New "Ancient Empires" PBEM created

[SlowThinker]

to Kull+atawa: MP was used in PBEM for long time, CivDip is a relatively new program. IIRC CivDip didn't exist when this PBEM started.

Originally posted by Zedd
I would think it unethical to use MP to rushbuy lots of units for an attack on a civ next turn, or to beat another civ to a tech or wonder.

IMO this is a not a very good approach to the game. The rules are here in order you don't have to think what is ethical and what is not. If all players used your approach then each player would play a different game: one would never steal a wonder in MP, second would do it routinely, third would never build a wonder if another player announced an interest in the thread. Similarly with any other exploit/technique, way of diplomacy, way of waging a war etc.
The rules are here in order that we all use the same ruleset.
All right, some rule may appear not to be wise:

If I see there is a rule that I don't like (for any reason: it is 'unethical' or makes the game less interesting or strange etc.) then I suggest a change. If this is not accepted then I have to accomodate to it: for example in my plans I count with a possibility that somebody can steal "my" wonder, and also that I can steal a wonder from others.

---

Is this summary of our standpoints correct?
atawa: no civ management during MP
SlowThinker: no civ management during MP (acceptable from 2340)
Zedd: no civ management during MP
Kull: no MP at all
Straybow: no MP at all
kengel: no response

[Kull]

Originally posted by atawa
@Straybow:

I dont mind people fixing problems we encounter due to how the game operates, only mind people changing buildingorders on someone elses turn

No problem there. We've even allowed hex-editing where necessary to fix weird game-induced problems.

[Kull]

Originally posted by SlowThinker
to Kull+atawa: MP was used in PBEM for long time, CivDip is a relatively new program. IIRC CivDip didn't exist when this PBEM started.

Yes, CivDip existed at the start of this PBEM.

[Straybow]

To be precise, I do not object to eliminating MP as Kull proposes.

I don't care about the rules in themselves. I want the players to feel comfortable with the rules and enjoy the experience. If Kull sees the rules meaning "play like SP with intelligent opponents" that's very different from "play like MP except we never have to be online at the same time."

I personally see it somewhere in between. The occasional MP session is just a tool and we can live without it.

[Straybow]

In loco kengelus

When I posted my Ctrl-N alert I didn't realize kengel had not posted the save yet!

I don't know if kengel had a connection problem but he sent a copy of his turn. He didn't say he needed one of us to post it, but he has not responded or appeared here.

atawa should check and see how much his troops have moved and then we need to decide whether to go on without a replay.

[Edit: original date of email with game file 28May 20:07EDT]

[SlowThinker]

Originally posted by Kull
Yes, CivDip existed at the start of this PBEM.

This is possible, but its features were limited (for example no unit giving).

Anyway this is not very important IMO. Long time ago we debated ways how to handle diplomatics trades and incorporated them into rules, and we allowed a MP-managed diplomacy. For me it looks strange you was contended until now and now you are not.

[atawa]

Its not too bad, some units have moved but nothing too serious.

[kengel]

Attawa: Welcome to the game!

I am sorry for the confusion about my turn, Stray was right:
I sent the turn per email, because there was a minor request for MP, and I noticed there was some rule discussion whether city managment should be allowed during MP session or not.
I don't care about civ management inbetween turns, but since it seems not very popular to the players, I will go with majority.

Hence, the turn already posted by Stray is the valid one;
Zedd: please use either turn (the posted one should be identical to that I sent to you on 28th).

[SlowThinker]

rules corner

MP sessions:
So it looks the common point is "no civ management during MP from 2340"? Any objections?

I would ask players that they think about points they don't like in the rules. Please do it rather now than later when somebody
An example:
Our rules don't forbid "loans" of wonders: cities cannot be given for free, but "accepted briberies" are allowed. Imagine Hittites go in war, they can borrow Sargon for couple of turns. Of course this requires a trust between Babylon and Hittites and a gold for a bribery (in past my feeling was the gold made the loans of wonders not very comfortable, but there is a lot of gold in this stage of the game).
The possibility of wonder loans seems a bit unnatural for me, but from other point of view I don't like changes of rules very much.

[Straybow]

I thought it was against the rules.

[Zedd]

Minoan traders complain in recent months that security is too tight. Even with the proper paper work it has taken our messengers much longer to travel through the city's and orders from the palace are seldom punctual.

However there are still many traders running the waters and several goods deliveries on the horizon. I have ordered that the long standing Land developement teams on Crete locate a suitable place for retrirement and construct a new seattlement. A few new ships have joined the Armada and the East Minoan Trading Company is thriving.

Messengers will be sent with expedited travel passes to all kings with tidings of good will and words of encouragement for the Perso-Bab disagreement.

[SlowThinker]

Originally posted by Straybow
I thought it was against the rules.

Rules say: "'Giving' cities by an approved bribery is allowed.". Nothing else.

Hittites did it once already (the bribery of Nineveh with Pyramids from Persia), although it was in one direction only (not a "loan", but a "purchase").

[atawa]

the bribery of Nineveh with Pyramids from Persia

Did we used to own Pyramids

[Straybow]

For one turn.

At the end of the war we had an auction for who got the Pyramids. For strategic purposes Persia captured the city (so that neither Bab nor Hit would be forced to take Bronze Weapons).

Hittites had to use up an Envoy (125g value) plus the bribe cost (53g, iirc).

[SlowThinker]

This is a history of the "giving cities" rule:
First we agreed it shall be forbidden completely (rules version 3), also because loans of wonders are bad, but we didn't say if an agreed bribery is "giving".
When we talked about division of Assyria we made this point clear and we said bribery was allowed. But we said nothing about wonders.

I can imagine some players (like Straybow) think loans of wonders are not allowed, because in past we said it was bad, although the rules don't forbid it.
So let us make this point clear. Talk please: how do you understand the current status, is it allowed now? And what rule do you prefer?