New "Ancient Empires" PBEM created

[Zedd]

IM = Instant Messaging

I was just trying to use a well known rule of conduct.

In many battles where a city is under seige, there have been "defectors" who later join with thier larger forces or an allies forces. So the idea of gifting a unit (and in essence simulating this act) is not one I am opposed to. However, these types of defections don't usually happen in large quantities, so the rule of 1 would keep the number of "defectors" within reason.

I would only suggest the 3-squares rule rather than 1 per city.
One reason is that '1-per city' rule is quite soft (a city homes about 3 units and the city is usually in a danger during several turns. So there would be enough of time to give all units out.)

True, but if I have such an overwelming force that you feel you have to evacuate the city rather than attempt a defense, then I should be able to empty the city in the next turn anyway.

Likewise, if you have enough forces to hold off an attack for a couple turns why evacuate the city rather than try to hold it? Even if you do get 2 or 3 units out, the city still falls to the agressor.

[Straybow]

Almost forgot to Ctrl-N!

A band of Assyrian Skirmishers harassed some peaceful merchant plying the Western River Road. Valiant Charioteers ran them down on the floodplain. Let none defile Anatolia except they pay with their blood!

[SlowThinker]

bab 2790 (before hexediting the save)

An Assyrian city of er has been found and destroyed.
A cheeky Assyrian boat on the Euphrat at Kish has been destroyed.

The only Babylonian city accessible to Assyrian caravans is Kish. Therefore we continue to supervise guilds of Kish so that they don't help Assyrian traders.

Edit:
Before er was burned down, our soldiers hunted for the last unchastened killer of the three that killed our custom officers at the start of the war. No track was found yet.
Didanu (the recent maniacal and bloody ruler of Assyria) found er just before his abdication and we think this city had some special significance for him. A special inquisitional group is trying to locate the current residence of Didanu. But no indication so far, we don't know if he is still alive. A recompense of 500 gold carts is announced for information that would lead to his arrest . And a subsequent torture .
A special group of 2000 priests is praying unceasingly that Didanu doesn't die before he will be captured.
A gigantic statue of Didanu was found on the central square of er. The statue was embarked on a sail and will be destroyed in Ur ceremoniously during a celebration of er destruction. The techniques of torture prepared for Didanu will be demonstrated on the statue. Relatives of victims of war and allied ambassadors will participate the celebration.

_____________
(I have no time to hexedit the save so that the lost unit is created and I will do it on Wen or Thu. I am posting this so that Zedd can prepare his plans.
Zedd, but if you will be busy on Thu and prefer to play now then go on and play. I will create the unit next turn.)

[Zedd]

I can wait until thursday night, friday nights and weekends I am out of town.

sounds like my boys took a beating

[SlowThinker]

In my original save I forgot to change production to a unit that shall be "created". So first I loaded the original save in MP mode and "continued my turn": I changed the production in the said city and re-saved.
Here is the save #2:

[SlowThinker]

Then my program hexedited the save #2 and raised number of shields in the said city. This way the final save was created. If you binary compare the save #2 and the final save you'll see only one byte changed: this is number of shields.
I am prepared to say the city name to SparrowHawk so that he checks everything is OK.

Next turns I want to recreate the original type of production and the original number of shields.

Attachment: the final save for Zedd

[SlowThinker]

Originally posted by Zedd
True, but if I have such an overwelming force that you feel you have to evacuate the city rather than attempt a defense, then I should be able to empty the city in the next turn anyway.

Likewise, if you have enough forces to hold off an attack for a couple turns why evacuate the city rather than try to hold it? Even if you do get 2 or 3 units out, the city still falls to the agressor.

Zedd, don't forget the case is not about units in the city but about units homed in the city. These units may be far away from the city in danger.

Originally posted by Kull
I'd still like to have a discussion about whether we should allow both MP and CivDip, since each method provides a different outcome for the same action (to me, this is rife with exploit potential) . I now know about the differences in unit gifting - what are the others?

I think we need CivDip because it is comfortable and time-saving for us.
Unfortunately sometimes CivDip doesn't manage the support corectly, but we have MP connection which can solve this problem.
IMO the exploit potential is limited to problems we are talking about.

'what are the others?' ... what do you mean?

[Sparrowhawk]

I think he is asking what are the other differences between the two methods (MP and CivDip).

As for me checking out the file for differences I will do so, but it sounds like looking for a needle in a haystack when you suspect the needle isn't there in the first place.

I will agree to try but not sure I will put a lot of time into checking something out by trying to prove a negative.

/me

[Zedd]

SparrowHawk,

IMO it is not necessary for you to check the save, I will dl and play tonight.

Slowthinker,

Zedd, don't forget the case is not about units in the city but about units homed in the city. These units may be far away from the city in danger.

Again, I think 1 or two units traded in this way would be acceptable in that situation. It would symbolize troops away from home that might return to a burned village or town. It happens many times in war.

A french soldier in germany didn't drop dead becouse his hometown was captured.

Any trade like this outside the scenerio of a city under siege would simply be a normal gift. As I understand it the problem is that these units would then be essentialy NON units for the allied civ, and could then be traded back as support-free units. If that is correct, then IMO we would simply need to set a limit to how often it can be done.
I admit I am not quite clear if the problem is with gifting in general or just gifting units from a city under attack. If the problem is with cities under attack then a set limit of "1 per turn while under attack" would be OK with me, . (and even add an interesting new approach to the game )

But if the problem is with gifting in general then we SHOULD review the gifting policies. I myself have been focused on the former and may have totally missed your suggestions about the later.

[Straybow]

The glorious Kingdom of the Hatte was, up until recently, disdainful of the sea. Our noble ally King Minos gave us some "ships" to facilitate trade. These vessels were known to us only on a smaller scale, plying rivers and lakes.

We Hatte would not spend our careers tossed on angry seas in these leaky buckets (as we see them). We have only one port city to receive ships. It is far to the East. A few brave Hatte have received from us the title Captain of the Seas and received from King Minos training that befits one who is to command a ship.

The crews, however, remain the subjects of King Minos, and by their hand these vessels are maintained and supplied. What city of Hatte, so many leagues from the shores of the Great Sea, can even know the needs of a ship and crew?

We hear tales that the Minoan crews joke about the Hatte Captains spending more time "bent over the rails" than standing at the tiller. In due time these vessels shall be returned to King Minos, much to the sailors' relief.

[Zedd]

[Zedd]

The previous comments from Zedanu were in apreciation of the humor in the Hatta King's story, however they have become sadly ironic, as history repeats itself and Tarsis falls to the Chariots of Assyria.

Likewise on the newly named Isle of Anu, the city of Milla has been removed, and a babylonian intruder destroyed.

In the west, where the defenders of er are mourned, defenses have been strengthened and all forces alerted to further babylonian intrusions. For those men the future is very bleak.

In the north a persian scout has been cornered, his fate yet decided.

[Kull]

The brightly colored banners adorning the walls of Memphis, displayed in joy following word of Egyptian military triumphs and the Babylonian destruction of Er, have been furled in mourning. The loss of two allied cities is a serious blow, but the alliance will endure.

The Chariots of Egypt leave more Assyrian corpses in their wake, as the march on Nineveh continues.

[Peaster]

Assyrian skirmishers with a battering ram thought they had cornered Persian horsemen in the mountains north of Tushpa, but Persians easily escaped into the darkness.

A rebel faction led by Cyrus ambushed Perseat's chariot as it passed through Behistun. But Sinbad and his loyal men fought them off and saved the Steward's life. Perseat easily persuaded the assembly that it was time for Persia to have a real King again. Of course, they chose Almighty Sinbad in recognition of his heroism against barbarians and the vile traitors in Behistun.

Perseat retired to study the mysteries of Hittite procreation methods. A rapidly growing village was re-named "Persepolis" in his honor.

Sinbad vows to double both the royal treasury and the Persian army. Long live King Sinbad!

[SlowThinker]

The Bab headquarters got a detailed report from Er. Therefore the brief Bab report in the thread has been edited.