians really do "know" about the Hittite cities...they just don't know that they know it. 
Couldn't gift a tech to Egypt, try demanding/trading it next turn. And try another map trade from Egypt's perspective and confirm that you get the city/road placement, too. 
Don't contact the Minoans next turn, I played ahead to see what would happen and Egyptian peace overtures would be rejected and it would make it impossible for the Minoans to contact you again. Minoans should be able to initiate peace overtures on their 3200 turn. Oh, and please don't kill anyone wandering around Libya. 
Comment