New "Ancient Empires" PBEM created

[atawa]

The thing I like most about these games is the diplomacy and the story that is being written as we play.
In this light I agree with Straybow, the citytakine/gifting/whatever has to fit into the story somehow.

I basicly dont object to any rule to this, but when players swap cities and the only reason is for gameplay advantages (sharing wonders and the like) it kinda takes the fun out of the game.

[SlowThinker]

I tried to put all points about giving cities together and to issue a proposal of a new rule. Please send any objection.

Gifts/sales (=agreed hand-overs) of cities
This must be done by a bribery, not a conquest.
A civ may hand over / accept only one city per turn. If a city is handed over then it must not be returned (by an agreed hand-over) next 20 turns (but it may be captured in a real war). Term "an agreed hand-over" is very strict, no tricks are supposed (For example any indication of type "I won't be too angry if I lose this city" is considered as an agreement).
Next rules are a bit loose: Only border cities may be handed over. Also it is supposed substantial parts of civs don't change color this way.
(Hand-overs of farmers/engineers are not limited.)

[Straybow]

Sounds good to me.

[Straybow]

With peace on the horizon and trade rising to unprecedented levels should not this be a time of celebration? But no, a Republic is a system that thrives on controversy. The opposition has gathered together enough bitter pills and whining demogogues to overthrow the dominant Hattublican party.

With the Nassicratic coalition in charge of the Senate, they call for a vote of no-confidence. But the Straybow dynasty will not reliquish power so easily. There is still enough division among the Nassicrats to block any one of the leaders from securing appointment as Consul.

Hiliri Kilintna hopes to be the first Consuless of Hatte, while Barag Dodunu positions himself to be the first Ishtarite Consul (a religion historically associated with the Assyrian enemies that combines with the similarity between his name and the hated Didanu).

The Nassi tribe is culturally powerful. Their dialect is the written language used among the Anatolian peoples. But the more numerous Hatte tribe has always been able to rally the support of the smaller tribes due to marriage bonds.

Prince Arnuwanda of the Ortali tribe come forward to unite with some Nassicrat factions opposed to Kilintna and Dodunu. The astute pundit may note that Arnuwanda is son in law of Straybow II.

[SlowThinker]

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

Originally posted by atawa
Its not too bad, some units have moved but nothing too serious.

I am finishing my turn, withdrawing Bab units from the Pers-Bab border and I see the Persian AI did a serious step: I found out a wounded Bab Iron Infantry (not a problem for me): the AI attacked with a Persian Iron Infantry in Zagros and it died.

So I ask if atawa wants to handle this problem
(by a replay - but I am not very happy to re-manage my 60 cities, also I may not remember all details;
or by some gold compensation (hexedit);
or if atawa wants to have the unit back soon he may move a fast unit to the position and it may be hexedited to the Iron Inf)
BTW the basic rule is "be heedful and do the Ctrl-N" and "be heedful if Straybow asks", but atawa starts PBEMing so I think we should be helpful for this once.

[SlowThinker]

The problem with the Persian AI

I got a new idea: Now I could move a Babylonian skirmisher to the position of the cadaver of a Persian IronInf. By hexediting this skirmisher could be changed to a Persian IronInf.
(btw hexediting is not a standard procedure allowed by our rules, anybody can complain and veto. But we used it about twice in past in similar situations.)

I am sending the turn report in advance. The save will come after the problem is solved.

[SlowThinker]

Bab 2360

Also Eshunians returned and settled (Ellipians settled last turn).

Babylon appreciates very highly that Persia started to withdraw units and to dismantle structures. Babylon proceeded corresponding steps.
But we have to pronounce secondary discontent:

Originally posted by atawa I
I've started to remove troops and forts, the roads and return to the 2490
situation will take a couple of turns.

We comprehend some level of caution in Persia and so we understand Persia didn't want to withdraw everything in one turn and she waited for a Babylonian response. But we think "couple of turns" is needlessly long.
Also we don't fully understand why a Persian Mil. Engineer moved south along Al-Kabir if Persia plans to dismantle all her structures here?

Technologies and wonders
We welcome Persia didn't go for Legion Tactics. We consider a delay of Legion Tactics good for peace: Legion IV is much stronger than Legion III, although its cost is comparable. Therefore it is not likely any militaristic civilization would want to build many Legions III. Simultaneously one Legion III stops any amount of Chariots IV.
We watch the Persian plans with a high interest, and we see the Persian cities will be very safe. Therefore we don't understand why the border issues are so important for Persia. We would like to have the Bab-Pers borders solved soon, and we will stress the area of Al-Kabir.

[Kull]

Re: Bab 2360

Originally posted by SlowThinker
We watch the Persian plans with a high interest, and we see the Persian cities will be very safe. Therefore we don't understand why the border issues are so important for Persia. We would like to have the Bab-Pers borders solved soon, and we will stress the area of Al-Kabir.

The snake raises it's head - just a little - and opens an eye. The tail stirs, almost imperceptibly.

[Straybow]

We can't be too surprised that the AI attacked, as the civs are in war status. I suggest we save any fixes for the Persian turn.

[Kull]

Originally posted by Straybow
We can't be too surprised that the AI attacked, as the civs are in war status. I suggest we save any fixes for the Persian turn.

This is ridiculous. Are we delaying because of one stupid unit??? It's been almost two months since my last turn!! WARNING: Babylon has 24 hours, after which Egypt will play. All requests for an extension are hereby denied in advance.

[SlowThinker]

atawa could consider that stupid unit to be very important.

I will leave on Monday, so my idea was to send two saves if atawa won't come before I leave: one normal, and another one where I move my skirm to the position of the Persian cadaver (so that it may be hexedited; and with closed eyes so that I don't see what is around).

But since Kull wants to play I will just wait until tomorrow and then I will send the "normal" save (if atawa doesn't respond sooner).

[atawa]

I have no idea how to hexedit units, but wouldnt it be easyest if I go into the save on my turn via the scenario feature and create a new unit?

[SlowThinker]

The scenario feature doesn't work, because all cities get an additional turn of production if you start a game with a "begin scenario" option.

I can do the hexedit stuff. I can change properties of units (type, owner, home city...), I cannot make a completely new unit on the map, but I can add shields to a city production so that a new unit is made for free.

I see two possibilities:
1) You move any (fast) unit to the position, it will be hexedited to the IrInf and a shields will be added to one of Persian cities in order to create a new fast unit.

2) I move the Bab skirm to the cadaver's position now so that you get the IrInf immediately. I will close eyes when moving the skirm and I won't look at the area after Egyptian turn. So you will be able to simply move units that I should not see. But the roads, forts, cities that were visible to the skirm will remain visible to Babylon.

[atawa]

3, I loose the unit and we get this game going, play on

[SlowThinker]

OK, but the options 1) and 2) don't slow the game, they only mean a bit of additional work (hexediting) afterwards.