New "Ancient Empires" PBEM created

[kengel]

Just before the greek king fells asleep in the early morning hours:
Here is the save, no news...
Enjoy!

[SlowThinker]

lost Bab swordsmen - IMPORTANT

In 2780 the Babylonian swordsmen that lost their way in the desert due to use of CivDip in a Black area should arrive in one of my cities.
I would like to make them by hexediting my 2790 save (adding shields to my city so that swordsmen are completed in 2780).
I will post my original save, then the edited one. The new save will have one byte changed (number of shields in that city).

You can find an agreement of other players if you go to page 53:

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?postid=3471318#post3471318

and read subsequent posts.

[SlowThinker]

Originally posted by Zedd
I said from the beginning that I was not looking forward to war, and would keep a mind open for peace. But if the price of peace is 1/2 of all Assyria then it is too much. If my enemies require 1/2 of what the Assyrians have worked for then there will be blood shed on each side. Thus far I have made no move more aggressive save the delivery of camels and the defense of Assyrias only Island city from ships sent to attack. I have elected to defend those cities left in my charge at Dedanu's passing, rather than "aquiring" more cities, which was most certainly possible.

I doubt that this distinction will sway the hatred of our enemys.

A half of Assyria (we think it was about a third only) and a coequal position among other nations might be better than no Assyria at all. But if Zedanu thinks he can resists against 6 nations in the long term...

For completeness: in the meantime Babylonians had to invest enormous amount of gold in the war industry and so our trade suffered very much. Therefore now for peace we would require all the area Sippur-Kurigalzu-Arraphka-Ekkalate as a compensation.

[La Fayette]

The bloodthirsty Assyrian bireme has been sent to the bottom

[SlowThinker]

RULES

Giving units

There is a problem with exchanging units:
If a unit is passed via MP connection, it is rehomed to nearest city of the new owner. If a unit is passed via CivDip, it stays homed in the original (and so foreign city).

Rehoming caravans is bad, therefore we disallowed passing units by MP sessions. We supposed with this rule caravan revenue won't change, because home cities doesn't change, but this is not true: this way a foreign bonus may change, also the Railroad=BronzeWeapons loss may be suppressed etc.
So I suggest to add this rule:
If caravan is passed to another civ it cannot be delivered if the revenue would be bigger than the revenue of the original owner.

Another problem is a shield support after passing a unit by CivDip:
If a city homes a foreign unit then the unit doesn't need a shield of support (although it would need it if it weren't foreign).
So I suggest to add this rule:
It is forbidden that an unfreezed unit doesn't consume a shield of support due to being a foreign unit.
(You must rectify it:
the home city must "unhome" some units so that no shield support would be consumed (for example under Monarchy the city must support only 2 own units + the said foreign unit)
or the owner of the unit must rehome it (a fast trick how to rehome a unit is to connect online with ANY civ and to pass the unit back and forth)
(You needn't care the first turn you possess the unit and the unit cannot move (is freezed by CivDip or is "freezed" by the new owner after an online connection))


But some people needn't be prepared for it - units could be lost due to lack of shields etc. ... therefore I propose this rule would be required from 2750(?)

Black-clicking
At CivFanatics I found another trick of black clicking:
If a cursor is on an invisible foreign city (on both black or revealed square) and you press Enter or Spacebar then you get a list of demanded commodites.
So don't use Enter and Spacebar on non-city squares.

[SlowThinker]

RULES

There is another question related to giving units:

If the home city of your unit is in danger then you can connect online with any other player and pass the unit back and forth. This way the unit is rehomed to your nearest city.
Shall this be allowed?
I think this should be forbidden. Exception: the unit is homed to a foreign city (see my last post).
A similar trick could be done more "slowly", for example you can pass a unit away and get it back next turn or after several turns. I think this should be rather allowed because it would be painful to track all units that cannot be passed back.

[Straybow]

Eh, I don't know that it's something to worry much about and make a new rule, except for caravan revenues (it is already illegal to change caravan home). Somebody is paying a shield to support the unit, or using a free slot allotted for support. If it becomes NONE then there is a problem.

[Edit: nevermind]

[Kull]

I can understand the desire to try and curb questionable tactics, but complicated rules tend to suck the life out of any endeavor, be it games or real life. I'd recommend something a lot simpler:

"Units shall not be exchanged if the sole purpose is to achieve an exploit, i.e something outside the normal flow of the game."

So if you are trading caravans to bump up gold, no - if it's to help a partner amass shields to build a unit or wonder, yes. Likewise, if the only reason you are giving a unit away is to prevent it's destruction through loss of the home city, that's an exploit. If it's part of an acceptable strategy, such as giving units to an ally to help them win a war, no problem.

And if a particular situation looks a little gray, then I say leave it between you and your conscious, just like everything else in this game - and in life, too.

[Straybow]

In many cases the donating nation will not want to pay support for a gift unit, in which case a quick MP swap-back should be legal to change the home city. It should not be required.

There is a certain exploit feel to this, so how about:

A one-per-turn limit is reasonable, like selling city improvements.

Any MP swap-back maneuver to change a home city should be announced in thread. The unit should be given by generic identity (land unit, sea unit) and by old home city. "A land unit from XYZ was rehomed by MP swap-back."

If XYZ is another civ's city then everybody knows what happened. If it is a city on the front line then everybody knows what the player suspects may happen. If the city is under seige, then it would be questionable.

I suppose a quick swap to change a unit's home city because the city is surrounded by enemy units and about to fall should be further restricted.

It could be like the NFL "grasp and control" rule. A quarterback can't throw the ball clearly away from any possible receiver to turn a sack into an incomplete pass if the QB is in the "grasp and control" of a defender.

A city can't simply divest itself of supported units when attackers are at the gates in sufficient strength to seriously threaten the city. Units must be moved and rehomed normally, or given to an ally for a full turn and returned by Civ2Dip (with unit frozen one turn).




Yes, I hate writing new rules but we do keep discovering grey areas...

[Zedd]

Can't you just re-home the gifted unit to one of your cities? I would suggest that if Party A accepts a gifted or purchased unit from Party B then Party A also assumes all associated costs. (shields, upkeep, etc) So the most logical thing would be to complete the transfer from Party B to Party A by having the unit re-homed as soon as possible.

I don't know anything about the "swapback", but i dont really play MP games. If you are about to lose a city and cant retrete to another city before it is destroyed then your units are doomed. Personally I think civ should allow your exploring units to rehome to the nearest city but thats just one of the quirks of the game.

[SlowThinker]

I agree with Kull that rules should be simple. Unfortunately Civ2 has many bugs and we should deal with them.

Originally posted by Kull
Units shall not be exchanged if the sole purpose is to achieve an exploit, i.e something outside the normal flow of the game.

IMHO these terms are very unclear.
For example I consider to give a unit to my ally so that it doesn't die as a normal flow of the game. Similarly if I saw I would lose several cities then I would give my gold to my ally so that it is not looted by the enemy.
I wouldn't be affected by such a restriction now, but I would cry if my plans were based on a possibility to save units by their giving to another civ and then somebody told me it was forbidden.

Likewise, if the only reason you are giving a unit away is to prevent it's destruction through loss of the home city, that's an exploit. If it's part of an acceptable strategy, such as giving units to an ally to help them win a war, no problem.

Another problem is both purposes (to help an ally + to rehome unit to a more safe city) may often be mixed. Where is the line allowed / forbidden?

Originally posted by Peaster
Personally I think civ should allow your exploring units to rehome to the nearest city but thats just one of the quirks of the game.

For me it is not a quirk. It adds a kind of strategic deciding into game: shall I home units in safe cities only and to pay for shield support or save support but risk that units may be lost?
Unfortunately it brings a lot of micromanagement too.

Originally posted by Straybow
In many cases the donating nation will not want to pay support for a gift unit, in which case a quick MP swap-back should be legal to change the home city. It should not be required.

But it can save many shields per turn. For me this is against the natural flow of a game.
I think support of foreign units may be tracked easily (you see units of diferent color in your city window) and unit(s) may be rehomed if shields are saved unwarrantedly.

[Zedd]

Do MP players allow this type of swapping? I think that the PBEM should work like an MP game, so if it is a regular occurance and generaly accepted by the MPers then

[Zedd]

Originally posted by SlowThinker
For completeness: in the meantime Babylonians had to invest enormous amount of gold in the war industry and so our trade suffered very much. Therefore now for peace we would require all the area Sippur-Kurigalzu-Arraphka-Ekkalate as a compensation.

And Now I should pay for your foolish railing against Assyrian cities? :LOL: If you want to save some trade, send your troops home to guard your cities rather than harrass ours, I do not seek babilonian property or blood.

Indeed Greed is Green!

Shall we recieve compensation for Assyrias fallen soldiers, or the razed city and sunken ships?
NO? I didn't expect so.
There is so much whining and weaping from the "poor stricken babylonians" that they expect it to mask thier lust for trade and power! and the oportunistic have sought thier share of spoils where the sympathetic have cried for mercy. What an odd show we must put on in the east, that our Allies do not see themselves reflected in the shallow eyes of lust.

[SlowThinker]

Originally posted by Zedd
Shall we recieve compensation for Assyrias fallen soldiers, or the razed city and sunken ships?
NO? I didn't expect so.

Ah, we remember now ... it was Babylon who attacked the peaceful Assyrian people sneakily. We remember... Egypt protested and warned Babylon that Pharaoh couldn't tolerate that. Also Persians, Minoans, Hittites and Greeks expressed they would support Assyria - the victim of the attack. We remember... Then Babylon started a war against these four civs without warning...
Therefore you are right, it is Assyria who should ask for a compensation.
But bloodthirsty Babylonians will continue their attack and destroy many Assyrian cities soon.

[SlowThinker]

Originally posted by Zedd
Do MP players allow this type of swapping? I think that the PBEM should work like an MP game, so if it is a regular occurance and generaly accepted by the MPers then

I don't know. It is not forbidden in rah rules.

But in rah rules there is missing the requirement that a unit must rest one turn with the new owner. So I wouldn't follow these rules hastily.