New "Ancient Empires" PBEM created

[Straybow]

How about "Ctrl-N-al retentive"

I'm waiting on Zedd. My fault. I've been doing my best to confuse him with strategery to get the next tech.

[Zedd]

Fried my cable modem last night so I couldn't post from home and my work PC keeps blocking the file!

I can use a friends PC to upload the save tonight or you can skip me........I don't care anymore.

Sucks more becouse I have an IP phone so couldn't call tech support

[Straybow]

Nope, I've got a day and a half left, and my erstwhile ally Babylon may give me a bit of grace on his end...

If you can email it to **[edit] you know where** (but then work probably blocks it through email to).

[SlowThinker]

counting hours ... and looking forward ...

[SlowThinker]

My serious point of view to the 72h rule:
* The 72h rule is not enforced very hard - you are only asked to announce possible problems in time. Still most delays were without an announcement.
* If you are unable or don't like the 72 rule then talk about it
* A Ctrl-N is indeed a ****ing (hello to Peasteress) thing when you fiddle with your civ many turns.
* IMO it is a bit too hard to require to play the Ctrl-N save if the delayed player returns in time
* I think the "system from germanos' days" is quite good and we should apply it

BTW when I came here I considered the 72h limit too long, but I got used to a slow play.

If kengel feel his play rather a duty then we should ask in the SOG #2 thread for a new player.

[Zedd]

Save file, Email to ST with attachment

[Straybow]

Shoot, back in 2004 we had a turn that was more like 72 days...

[Peaster]

Originally posted by SlowThinker
My serious point of view to the 72h rule:
* The 72h rule is not enforced very hard - you are only asked to announce possible problems in time. Still most delays were without an announcement.

I agree - mostly. I don't think we've ever denied a reasonable request. But Straybow just mentioned a 72 day delay. That will NOT happen again while I am playing! IMO trips (announced in advance) and major computer problems are valid reasons for delays of approx +3 days or so. Lesser reasons (eg flu, heavy workload, waiting on another player, etc) might not be acceptable to me, especially if used too often.

PS - a player having such problems might pro-actively post a progress report periodically, possibly persuading Peaceful Peaster to prefer patience, and probably not persistently pester the problem-plagued player with petty pissed-off posts from Persia.

* If you are unable or don't like the 72 rule then talk about it

OK. How about a 48 hr rule ?

* A Ctrl-N is indeed a ****ing (hello to Peasteress) thing when you fiddle with your civ many turns.

Agreed. IIRC I once suggested finding some gentler penalty for tardiness. On the other hand, any civ not at war can easily survive 1 or 2 N's.

* IMO it is a bit too hard to require to play the Ctrl-N save if the delayed player returns in time

"In time" ? You mean before the next player starts to play ? Then we agree. I have not insisted that anyone use Peasteress's saves, only that the next player's turn starts then.

* I think the "system from germanos' days" is quite good and we should apply it

I think it is similar to the system we are using now (especially this week). The differences I see with the germanos system are these:

- the players may get less time that way (72 hours instead of the 100 hours or so that I have allowed) - which is fine with me ! And I am not the bad guy (at least not for Ctrl-N reasons ).

- the players do not necessarily get any reminder when their clock starts. So, the rule becomes "invisible" and eventually they probably will not take the 72 hour rule very seriously... ... hey that's what DID happen!

- you objected to one player N-ing another, because of the pop-up messages and so on. So... would we ask for Sparrowhawk to help out, or what ?

If kengel feel his play rather a duty then we should ask in the SOG #2 thread for a new player.

Kengel, please direct us on this. Some people seem to know much more than I do about your situation (maybe I missed an email or a post). I don't want to seek a new player if you are willing and able to continue as Agamemnon.

@Kengel, Zedd and Straybow: Thanks for your recent efforts, even while you probably hated being rushed.

[SlowThinker]

My bad word turned in ***! Is there any robot that checks bad words?
A test: moto****rought, ****lamine

Originally posted by Peaster
- the players do not necessarily get any reminder when their clock starts. So, the rule becomes "invisible" and eventually they probably will not take the 72 hour rule very seriously...

I guess we could watch and report times of play in the thread.

you objected to one player N-ing another, because of the pop-up messages and so on. So... would we ask for Sparrowhawk to help out, or what ?

The player that will not want to wait longer will ask SparowHawk or Peasteress.

[Peaster]

I think what happened in the old system was often something like this:

Day 0 - A save is posted for IdleGuy
Day 5 - OtherGuy notices and posts a bump
Day 7 - OtherGuy asks Sparrowhawk for an N
Day 9 - Sparrowhawk N's
Day 10 - IdleGuy wakes up and asks for more time.
Day 12 - IdleGuy posts. The N is forgotten.
Repeat....(until OtherGuy gives up)

IMO your suggested improvements are good, but probably not enough to change this pattern.

Also, I expect that I will have to be the primary "enforcer" in either system, and I don't want to put all the pressure on Kull (who plays before Persia, almost always within 72 hours).

[SlowThinker]

Rules corner

ST wrote several pages ago:
2)
The current rules allow to reveal the map of the starting save (in cheat mode or map editor). This is because some players don't know this scenario but others have played it many times or have created it or tested it. So this rule should erase the advantage of experienced players.
I suppose it is allowed to try anything in cheat mode with the starting save (not only to reveal the map but for example to create units besides a barb that you want to kill but you are not sure how the barb is strong). Reason why this should be allowed is that anything you can manage by cheat mode you can manage also by playing a new SP game.

I consider the cheat mode a bad thing but I don't see a way how to reduce this rule.
For me it looks unnatural you can test a corruption of future cities or their supply&demand. But a player who has played 10 SP games oriented on trade likely remembers these supply&demand values. And his advantage must be balanced...
(This is why I wanted to play SOG #2 with an unknown map - we could forbid the cheat mode)

ST wrote several pages ago:
3)
Ending alliances
The diplomacy through an AI (the F3 window) prevents sneak attacks when allied: When you end an alliance all units are withdrawn to owner's cities. I think teleporting of units is never good since it could be used as an exploit but there should be some rule that will prevent a direct attack of an allied civ:
I suggest that an alliance may be finished only by sending a special CivDip barter to the ally. The receiving civ must always apply this barter.
This way the receiving civ (i.e. a civ that didn't initialize the end of the alliance) moves (and can attack) first.
(I suppose CivDip doesn't move any unit, only deletes the alliance status)

I realized this rule is not very good. Since it alows this procedure:
Imagine Babs are allied with Persians and Babs want to attack them. So they build a large army and enter the Persian territory and simultaneously hinder Persian units to enter Bab territory. Persia can't end the alliance because she would get the first hit. This way Babylon occupies strategic points in Persia. Then Babylon ends the alliance: Babylon receives the first hit but has a good strategic position. Or Babylon can not to end the alliance and wait and Persia will be able to do nothing.
So I suggest to take this rule back.

In past there were an intent to change some rules (to restrict alliances). If you want some very serious change of rules then open the question now. At this point it would be understadable if we finish one game and we continue a 'new game' with a new ruleset.

[Straybow]

I was exaggerating, but it probably did take 72 days for a complete 7 player turn that summer. More than one player was having computer problems, iirc. Then I caused more problems when somebody finally got a save to me and I tried to play a turn without sleep between day job and night shifts, etc. Forgot to apply the civ2dip fix after Nin complete HG.

Part of the problem recently is SH has been less available than in the past. This is solved via the Peasteress, at least for the present.

We may wonder about her susceptibility to bribes , but that is no different from our own trustworthiness in PbEM.

Before Peaster took over Persia the player was having work-related problems. kengel has been having work-related problems for almost as long.

While Peaster says he doesn't want a special rule for one player it becomes something of a necessity when players are scarce.

[kengel]

Originally posted by Peaster


"If kengel feel his play rather a duty then we should ask in the SOG #2 thread for a new player."

Kengel, please direct us on this. Some people seem to know much more than I do about your situation (maybe I missed an email or a post). I don't want to seek a new player if you are willing and able to continue as Agamemnon.

The situation is easily explained:
I have currently a pretty busy real live (even though I am not married ), and I only occasionally (one time/week) check Apolyton.
It is fast to do a turn, but it needs a long time to read through all the stuff you guys post, and someone else would probably have more enthusiasm to it

I enjoy playing, but if you can find some who is willing to play, I gladly hand out the greek civ to him, and the game might go on a little bit faster

[SlowThinker]

Originally posted by Straybow
While Peaster says he doesn't want a special rule for one player it becomes something of a necessity when players are scarce.

When did he say it?

Originally posted by Peaster
I think what happened in the old system was often something like this:
Day 0 - A save is posted for IdleGuy
Day 5 - OtherGuy notices and posts a bump
Day 7 - OtherGuy asks Sparrowhawk for an N
Day 9 - Sparrowhawk N's
Day 10 - IdleGuy wakes up and asks for more time.
Day 12 - IdleGuy posts. The N is forgotten.
Repeat....(until OtherGuy gives up)
IMO your suggested improvements are good, but probably not enough to change this pattern.

Why not? It is completely different. You just post who's clock is running.
And I forgot to say - I suppose the current system (you ask IN ADVANCE and your time is extended) would continue.

[Peaster]

@ST "Rules corner" Not sure I get your points, but I guess cheat mode on the starting map is still allowed, and using the F3 Window to end an alliance is also allowed. Also, using civ2dip to do it by mutual agreement is OK.

@Straybow: I was mainly referring to Zedd, who does not need a special rule AFAIK. But you refer to Kengel, I think... why would we need to change the rules for him ? It seems he has less serious problems than SH (not sure).

@Kengel: Since you are enjoying the game, let's try to work things out, if possible. Are these assumptions correct ?

* You can announce your trips in advance.
* Your trips usually run less than a week.
* On longer trips, you can bring Civ2 and play your turn while away.
* You can normally participate in alliances, barters, etc with the other players.

@ST again (about 72h systems): Is it fair to start someone's clock when they don't have a file to play from? IMO posting a save sends a clear message, it allows the next player to start his turn when his clock starts, and it puts more teeth into the 72h rule.