New "Ancient Empires" PBEM created

[Straybow]

A Hittite Prince negotiates with the Persian Generals. They decide to retire on the shores of the Lake Van with 53g. The Silver Crest of the Hatte is erected over the battered gates of Ninevah.

"Let the end of this war bring a new era of prosperity, as the world has never seen!"

[Zedd]

Don't know how this will co-incide with turns, but March 9, 10, &11th I will not be able to get any game time in.
Just found out today so this is the best notice I could give.

[SlowThinker]

I started my turn but I am not sure if I will be able to finish it within the limit. But I should play on friday.

BTW - is it allowed to contact Mitani?
Must we ignore them or are they considered a fully-fledged civ?

[Peaster]

I think I can restrain Peasteress until you play on Friday .

IMO it is OK to contact the Mitani and exploit them any way that you can. Do we have any rules against that ? I admit that in a similar situation (an unexpected opportunity not covered by our rules) I quietly took advantage.

[Kull]

Originally posted by SlowThinker
I started my turn but I am not sure if I will be able to finish it within the limit. But I should play on friday.

BTW - is it allowed to contact Mitani?
Must we ignore them or are they considered a fully-fledged civ?

I'm really surprised that happened. At least in PBEM, it makes no sense for the game to generate a new civ.....by default that would mean the game never ends. So I'd recommend we treat them just like Barbarians - no contact or discussions, just elimination as soon as they are spotted.

I would even recommend that ST go in and hex-edit the game so that no more new civs are spawned. Any thoughts?

[Peaster]

I was hoping to hear from ST before responding to Kull. Does ST:

* Feel that DipSys + respawns = some advantage to Babs ?
* Feel that Kull's recommendation is a change in the rules ?

If he says "yes" twice (never happened before, but it could...) then IMO ST just got lucky, and we should let it go. Respawns do end eventually, and I can't see how they will affect the game much.

But if ST and other players don't object to removing them, neither will I.

[SlowThinker]

Sorry, I am home and will play in couple of hours.

[Zedd]

I am inclined to agree with Kull.

[Straybow]

The scenario is scored based on Objectives. Respawned civs don't count one way or the other. Unlike barbs they are bribable, which represents an advantage to whatever civ is nearest (kinda like goody huts).

While we're unlikely to eliminate any more starting civs the blue civ will keep respawning. Does the 200 turn limit apply to scenarios?

[Peaster]

Originally posted by Straybow
The scenario is scored based on Objectives.

Huh? ... maybe we have not agreed on the object of the game! IMO the game ends when only one player is left, probably at the end of a war, or maybe by mass resignation. I raised this issue in the Alliance of Six emails, but nobody responded. Victory could go to an alliance of players instead, but IMO that makes a less interesting game. Either way, I don't see how the scenario objectives matter. Can you explain ?

[Straybow]

I'm just pointing out that a new AI civ will not be significant. Not by victory conditions, not as competition.

[SlowThinker]

I asked because I got an idea I could locate Mitani after exchanging maps with them. Maybe this would reveal some black parts of the map to me. But then I understood if later anybody other would exchange maps too he would get also Babylonian maps.

Does ST Feel that Kull's recommendation is a change in the rules ?

It is questionable:
Current rule is

Diplomatic contact with AI is forbidden. You may never initiate a contact and you must always refuse all diplomatic contact with other civilization (when you play your turn) UNLESS you will do something you and the human leader of that civ have agreed to.

I feel this part is related to AI of civs controlled by other humans and that it allows a contact with barbarians for example (although it is prevented by the scenario itself). But the rule is not clear and I think you can understand it a different way.
So I think Kull doesn't want to change rules but rather to clarify them.

Does ST Feel that DipSys + respawns = some advantage to Babs ?

Yes. But very small. I can send caravans if I locate them, or I can persuade them they help me during a war... Not a big effect.

Originally posted by Kull
At least in PBEM, it makes no sense for the game to generate a new civ.....by default that would mean the game never ends.

I think this is not a problem. I suppose the last HUMAN player wins the game, he doesn't need to beat all AIs.
And they could bring some fun in the game ... So I would slightly prefer to allow them.

But for me this is not an important question and I can agree with anything.
(Yes, I am able to turn respawns off by hexediting. )

[SlowThinker]

bab 2660

boredom ...

[Zedd]

Deciding how to treat this instance sets a precedent for any future AI civs. As I se it, technicly LF would still be controling Minos and the respwned civ should have been taken over by me as as the former human player for assyria.
Since there is no human player to take over, we are left with the AI for control, as would be the case if any of us were unable to continue play and there were no replacements.

Thats why i see it as important now my take on things...

Diplomatic contact with AI is forbidden.

Plain and simple.

Either we continue the war and finish off the AI, or treat them as barbarians. I know it could be a problem treating them as barbarians becouse this AI will be building units and researching techs to trade, but as I recall the Babylonians wanted Dedanu and Zedanu.

I think we can all guess where they have gone.

"Finish Them"

[Kull]

If others want to keep the spawning option on, I have no objection. But they should definitely be treated like Barabrians, which means no diplomatic contact.

One caveat. Does the existence of an AI civ cause problems for us in any other way? For example, I seem to recall that one of the big reasons for wanting the "Cntrl-N guy" was not so much to keep the AI from ruining that persons civ, as it was to avoid problems for others.

*********************************

For the edification of those who may visit this thread in the future, Pharoah proposes that the secret counsels of the Great Alliance be published for all to see. There were moments of dire distres and great tales of victory, and it seems a shame for them to remain ever hidden and private.

*********************************

Throughout all the lands of Egypt, there was great rejoicing as Pharoah declared a week of holidays to celebrate the capture of Nineveh and the final annhilation of the Assyrian Empire. At long last, the nation may turn it's eyes to the blessed pursuits of peace!