New "Ancient Empires" PBEM created

[SlowThinker]

I have run a test with prolonging the period/term of the unfreezing barter by hexediting: it works.
The back-back method should work too, but ... theoretically there might be a problem because the unit is freezed already ... but a test would be more laborious.

[La Fayette]

Here is my opinion:
1)I am not in favour of utilities in general (never use any in my SP games).
2) But in this game, it was agreed that Civ2dip was allowed and it proved to make for a fun game.
3) None of us is familiar with Civ2Dip, so it doesn't always run smoothly.
4) But I am confident that no one is trying to cheat, and it would be a very bad idea to change the rules in the middle of the game.
Therefore, I am strongly in favour of:
- not changing the rules,
- accepting to pay for my mistakes,
- having a discussion here when there is a problem yet unsolved.

[SlowThinker]

If I understand (unformal) principles of this PBEM then
changes of rules and departures from the rules must be agreed by all participants
unclear and new situations are decided by something like voting or propounding a solution and waiting who disagrees.
(tell me if I am wrong)

I vetoed germanos' proposition to change rules (that giving units is forbidden) so we needn't deal with this case anymore IMO.

But we must decide how to solve if somebody forgets to apply the unfreezing barter (for Peaster and others unfamiliar with it: if you get a unit in 2840 then you cannot move with it immediately. You must apply another barter in 2830 (this barter is generated automately) - this will allow the unit to move in 2830).
I see three solutions:
1) to give unit back and back again. This cannot be exceptionable IMO. It is not 100% sure it will work.
2) to hexedit the unfreezing barter and change the year. Hexedit is fast and easy. It has been tested and works.
3) to replay.
Pls send your opinions which methods should be used.

My opinion: replaying slows down the game. I think this method should be applied only when there is no other solution.
So I am for 1) (works) and 2) (must be tested first).

[Peaster]

I vote for replaying when it can be done quickly - before the next player posts. [and if you are late, you have to try 1) instead]

This seems like a very easy mistake to make, and we should not be too tough about it. I don't like hex-editing as the default remedy, because some of us (most?) don't know how to do it, and we may not want to out-source the job either.

I agree with ST that option 1) is harmless to other players, and does not require approval. If it doesn't work, I would allow hex-editing.

[germanos]

can't the barter-file be applied to the save SlowThinker posted?

That would leave only me who has to replay.

[Straybow]

No, barters expire after one turn. That's why there has to be a second barter to enforce the freezing of a unit after it is given (preventing the unit from moving more than once in a turn).

You apply a barter with Civ2Dip (usually to the save of the player ahead of you) to take possession of the gift. Civ2Dip generates a new barter to unfreeze the unit. You apply that the next turn (usually to the save of the player ahead of you) so you can start moving the unit.

[SlowThinker]

Test results: The back-back method works.

I have no problem with my replay, but rather don't want to bother germanos with his replay. Also I think we had many replays already and we should try to apply other means whenever possible. It would be a bad precedens .

[Straybow]

If hexedit of the unfreeze Civ2Dip file is that simple, go with that.

[germanos]

Originally posted by SlowThinker
Test results: The back-back method works.

I have no problem with my replay, but rather don't want to bother germanos with his replay. Also I think we had many replays already and we should try to apply other means whenever possible. It would be a bad precedens .

I resign my commision.

I have allready clearly stated that I didn't like Straybow's reconstruction of his Wondershields. I also didn't like hex-editing. It's basicly the cheat-mode, but a little less straightforward and less visible to others. Never mind the fact that a lot of this hex-editing is completely experimental and thus prone to create more anomalies. I guess that only God (Sid) only really knows what exactly is going on.

I made clear that Straybow's case would set a bad example, and from my point of view it has been going downhill ever since. The same turn that Straybow's shields are finally restored we have had the screw-up with giving invisible units (duh!) and again we are asked to resort to hexediting or other cheats to get things 'right'. We again got a 'hanging solution' waiting for completion (any news on the progress of that is absent, so I guess said invisible unit is still in virtual transit somewhere in our little game-world.

And now apparently hexediting will become the prefered method of fixing peoples mistakes and screw-ups.


I really hate it that issues like this keep coming up, both by the flawed design of the game for PBEM and by mistakes that people make.
The fun has been sucked out of this game, and it has become a 'rule'-fest. The original purpose, playing a fun game and compete with others has been (for me) evolved in a game of skirting the rules, and then only the words of the rules appear important, and not the spirit of them nor the spirit of the game/scenario.

I have been in favor of setting rules, and I had hoped we could come to a simple set of them. We do have an elaborate set of them now, but I have the feeling they do us no good. They need to be constantly enlarged as issues come up that (may or may not) be covered by the original set.
I'm not willing to discuss rules anymore, it is without end.

I can continue to take care of Assyria until I leave for Syria in April, but I won't be coming back after that.


I will not accept ANY hex-editing during that period, and I insist that SlowThinker replays his turn, recreating all he has done last turn in detail, so we can continue as normal.

Germanos.

[SlowThinker]

Originally posted by germanos
I will not accept ANY hex-editing during that period, and I insist that SlowThinker replays his turn, recreating all he has done last turn in detail, so we can continue as normal.

For Babylon to replay is better than to give the horse back and back, since the unit will gain two turns, but I think it would be better so that people get used to pay for their mistakes.
I don't understand why do you prefer the replay? I see you don't like the hexediting but why are you against the back-back method?

And now apparently hexediting will become the prefered method of fixing peoples mistakes and screw-ups.

I do not know...
I said I prefered to hexedit the barter but I was clearly prepared to accept anything including the unit would be lost (also because it was my mistake). Straybow agreed. Peaster agreed only if the back-back method wouldn't work, so he disagreed too. Germanos said he strictly disagreed.
Although we speak about voting in such unclear situations we always respect if somebody expresses a strong disagreement (an example: only germanos was against looking at the saves of an ally, and it was accepted (I suppose) ( for the meantime, I may open the case if I get an ally)).
An apparent(?) conclusion: hexediting is agreed .

The same turn that Straybow's shields are finally restored we have had the screw-up with giving invisible units (duh!) and again we are asked to resort to hexediting or other cheats to get things 'right'.

You are right, I forgot this problem.
But IIRC I stated I didn't stick on that invisible unit. You could require turn is replayed or to forget that unit. It would be better than to agree, to come up with it now and to leave the SoG PBEM because of it...

Never mind the fact that a lot of this hex-editing is completely experimental and thus prone to create more anomalies. I guess that only God (Sid) only really knows what exactly is going on.

I think we know more than Sid about some of behaviours of Civ2, for example about bugs.
The case of Hittite beakers: I changed 1 byte of the save. Then I compared the original and the new file so that it was sure only 1 byte was changed. Straybow reported his number of shields changed as expected. That 1 byte coldn't change two things simultaneously because the structure of .sav files is known well (this has been proved by many tools (mainly for scenario designers) that works).
Hexediting a barter would be less controversial since you don't change any real data, only the year when the barter expires.
Yet I fully respect your suspiciousness towards hexediting.

I have been in favor of setting rules, and I had hoped we could come to a simple set of them.

Civ2 was not designed for PBEM and so there are special methods like Ctrl-N, methods of diplomacy, Civ-Dip, no F11 etc. that allow us to enjoy the PBEM better. There are many bugs in Civ2 and some in CivDip. Most PBEMs were played without rules so there are still unknown problems.
All these things affect the complexity of the ruleset and cause that new problems appear.
If you can suggest a simpler ruleset do it please.

The original purpose, playing a fun game and compete with others has been (for me) evolved in a game of skirting the rules, and then only the words of the rules appear important, and not the spirit of them nor the spirit of the game/scenario.

I do not understand. How are rules in contrast with the spirit of the scenario? or what do you mean by a 'spirit'?

IMO the incremental rush-buy is clearly in contrast with the spirit of the game, but almost everybody uses it and so it it considered as normal.
75% of PBEM players think reloading hut and combat results is OK (see the voting at CDG), so I suppose they think it is in accordance with the spirit of game. ( They usually don't speak about rules in their games, so 'fun is not sucked out'. But I laughed when I read how those 25% were petrified after they found out their opponents reload.)

Originally posted by germanos
I can continue to take care of Assyria until I leave for Syria in April, but I won't be coming back after that.

I would really like you reconsider it.
I cannot conceive your reason why you want to leave the game but I can imagine your feelings: I was prepared to leave just before Steve Clark left. From a totally oposite reason: a lack of rules and tanelorn's and Steve's aversion to them.

[germanos]

Originally posted by SlowThinker
You are right, I forgot this problem.
But IIRC I stated I didn't stick on that invisible unit. You could require turn is replayed or to forget that unit. It would be better than to agree, to come up with it now and to leave the SoG PBEM because of it...

I don't.

But as I said then, I stopped caring: with Straybows Wonder I allready expressed we were setting a precedent I didn't like, and the turn it is fixed, my fears become reality...

And now, one or two turns after that, I would have to bring up the point AGAIN?

I'm sorry, but it just completely bores me to death.

THAT is why I'm leaving.

[SlowThinker]

The Babylonian skirmishers and Persian scouts rejoice after the salvage. Scouts will wow a faithfulness to The Immortal soon.

[SlowThinker]

bab 2840 (with unfreezed unit )

.

[La Fayette]

Germanos,

Reading your post, I have a feeling that you don't enjoy this game any longer and wish to give up.
I feel sorry for you
(and I hope that my cat is not responsible for that ).

[Kull]

Well, here's my two cents:

1) At the end of the day, this is, after all, just a game!

2) Maybe I'm naive, but I just have this gut level feel that if all seven us were sitting around a keg, we'd have the BEST time! I don't think there's a single sneaky, untrustworthy guy in the group.

3) The regular screw-ups, "oops moments", and resulting "new-rule-itis" is just humorous background noise for me! Why? See #1

4) Even if one of us WAS a conniving a-hole, determined to cheat his way to victory, that would be disappointing, but still no real big deal. Why? See #1

So Germanos - deep breath my friend - as someone who grew up in the third world (bangla desh, thailand, brazil), your trip to syria will get you up close and personal to people whose daily life is full of unbelievable hardships (seeing it on TV is NOT the same thing, believe me). In the midst of that, you'll look back on these frustrations and smile. Because, after all - repeat after me - "see #1"