New "Ancient Empires" PBEM created

[germanos]

I only now realize that there is no reason for Straybow to enter LaFayette save

What is there to give that cannot be demanded?



And more to the point: CivDip is a utility that works outside Civ2. You can use the utility even if you don't have Civ2 on your computer All you need is the rules.txt and the save...

[SlowThinker]

Yes, this is why I think the Straybow's acting for LaFayette in CivDip should be considered correct from any point of view. CivDip shows him only things that LaFayette could Ctrl-C and send by e-mail easily.

I think he wants
1. to look at the save of his ally, because then they can collaborate more comfortably than with sending screenshots
or
2. to manage civ of his ally, anytime or when one is missing.

[germanos]

No, it is something else:

Originally posted by Straybow

I had to handle a Civ2Dip transaction for La Fayette since he doesn't have it reinstalled on his comp. I figured it was OK, as our civs are allied and he is sending me a map anyway. I didn't do anything or look around, just re-saved and sent it to LF.

If he was doing 1), then that is what I would object to.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by germanos
I only now realize that there is no reason for Straybow to enter LaFayette save

What is there to give that cannot be demanded?

And more to the point: CivDip is a utility that works outside Civ2. You can use the utility even if you don't have Civ2 on your computer All you need is the rules.txt and the save...

I couldn't demand the map yet. LF was to do his turn which may include some map swaps. I needed to make a 2900 save for Minos so that I could make a valid Civ2Dip packet from him to me. Then I apply the Civ2Dip to his final 2900 save which goes to me. Otherwise it would be another full turn before I got the map.

If he was doing 1), then that is what I would object to.

Not the case here. Of course, it was like trying not to scratch a really intense itch.

/me thinks: Must... Not... Look...

[SlowThinker]

Originally posted by Straybow
I needed to make a 2900 save for Minos so that I could make a valid Civ2Dip packet from him to me.

(So the barter went from Minoans to Hittites, OK?)
make a save? You could download it...

next part is removed:

Then you should take the 2910 turn of Minoans to prepare his barter. CivDip works over the year switch (from 2910 to 2900).
The 2900 save of Minoans should work too, but.... CivDip needs Minoan save to prepare the offer. So only problem is if Minoans offered something that they didn't have in 2910.(??)

If not then I suggest to move the game on.

(Removed: SlowThinker was thinking too fast)

But I would like not to stop our debate about rules and to finish with some conclusion.

[Straybow]

All Hatta is buzzing with excitement of new lands discovered by the brave mariners of the isles. The master-plan of building is showing the first fruits of progress. The King is happy.

Originally posted by SlowThinker
Concerning the reconstruction of Straybow's shields: you should remember it sooner, you have to wait until next turn because I have no free time now.
What I have to do: I have a source of the Civ2Admin program, I will use it and rewrite it so that it finds your city in the .sav file and changes the amount of shields (maybe gold too? didn't you tell unit was rushbought?)

Might as well delay 2 turns because Iconion is now 2 turns from completing current production. Then the box will be clear and a shield fix can be applied.

[SlowThinker]

Sorry, I edited my last post

[SlowThinker]

Situation with the use of CivDip is unclear for me, Straybow pls explain. I downloaded but I am waiting.

Originally posted by Straybow
Might as well delay 2 turns because Iconion is now 2 turns from completing current production. Then the box will be clear and a shield fix can be applied.

What do you mean? I can revert situation as would be if wonder production continued, but you cannot build anything in the meantime or you must not use it. I suppose the unit that was built already stays in the city?

[La Fayette]

1) About rules:
The other PBEMs I am involved in (namely "crusty" and "7players") have a threadstarter who is more or less the boss: he knows the rules and asks the other players only when there is a problem.

IMO Kull is (or should be) the boss in this game, especially because it is very clear that Germanos and SlowThinker seldom agree

2) About restoring Straybow's shields:
I say YES (since there seems to be no problem hidden behind)

3) About replacements:
I have replaced my ally Carolus in the 7 players PBEM and everyone agreed. But we are free to decide otherwise in this PBEM.
Yet, I am strongly in favour of a replacement of Stefan by Sparrowhawk, if Sparrowhawk agrees.

[Straybow]

Situation with the use of CivDip is unclear for me, Straybow pls explain. I downloaded but I am waiting.

As I understand Civ2Dip, if I made an offer from the 2910 Minoan save it would only be valid until the next Minoan turn. Civ2Dip would say the offer has expired if I tried to apply it to Minos' 2900 save.

I suppose he could have told me to make an offer as Minos from his end of turn save, but that wasn't in my thinking at the time.

I can revert situation as would be if wonder production continued, but you cannot build anything in the meantime or you must not use it.

Instead, apply half the shields (40 + 5 for lost turn production) to a caravan in 2 turns. A wiser choice if abandoning a Wonder. The useless 20-shield unit (early chariot) that was created by the AI will be disbanded away from a city next turn if the correction is acceptable. Worry about Wonders later.

PS: We are displeased with the "code" block since it messes up the page layout.

[germanos]

Originally posted by Straybow
PS: We are displeased with the "code" block since it messes up the page layout.

seconded



On the replacement issue:

While I probably will not veto somebody substituting for an allied player, I do have strong reservations against it.

In any case, we have Sparrowhawk who appears to be willing to substitute if the need arises. (as he has done once for me).

I do think that in the interest of the game, it is important to keep all players commited, and therefore it is important not to create all kind of possibilities to legally skip turns. Especially in the case of war, the advantage of one player governing two empires/ armies is overwhelming. It is just so much easier to coordinate tactics and strategy when you have full control.

Then there is the matter of my first or second PBEM where I had very bad experience with an ally substituting for an absent player. (I will find the link, if possible).

edit: pre-WWI Germany is smashed by the unified command of France and Russia

Summary of the above link:
one player is absent for a copple of weeks (hollidays).
His ally substitutes. (Russia substitutes for France).
Before France returns from holidays, Russia launches a surprise attack on Germany, and mobs up with French forces.
Note: the game itself is not so important, it was a lousy scenario anyway, but it just shows how poerfull a unified command is.

[SlowThinker]

replacement issue

Originally posted by germanos
In any case, we have Sparrowhawk who appears to be willing to substitute if the need arises. (as he has done once for me).

I contacted SparrowHawk concerning Stephan: it looks he is willing to replace Stephan temporarily and maybe ... he would bury himself in and continued if we need a permanent replacement. (see next post)

Originally posted by germanos
I do think that in the interest of the game, it is important to keep all players commited, and therefore it is important not to create all kind of possibilities to legally skip turns. Especially in the case of war...

As usually I consider it a good argument, but for opposite stance .
Especially in case of war you need that your civ is managed quite precise. There are usually problems with internet connection in this thread. So La Fayette wouldn't be able to describe his strategic intentions to SparrowHawk (or any uninterested party). And if he were able to do it then it would be much easier to explain them to Straybow who knows all preceding arrangements.

Especially in the case of war, the advantage of one player governing two empires/ armies is overwhelming.

But they can swap maps each turn, they add a screenshot of F2 window and they are very close to situation where one player manages both civs. And with even more effort allies can achieve the same coordination like if one man manages both civs.

It is just so much easier to coordinate tactics and strategy when you have full control.

It is less laborious. I don't like games that recompense rough work (like Civ2 and its micromanagement).

We play a PBEM with full diplomacy: I think common command is only very small advantage in comparison with the fact that two players may join against another one.

I expressed also one kind of objection (that in final only two players managing two alliances could play), but IMHO the problems around missing players are more important. It may annoy if you see your war achievements from 10 turns are lost in one turn of your absence. And as you said: it is important to keep players commited.
So I strongly agree with a rule disallowing replacements, but not in the case of an absence.

[SlowThinker]

Stefan's absence

First I will introduce you in my talk with Sparrowhawk:

Originally posted by Sparrowhawk by PM

Originally posted by SlowThinker by PM
don't you want to play Persia in SoG PBEM, at least temporarily?
ST

If that is the best solution I could, but as I have stated previously, I don't think that is the best idea.

I have seen most Civs by subbing, and have knowledge most others don't.

I also have little idea of the tech chart and unit abilities (but even with limited knowledge I could do better then Control N).

Having said this, if it is still thought to be preferable for me to fill in until a more suitable replacement is found I would do so....would this mean I would no longer sub for other missing players?

?Sparrowhawk

I think there are two kinds of replacements that we need:

1) A temporary replacement (we should give Stefan a chance to come back as we did in case of Straybow - I propose end of November)
IMHO a temporary sub shouldn't participate in alliances but to stay neutral and continue past Stefan's diplomatic treatment (each civ can report past agreements to the sub).

2) A permanent replacement (starts after temporary replacement if Stefan won't come)

There is a question if SparrowHawk wants to be a permanent sub if nobody other comes.
And if he does then there is a question of his Ctrl-N acting: he saw some maps, so rulers of these civs should say if they disagree with permanent replacement by Sparrowhawk.

[SlowThinker]

Originally posted by Straybow

As I understand Civ2Dip, if I made an offer from the 2910 Minoan save it would only be valid until the next Minoan turn. Civ2Dip would say the offer has expired if I tried to apply it to Minos' 2900 save.

So you prepared a barter that should be applied on 2900 Minoan save. OK?
Then you should take your preceding turn (2900 Hittite save) for preparation of an offer.
At least I suppose this is way how CivDip is working.

But I think CivDip cannot spoil the save even if applied incorectly... so I will play (tomorrow probably).

[SlowThinker]

Originally posted by Straybow
Instead, apply half the shields (40 + 5 for lost turn production) to a caravan in 2 turns.

I am against such things. We are simulating situation x turns ago. X turns ago you weren't wiser and you wanted to continue in wonder production. I can restore situation like if wonder production continues. You are wiser now, so you can change production now.