New "Ancient Empires" PBEM created

[atawa]

1, the forrests in the neutral area, on the northwestern edge of the mountainrange.

2, where the lines run of the map

3, where the south east border stops

4, Anywhere, the Minoans make excelent wine.

[SlowThinker]

2, You propose the short (2.5-tile long) most western red line is Persian further west? In other words you ask all 7 defensive squares of Al-Kabir(=Great Zab)? Babylonian stance is in post 3620.

3, You propose the short (2-tile long) most eastern red line continues east? I suggest you compare it with the existing borders: you want about 50 squares of Babylonian territory

[atawa]

Then we'll go back to the situation of 2490.

I'll play my turn tomorrow.

[SlowThinker]

Originally posted by atawa I
unfortunately we were too late to stop the discovery of Legions III, but we'll research this path no further.

We would consider wise if civs delayed Legions IV (the strongest unit of the world), but Legions IV are supposed to be Babylonian counterbalance to Archimedes workshop in Persia (many Legions I are expected in Persia then)... But we can tie delay of Legions IV to a delay of Archimedes, or to make borders very transparent (no stacks etc.) in order that it is clear there are no Persian Legions I near Babylon.

[atawa]

Can someone tell me witch units upgrade to what as I find it very unclear reading the files....

[SlowThinker]

"Units new.htm" e-mailed to atawa.
In case you are in doubt you can run some test (cheat mode), but only from the starting save (3490).

[atawa]

Originally posted by SlowThinker

We would consider wise if civs delayed Legions IV (the strongest unit of the world), but Legions IV are supposed to be Babylonian counterbalance to Archimedes workshop in Persia (many Legions I are expected in Persia then)... But we can tie delay of Legions IV to a delay of Archimedes, or to make borders very transparent (no stacks etc.) in order that it is clear there are no Persian Legions I near Babylon.

We have no intent on building Archimedes workshop in the near future, nor do we want to train Legions IV.

Playing my turn btw

[atawa]

Hmm, when I try to remove forts it I get the break treaty warning.

Is there some way around this?

[SlowThinker]

Civ2 considers squares to be Babylonian, because of a nearest city.
Just pillage, it will start a war formally, then send a CivDip barter with peace to Babylon.

[atawa]

I'll also send peaceoffers to Minoa and Greece then

Should post the save later tonight.

[atawa]

Revolution in Persia

In the year 2370 before Doomsday the Persian defence force had started to withdraw to the lines of 2490 and troops on our southern border return to baracks. atawa I, standing on his balcony in Pasargadea and overlooking the construction of the mighty Parthenon decided the old ways of running the country were no longer in its best interest. A time of change had come.
Looking west into the setting sun he thought of the reports his diplomats had sent him about his western ally, the Republic of Hatte. Their new goverment system seemed to make their population happy and the cities prosper.
Other advisors had also heared rumours about something called Democracy, although its unsure at this point witch benifits it brings, if any

OT:
I'll send out peace proposals to Babylon, Minoa and Greece, AI wasnt too happy with me destroying forts.

[SlowThinker]

rules corner - MP sessions

Last week Kull introduced a proposition of a new rule about MP (post 3609).
I think nobody may be forced into a rule change if his strategy depends on existing rules, but I think people should pronounce their opinions here.

My stance to a rule that would disallow civ management during MP sessions: I think it would be very reasonable.
My stance to a rule that would disallow MP sessions completely: I think it would be unreasonable, since CivDip creates units that don't need support and units that don't create unrest under The Republic. MP sessions can patch this behaviour.

I said Babylonian strategy depended on the existing rule, but this won't be true soon (because of Cohorts), so Babylon would be ready for a rule change (to dissalow civ management during MP sessions) soon.

[atawa]

Its called PBEM for a reason.........

[Zedd]

Re: Re: home rules

Originally posted by Kull


The rules sure as hell do not allow that! If anyone does that, it's grounds for being kicked out of the PBEM as far as I'm concerned! The basic rule of the PBEM is you get to move and do things ONLY ONCE PER TURN.

If people HAVE BEEN doing that - and think it's perfectly OK - it has to end RIGHT NOW. Otherwise I will leave this PBEM immediately.

I was under the impression that MP was only allowable if it did not effect the oucome of the current turn. For instance you can swap techs or create treaties, but you can't rush-buy or sell items. Same logic drives the frozen units from Civ Dip, The game should function as a SP game with above average AI.

[SlowThinker]

Zedd, you seem to be confused now, I think you wasn't under an impresion: an example from history: Babylon was happy after Greeks started to research 18' Pike (because it would stop C4 production in Persia). But you agreed kengel would set Greek science to zero in a MP session.