New "Ancient Empires" PBEM created

[Zedd]

I suppose my views are not very well defined.

I have had no problem with players changing sliders becouse I considered the impact minimal. (Though, in reflection, I know that changing sliders can have a great impact.)

I have myself forgoten to set workers and changed them during an MP session to prevent unrest.

I would think it unethical to use MP to rushbuy lots of units for an attack on a civ next turn, or to beat another civ to a tech or wonder.


The problem is you can't allow some changes and not others, so for my vote I would have to agree that no civ management should be allowed.

[SlowThinker]

Originally posted by Zedd
I would think it unethical to use MP to rushbuy lots of units for an attack on a civ next turn, or to beat another civ to a tech or wonder.

I think we don't have to bother what is ethical and what is not: the rules are clear enough, and it is sufficient to follow them, and possibly suggest a change if some rule seems not to be ideal.
Ethic is very individual. For example MP rushbuys are hardly useful for attack but rather for a defense against a surprise attack, so somebody could say MP rushbuys are very ethical ) .

[Straybow]

But I wanted to rushbuy Parthenon to steal it from Persia...

Seriously, if it is a matter of perceived cheating then announce changes in the thread to see if somebody objects. We can allow some changes and not allow others.

I think for most cases it won't be a problem. When Hatte sells MilEngs or Farmers to Greece if we barter them then the city can easily be in shield violation. If we swap in MP then it gets rehomed automatically.

On a couple occasions Hatte got ships and had no ports to home them. MP double-swap allowed them to be homed to Tralleis.

Hattusas has an agreement with Babylon to sell Cohorts. But to prevent escalation research was frozen until Persia discovered it. It was not incumbant on Persia to tell us when Cohorts would be completed. I'd like to change a worker to an Aristotle.

[SlowThinker]

Straybow wrote:
> We can allow some changes and not allow others.

IMO we need a simple rule, and not to judge each individual case.
A new rule can say MP must not be used for the civ management, but may be used for diplomacy (F3).

[atawa]

I think thats not a new rule but one of the basic concepts to PBEM. I dont mind if MP is allowed but then I would want to play out this game in MP sessions so everyone has the same benifits.

[SlowThinker]

atawa wrote:
>I dont mind if MP is allowed but then I would want to play out this game in MP sessions so everyone has the same benifits.

Do you mean you want to have that possibility anytime?
It is supposed you must have a friendly civ that agrees + the player has time to establish the connection.
(BTW this is another flaw of MP sessions - you and your MP partner must find time when to do it)

[atawa]

Not anytime, but either play it out without MP or schedulle MP sessions where all players can micromanage at any time.

[SlowThinker]

How to schedule a MP so that 6 players can connect? IMO it is not always easy to get 7 players together, and 6 seems impossible.

[Straybow]

"IMO it is not always easy to get 7 players together, and 6 seems impossible."

I tink he means it isn't easy to get 2-3 players together. kengel and Slo live in Europe. Kull, Zedd, and I live in USA. The reason we do PBeM is because we need flexibility not possible with MP.

[atawa]

I agree, witch is why I vote against micromanaging in MP sessions alltogether as it gives some player an advantage over other players.

[Kull]

Originally posted by atawa
I agree, witch is why I vote against micromanaging in MP sessions alltogether as it gives some player an advantage over other players.

Exactly. CivDip is the program designed to handle all the inter-civ diplomacy in a PBEM game. If it can't be done in CivDip then it should NEVER be done in MP. And to the extent that Civ Management can occur in MP sessions, I'd prefer to outlaw it altogether. I'm less than thrilled to contemplate the position Egypt is in today as a result of religiously following single player rules.

[Straybow]

Except that Civ2 can't handle everything that Civ2Dip can do. It shows a transfered unit as being supported in the originating city, but doesn't actually count the shields. Therefore we made rehoming rules to cover that. We included rules to cover potential abuse of rehoming.

Now you are concerned about city and tax management in MP. When we encountered the bizarre not-quite-F11 effects (still unexplained in Civ2ology) we contemplated MP corrections if only one or two players had a few cities messed up. A hypothetical correction is different from oops-I-wanna-do-this.

However, I prefer to keep the players happy. Rules are what we make, and change, as we wish. Changing them at this point does no harm as far as I can see.

So, in the interest of meta-diplomacy, I vote with Kull.

[Straybow]

Persia invades!!?!11!12!

BTW, Persian save did not include Ctrl-N!

[edit: If nothing vital was disturbed we should not replay]

Persian save vs Greek save:

[atawa]

Dear Consul Straybow,

We regret to inform you that during the revolution one of our spearmen units was unfortunately given wrong tactical information and instead of returning to baracks moved to Nivineh.
We assure you the right orders are sent to this unit as I'm having this writen by my scribes, our apologies for any inconvenience coused by our troops.

With best regards.
atawa

OT/ If you havent started your turn yet, I've attached a version including ctrl-N.

Edit: There is no B in wrong

[atawa]

@Straybow:

I dont mind people fixing problems we encounter due to how the game operates, only mind people changing buildingorders on someone elses turn