New "Ancient Empires" PBEM created

[SlowThinker]

Straybow, you didn't notice yet? I bribed Nineveh already and rules can't be retrospective. But Babylon is concerned about our faithful ally Egypt, and we would prefer she cannot break our strong alliance so easily...

gzhu-gzhu

[Peaster]

Ending Alliances: I guess the designers intended for units to teleport home so that neither side has much strategic advantage when the alliance ends. I guess this could be done with the F3 screen. Is there a problem with that ?

[SlowThinker]

So the base idea (to announce end of alliance 1 turn in advance) is OK for you?

I don't have strong view on teleporting yes/no, but
*I have heard the F3 may cause side effects
*teleporting might be exploited some way (teleporting caravans...).
*teleporting might cause some unatural behaviour when you want to start a war - you bring a farmer in strategic area, and at end of alliance you build a city and launch units of your ex-ally off (from 'his' fort for example).

[Straybow]

We don't allow unit gifting via F3 because of teleporting, so I believe we should end alliances by some other method. The proposal is probably the best way to do it.

I don't want a new rule about city management in MP.

[Peaster]

Could someone remind me of the current rule on ending alliances ? (or provide a link or page number).

With the new proposal, it seems the first player could

1) invade in mass
2) force the ally to break the alliance (with no chance to attack or react effectively)
3) mop up

Straybow, what is your objection to teleporting in this case ? [I can see the objection in the case of unit-gifting]

[SlowThinker]

Now there is no rule about ending alliances. Only way how to end it if the ally doesn't agree is to bribe a city. It may lead to some very strange 'techniques' I mentioned above.

>1) invade in mass
>2) force the ally to break the alliance (with no chance to >attack or react effectively)
>3) mop up

Nooo, this is OK. The side that breaks the alliance may attack first in my proposition. But the ally has one turn to prepare.

But I see another problem:
My proposition looks good if sides are distant/split by a hard terrain or very close.
But in case of a 'middle' distance the side that wants to attack can approach to a striking distance, end the alliance, then the ally cannot attack, and next turn the attacker can strike. So this is worse than a 'standard' sneak attack.

This could be solved some way:
For example each alliance treaty could incorporate a map that would define which territories must stay empty when the alliance is canceled.
But I am afraid the rule would be getting too complicated...(?)

[Peaster]

Originally posted by SlowThinker

Nooo, this is OK. The side that breaks the alliance may attack first in my proposition. But the ally has one turn to prepare.

Why is it OK ? I assume "the side who breaks the alliance" is the one I called the "first player" (even though the second player actually makes the barter). If so, your proposal gives that player a huge advantage. IMO both sides of an alliance should be relatively safe from sneak attacks, and sneak invasions.

The F3 method seems simplest. If people object to teleporting (Straybow?), we might require mutual retreats tied to "nearest city" info. Or some limit on the number of attacks made in the first turn.

[SlowThinker]

Originally posted by Peaster
Why is it OK ? I assume "the side who breaks the alliance" is the one I called the "first player" (even though the second player actually makes the barter). If so, your proposal gives that player a huge advantage. IMO both sides of an alliance should be relatively safe from sneak attacks, and sneak invasions.

The advantage looks to be lesser than a 'standard' sneak attack. But not always and this is a problem ...

I think we agree the game would be more interesting if 'alliance' and 'peace' differed in a level of safety (i.e. if an alliance were safer).
But the teleporting could be exploited as I mentioned recently: You have a fort in 'your territory', your ally brings a farmer besides, builds a city, ends the alliance and your fort is emptied (your units are teleported off) and can be filled by units of your ex-ally.
Farmers would become an implement of attack.

To limit number of attacks seems like an unnatural rule. Also 2 attacks in the beginning of the game are more serious than 10 attacks later.

[Zedd]

P1 and P2 have an alliance

(scenario 1)
P1 attacks P2
> Alliance is broken by Civ
> P2 can attack on same turn


(scenario 2)
P2 attacks P1
> Alliance is not broken by Civ
>P1 is unable to counter attack next turn


(scenario 2 - suggested solution)
P2 announces intention to attack and sends barter to disolve alliance.

> P1 can then attack P2 eliminating any "Surprise"


(Suggestion 2)
P2 attacks and announces in thread with barter to disolve alliance.

> Surprise is attained AND P1 can counter attack. (This is the norm AFAIK)

[Kull]

There's an easier way to solve this than inventing a bunch of tedious new rules - end alliances altogether. You can get the same result (i.e ignoring zones of control) by using caravan units or diplos to help move past the units of your "allies". For those who want to keep their alliances? Well, "buyer beware". Now you know the danger, and you just have to live with it or even *gasp* actually TRUST your ally!!

[SlowThinker]

Diploguiding does not provide the same result, because it is expensive. Also it looks interesting to have an option of an arrangment that is more secure than peace (with its possibility of a sneak attack).

The question is: do we want it (the 'secure' alliance)? In past we agreed alliances are very powerful instrument and we preferred they wouldn't be too stable (IIRC it was suggested that the game should have only one winner). At first glance the 'secure alliance' would help the alliances to be strong. But (as Kull said) I agree a really powerful alliance must be based on trust. And I think the 'secure alliances' would primarily be used by neighbours that are nervous and don't trust each other.
So my view is: I slightly prefer to have a 'secure alliance' in rules. (others?)

Originally posted by Zedd
(scenario 2)
P2 attacks P1
> Alliance is not broken by Civ
>P1 is unable to counter attack next turn

"Alliance is not broken": do you mean a unit is bribed / a city is bribed for a double cost?

BTW there is also scenario 3: P1 moves his war units in the territory of P2 and doesn't intend to end the alliance (for the meantime).

[Peaster]

I agree with ST about diploguiding. The situation is even worse when some of your units are gifted from non-allies - they create ZOCs that interefere with your other units.

I suggested a single-winner game at some point [and got no response IIRC], but have assumed that alliances are fairly stable, and feel they should be broken in some non-violent fashion, perhaps as in SP. So, I don't like the proposal in post #2803 as it stands.

Zedd: Not sure what you mean by "attack"... Civ2 won't let you start a battle with an ally.

Zedd: You are overdue to play.

[SlowThinker]

Originally posted by Peaster
I suggested a single-winner game at some point [and got no response IIRC]

I think I answered and said that I supposed it was indisputed the game should have one winner.

Originally posted by Peaster
...but have assumed that alliances are fairly stable, and feel they should be broken in some non-violent fashion, perhaps as in SP.

And what do you say to my examples that the teleporting may be exploited?

[SlowThinker]

Some points about alliances:
I think an only-one-civ-can-win game is very different from an alliance-can-win game.
IMO in a PBEM game only one civ should be allowed to win, otherwise alliances are too strong and the game is reduced to a problem to join the strongest side. In only-one-civ-can-win game members of alliances know their alliance won't last forever and so a cooperation is not so smooth as in an alliance-can-win game.

[Peaster]

It is 6 days since the Greek turn, so Peasteress has Ctrl-N'd for the Minoans. Hittite clock started.

ST: We have discussed this in emails, so you know I agree in principle on a single winner. My 2 concerns are
* Before a single winner emerges, the game may become so hopeless for some players that they/we drop out. So, we can't exactly enforce this rule.
* It's no good for just 2 players to agree to this. Let's have a vote on it. I vote Yes.

Teleporting - I am not too worried about the caravan exploit. The farmer exploit is harder to answer. But probably the loss of a few forts is less serious than allowing a wholesale invasion. Also, IMO we could make some rule against this exploit. But other players seem to oppose any new rules....(?)

Limited First Attack - This still seems viable to me if teleporting is unacceptable, but I'd like to hear from some other players before trying to refine the idea.