New "Ancient Empires" PBEM created

[Kull]

This would be kind of a pain, but could you start off a new turn by trying a to make tech trades with the AI? Not for keeps, but just to see what's out there. Then you could compare the lists of "available techs" from each civ and if two or more have techs that you don't, voila.

Oh - Egypt discovered "Naue Type 2 Sword" last turn. If you don't have it and anyone else does, there's one.

[SlowThinker]

This is not possible, contacting AIs arbitrarily is not allowed. And it would give free embassies to Persia.
But I think I described what should be done in my last post today. People must not forget to announce their new techs, this is all problem.

[Peaster]

But IMO it will be easy to forget to report new techs. ST shouldn't have to dig thru his DipSys data every turn to check for errors, but Persia shouldn't suffer too much from inevitable mistakes. I propose that we continue with ST's method, but also:

At least once every 4 turns, ST should count the techs of each civ (which is easy to do) to make sure all new techs have been reported to him. If a mistake is found, all new techs of the culprit must be reported publicly, and the error corrected. Whether a mistake is found or not, I'd like a note by email that the check was made.

If Persia ever gets 5 embassies, or if all Kings agree to some other method, I will be happy to take over the checking.

[SlowThinker]

>At least once every 4 turns, ST should count the techs of each civ (which is easy to do) to make sure all new techs have been reported to him.

OK.
I would ask that everybody sends his new-tech-reports in e-mails with a subject "CivDip - [tech name]". This will allow me to get your reports in a line if I order e-mails by subject.
And if you send a list of your all new techs acquired between GL completion and present (with years of acquisition) then I will check out if everything was alright up to now.

[kengel]

Sorry, guys, for being a bit late; I will play very soon tomorrow, as soon as I have access to my civ CD...

[Peaster]

Originally posted by Kull
Oh - Egypt discovered "Naue Type 2 Sword" last turn. If you don't have it and anyone else does, there's one.

Strange... I didn't have this tech in 2530BC, but I DO have it in 2520BC - just didn't notice til today. So, it seems the GL does work correctly "sometimes" (maybe only in oedo years??). I'll look back to see if this has happened before, but IIRC this is the only tech I've gotten from the GL without human help.

[Straybow]

/me checks saves

Hittite spies diplomats report that this new sword design became all the rage in Ecbatana's weapon shops after some Egyptian travellers came to town and pawned them to cover their expenses.

[SlowThinker]

GL works perfectly. The item that doesn't work is CivDip.

[Straybow]

I'll have to see if I get a GL message at the beginning of the next turn.

[Straybow]

kengel: server says your mailbox has too many messages in it.

[SlowThinker]

Rules corner
In Seeds #2 game rules about ending alliance were debated. I perceived in past I wanted to say something about this issue, but I forgot. So I am doing it now:

I can see three reasonable rules:

A) No special rule, but complicated consequences and problems if one side wants to end an alliance but second one refuses. As Kull says establish an alliance only if you trust.
IMO this no-rule is our current rule. (But in thread #2 Peaster said he thought Sinbad was obliged to accept my barter with peace in 2560. But IMO nobody is obliged to accept any barter)

B) A sneak-attack is possible even if you are allied: if you want to end an alliance you ask for peace and your ally is obliged to send a barter.
Surprisingly this is a safer option than A).

C) Most safe option but most complicated rule: When an alliance is established it shall include also an agreement about lines where units must retreat after the alliance ends. But I didn't work out a mechanism how/when units should retreat.

I slightly prefer C) (although I don't know how the rule should be in details), then B), then A), but I consider all options reasonable.

[kengel]

Sorry again for the delay;
when I returned, I found a full postbox and a turn still to do

Postbox cleared, turn done...
Enjoy!

[Peaster]

Originally posted by SlowThinker
But in thread #2 Peaster said he thought Sinbad was obliged to accept my barter with peace in 2560. But IMO nobody is obliged to accept any barter.

No (maybe you were confused over something I said about Game#2). I knew I didn't have to accept, but I felt we should not be allied if you didn't want it, and this was a chance for a clean break.

The current Game#2 rule is not perfect: When ally A wants to break the alliance, he sends a barter to ally B, who must accept. So, in case of an violent split, B has 1st chance to attack. I like this a little better than ST's "Option B)". RobRoy thinks F3 (with teleporting) might be a better solution, and we will probably talk more about that idea.

I'd prefer to let the 2 players work this out themselves, according to their pre-nups (if any) or common sense negotiation over withdrawals. If that breaks down, option B) [or the Game#2 variation of it] should be the default.

[SlowThinker]

Originally posted by Peaster
The current Game#2 rule is not perfect: When ally A wants to break the alliance, he sends a barter to ally B, who must accept. So, in case of an violent split, B has 1st chance to attack. I like this a little better than ST's "Option B)".

"B has 1st chance to attack" - this is not true IMO. This way it is the agressor who has usually 1st chance to attack. Imagine one day you wake up and you see many war units of your ally near your peripheral cities. Will you send an end-of-alliance barter so that they can attack? Or will you wait that they build fortresses, get deeper in your country and send an end-of-alliance barter once they are ready?

RobRoy thinks F3 (with teleporting) might be a better solution, and we will probably talk more about that idea.

F3 is very bad IMO. For example the Bab mountain fortress N from Adab would have no meaning, because Persia could start a war and 'teleport' all Bab units back to Adab.

I'd prefer to let the 2 players work this out themselves, according to their pre-nups (if any) or common sense negotiation over withdrawals.

Any agreement can be violated, so do you mean any pre-nup agreement would have a strength of a game rule? In other words it couldn't be violated?

[Peaster]

AFAIK ending alliances has never been a big issue in other PBEMs - I don't remember seeing any rules about it, or hearing of problems with it (have you?). I guess most alliances last a very long time, or they are dissolved in some reasonable way, like our Bab-Pers alliance.

If a player wants to exploit an alliance, they can do it under any of the proposed rules (except maybe option C, but that is still very unclear). Their reputation would suffer, especially if they were violating pre-nups. They would have problems finding other allies in that game and future ones. Their success, if any, would be tainted.

So, I don't think we need anything complicated. IMO pre-nups + honor system is enough, perhaps backed up by some simple rule like B) or etc.