New "Ancient Empires" PBEM created

[SlowThinker]

It looks Zedd didn't notice it is his turn (I am not justifying him now). I think this happened to Zedd once or twice in past. Kengel, you should warn him when you play by an e-mail, and maybe everybody should warn his successor...

[Peaster]

I sent both Kengel and Zedd a "heads up" after my turn.

[Kull]

I don't think we need any rules on Alliances. If you choose to join one, now you know what the risks are. Is it a pain to rely on "diplo-guiding" instead? Sure. But that's the trade-off. On the one hand your "ally" can absolutely smoke you before you are ready. On the other you invest money and time in extra caravans and maybe slower travel.

My point is, that's like real life - there's a trade-off with everything. You makes your choices and takes your chances.

As for the end-game, frankly I never thought that far ahead. But a winning alliance is silly. There was no such thing in our game time frame. Now does it have to be 100% elimination of every other player? Peaster is right. Who is going to hang around for that. So maybe a solution more representative of the era. Maybe an empire that controls 60% of some measurable item. Not sure what that would be. Anyway, it keeps the game edgy and folks - even "allies" will have to be a little more paranoid about things. Because under this proposition, what would have been the action packed middle game that precedes the long boring end game? Well that IS the end game.

[SlowThinker]

End game

End game: so far 3 people (Peaster, Kull and me) are voting yes for a single winner game.

Originally posted by Kull
Now does it have to be 100% elimination of every other player? Peaster is right. Who is going to hang around for that. So maybe a solution more representative of the era. Maybe an empire that controls 60% of some measurable item. Not sure what that would be.

I am not too worried how the endgame will go. If somebody will be too strong and it will be only a question of time when he will beat all other civs and so the game will be boring then we will probably agree to end the game. Similarly if there will be more civs that will be unable to beat one another (I think this is possible since the best units (legions) are slow and have attack only 3.5 times higher than defense, so a defense will be quite effective: therefore I don't think a player that controls 60% of something should be a winner automatically).
But these examples are situations if ALL the game is decided. Peaster probably meant a situation when ONE civ is in a hopeless situation:

Originally posted by Peaster
Before a single winner emerges, the game may become so hopeless for some players that they/we drop out.

I think if you expect you will be wiped off in several turns you should suffer it and finish the game.
If you are only 'weak' then you can still affect the game through diplomacy, and so the game may be interesting for you. (Of course we can't force people to play if they don't like it)
Anyway this will happen after 5 or 10 years and so I am not very concerned now .

[SlowThinker]

Zedd

As usual I missed the end of last page...

Straybow, are you here?
I think Zedd must be struck by some very serious problem, because he didn't report anything, and I am willing to wait with my turn if this is true (I am able to play my turn fast this week, so we might catch up the schedule).

Edit: In the 'Message Tracking' window Zedd has 'last online' time empty. I don't know what it signifies...

[SlowThinker]

Ending alliances

Teleporting at end of an alliance:
testing...
* (only) caravans aren't teleported
* teleporting could be still exploited: Imagine Babylon needs many C4 at western end of Babylon and she can't build vet C4. There are several barracks in Greece, so Greece builds C4s fast, then ends an alliance with Babylon and units are teleported to western Babylon.
* the 'clear forts of an ally before you attack' problem is even more serious than I thought: even forts directly adjacent to cities are emptied (this is because if the attacker builds a new city besides the fort this city is newer and in case of an equal distance Civ2 considers units are near the newest city.)

I like simple rules as Kull does (and so I don't like the idea of a limited first attack rule (I think this rule would have to be quite complicated)), but I am not so afraid of new rules. I have some ideas but will post them after more people says something.

[Zedd]

Iexpore issues and then couldn't log into Poly for some reason.

Oh well, its just a game i suppose.

[Peaster]

Zedd: Why don't you contact Straybow? Maybe it is not too late to play your turn. If the problem was a technical one, rather than negligence, maybe you could explain what happened. I think the forums have been down 1-2 times lately, but not for very long periods AFAIK.

ST: I'd prefer rules to block/weaken the C4/farmer exploits, but the climate seems bad for new rules. I don't see why a limited attack rule must be complicated.

Have you thought more about your civ2dip proposal ? IMO that makes an alliance riskier than peace, since it allows easy invasions. But again, a new rule or two could make this idea viable.

[Straybow]

Zedd sent me a save by email. He should also post it here.

Bedtime for me...

[SlowThinker]

Originally posted by Peaster
I don't see why a limited attack rule must be complicated.

* The limit should depend on stage of the game. Three attacks may be devastative in an early stage of the game but will have almost no effect later.
* It will be very hard to balance the rule so that the side that formally ends the alliance doesn't have an disavantage. Otherwise the side that really wants a war might simply move its units in strategic positions near or inside of territory of his ally and to wait that his ally ends the alliance.

The game flow:

Originally posted by Peaster
Zedd: Why don't you contact Straybow? Maybe it is not too late to play your turn. If the problem was a technical one, rather than negligence, maybe you could explain what happened.

If I understand our rule correctly:
after 72h from kengel's turn Zedd's fate was in Straybow's hands
after 144h from kengel's turn Zedd's and Stray's fate was in my hands. If I wanted to enforce the limit I would ask Straybow to play but I told I was willing to wait.
after 216h from kengel's turn (IIRC more than 24h from now) Stray's and my fate will be in Kull's hands. Again I would expect Kull says if he wants to enforce the time limit.

I am not saying I am not interested to know what happened and why Zedd didn't post an e-mail. But not because I possibly wanted to decline Zedd's save but rather to know how long I shall wait next time.

[Zedd]

I couldn't fault any of you for skiping my turn. I had some issues with iexplore resulting from a 2 year old turning my PC off while I was doing some pre-turn planning and had office as well as a couple other apps open.

I could have posted a plea for an exstension from work but the idea didn't occur to me. and email is blocked from there. I also have the blackberry but didn't think of that either.

Good news.. I have a re-occuring reminder in outlook to check the forum every 72 hours.

[Kull]

No hurry. Sounds like Straybow is gonna play soon.

[Straybow]

Fell asleep on couch... fortunately alarm was already set and turn finished except for barters.

[SlowThinker]

bab 2560

.

[SlowThinker]

It looks our horseman remembered the invitation...

Originally posted by Pharaoh
Why not move it right up next to the walls? The governor has a special invitation he can deliver to you right there.

Originally posted by The Immo
Thank you for the invitation. Our horseman has his duties at Euphrat, but he will try to accomplish a visit.

...and he is waiting at Mari. Maybe Egyptian officers collected the awaited evidence?

There are some problems with export licences in Babylon. We built no caravan this turn, and this is something very exceptionable.