March Madness!

[Dominae]

Originally posted by Rommel2D
3.1: Can someone explain this further? Fortified ships can see 3 tiles?
Sort of related to this but not mentioned anywhere except in Donegeal's exploit thread, is the general 'fortify all' exploit. Vondrack supplied some test results that were supposed to verify this exploit worked, but I haven't seen direct evidence myself. Whenever I try to 'fortify all' on an already moved stack, none of the units are fortified the next turn. Was this addressed by Firaxis at some point?

What Donegeal was talking about is no longer an issue in Conquests.

3.2, along with the 'gold mine' bug, is addressed by cancelling all popups until the production phase is complete.

Let the Civil Disorder commence!

3.5 is simply in the MZO list with and assumed "don't do it". How about disallowing any voluntary exchange of cities for the tournament?

Although this does remove some strategic possibilities from MP/PBEM play, I think it is worth it. Gifting cities is rarely strategically interesting, it just puts the attacker in a slight pickle with respect to treaties, alliances, etc. The "peaceful" uses of city gifting are uncommon.

If you want to test each other's skill at Civ3, you're better off not throwing city gifting into the mix; it perverts the game into something far removed from SP.


Dominae

[alexman]

Originally posted by Rommel2D
Does it also mean no alliances without embassies? No MPPs or embargoes without an embassy and Nationalism?

I like alliances and MPPs to be declared by in-game agreements. Especially in-game alliances are good, because they require both attacking parties to declare war, so an ally to the aggressor never gets a war-weariness bonus if they get attacked first.

Would it be better to say that deals cannot be made and cancelled on the same turn? That roads cannot be pilliaged and rebuilt on the same turn for a simillar purpose?

I like it.

Do all tribes receive the hapiness bonus when war is declared, under all conditions?

I'm not entirely sure either, but I think you get a happiness bonus if you are attacked as long as you weren't the first to attack that civ in the past.

Short of screen shots, how much detail can be given verbally before players can exchange in-game maps? Would "there's a Rider at tile 22,39" be a legal exchange?

What about allowing information that doesn't contain distances or direction? So you can't say "there is iron two tiles north of Entremont", but you can say "there is iron near Entremont".

Would anyone here object to disallowing this?

Renaming units to deceive opponents is a silly trick, IMHO. Disallow it.

3.4 is very questionable as to it's exploit status, and should be agreed to on a per-game basis. In other words, I won't disallow it, but each group can do so on their own.

Sounds good.

3.5 is simply in the MZO list with and assumed "don't do it". How about disallowing any voluntary exchange of cities for the tournament?

That's a good solution too. Another solution could be to disallow exchange of cities at peace time. Allow it only as part of a peace treaty. Since we have covered the exploits of cooperation during war, I think this would eliminate the exchange of cities for exploitative reasons.

[Rommel2D]

[Concerning 1.1 and 1.3]

Originally posted by Trip
They exist to prevent cooperative exploits, not simply cooperation.

I phrased this wrong, I meant to bring up a seperate, but related topic; Should it also mean no alliances without embassies? No MPPs or embargoes without an embassy and Nationalism? These aspects are rarely respected in most PBEM games, but would clearly be in the spirit of the game's intentions. Coordinating battle plans or research paths without an embassy is pretty much an exploit if you stop to think about it.

As Conquests made upgrading more expensive, I see no reason why there should be any limitations on upgrading. You need a lot more gold than before, and everyone can do it.

I didn't mean to say there was any problem with the trading-for-upgrade rule. In fact I like the idea and agree with the upgrade/supply distinction. But is it enough to say "don't make and cancel resources trades for the purpose of supplying two tribes from one source, only for upgrading units"? Would it be clearer, easier to remember/follow, or otherwise better to say "trades cannot be made and cancelled on the same calander turn, and roads cannot be pilliaged and rebuilt on the same turn for a simillar purpose"? I think that would produce the desired result.

I think giving away specifics about certain tiles is not alright unless both people have already seen them.

But if both tribes have explored an area, they can then give precise updates of unit locations to each other before they can exchange maps? My thought was to ban the use of numbers and cardinal directions in verbal descriptions. Doing this before Map Making would definitely be in the spirit of the rules.

I'm not sure how complex we should make this rule at this point in time though...

There are some bugs in 1.22 that have caused it to be banned from use in all of the major Conquests MP DGs. One of them is how MGLs allow the rushing of Great Wonders

I think we need some links here. The only mention of this I've seen in the Conquests forum was SewerStarFish's, but the save he included didn't back it up. Player1 said the bug was only with scenarios. I have no idea on this myself, as I desperately need to spend less time organizing this thing and play a game or two... Even so, I don't see it as a reason not to use 1.22- it would just mean a new exploit to disallow instead of the ones in 1.15 (eg the load bugs).

You can chain units all the way from one continent to the other, giving instantaneous landing and movement capabilities to a large number of units. Highly exploitive and certainly not intended by the game designers.

But it was intended that infinite numbers of units can go from the north to south pole and attack in the same turn as long as they are on a railroad network? Given that we aren't going to see an intelligent RR system introduced in Civ3, I praise ship chains and those with the patience to build them as bringing improved balance to the movement system.

[sabrewolf]

also, every ship chain can only carry a certain number of units at once. if you're using a transport-chain, you can only shove 6 units over per turn (except if you have multiple chains).

and you need a lot of ships for these units.
it probably only really bad, if someone uses them to transport newly built/earned armies over like that for regular units the cost of such chains are probably too high for most (not just MM time)...

[Rommel2D]

Continuing to Begin...

MFCamillus and McMeadows requested the last spot, but Soltz finally responded within 24 hours of their PMs, so I'm going with him.


I could still use passwords from the following (in order to save me the trouble of making up rude embarrassing ones for them myself):

MickeyJ
LzPrst

Tracking threads will be made up and games launched later in the week. I'm particularly busy with RL on Mondays and Tuesdays.

On a side note- Aqualung: I'm not going to continue editing all player listings to reflect perpetual name changes. Next time I'll simply change it to EightiesPopMusicFan and leave it at that.

[Rommel2D]

Originally posted by Aqualung71
Fortifying ships for extra vision is really no big deal.

I'd agree this is a borderline item. Normally, ships laden with cargo are considered to be at a disadvantage in combat, due to added tonnage, but if the cargo is troops, this wouldn't be a factor. Still it's a stretch to say this sould lead to any significant advantage...

1.4 - not sure about this. Is it true there is no WW in MP/PBEM? If so, it's quite a big difference to SP and changes the balance of governments.
[...]
3.6 - accepting a peace treaty and then declaring war? I presume this would be done to get a tech or cash, then go straight back to war.

Nope, its in order clear up war weariness suffered by the exploitive tribe. Apperantly the exploit is that the peace seeking player doesn't receive a 'declaration of war' pop-up at the beginning of their turn to indicate what happened. It looks to them like the offer was simply declined.

A few exploits like these have not been raised at all in the regular Apolyton forums that I've caught. I take it this is mostly from the ISDGs (is that diplomacy or democracy)? Trip, if you can link us to any discussions/better descriptions on these, it would be much appreciated...

[playshogi]

I can play. I will usually play my turns about 11 PM EDT.
shogi4888@juno.com (eliminate the 8's from the address)

[Aqualung71]

Re: Continuing to Begin...

Originally posted by Rommel2D
On a side note- Aqualung: I'm not going to continue editing all player listings to reflect perpetual name changes. Next time I'll simply change it to EightiesPopMusicFan and leave it at that.

Ouch

My apologies for having my login name changed by the administrators to something I didn't like.

Errrr....80's? Pop? Hmmm

[Rommel2D]

Am I reading too much into the Prince and Michael Jackson references in your 'location' field? ;-)

It wasn't meant to be that harsh, I don't think I've ever used two graphic smileys before...

[Aqualung71]

Yes, way too much! Actually, the Michael Jackson reference of Thriller never even occurred to me! Then again, Aqualung could hardly be considered 80's or pop.

Anyway, enough of this OT....on with the game, Mr Panzer tank commander!

[Rommel2D]

Originally posted by sabrewolf
let's hope there aren't too many restarts (does a reason have to be given for requesting a restart?)

The actual work of doing restarts won't bother me, its keeping up with the exploit discussion that has me a bit frazzled right now (not that I regret doing it or anything)...

No reason required, treat it like a hand in poker. If you want to show what you had, go ahead, but it won't be demanded of you.

It would be nice if some people did After Action Reports to give us input on how the format works, compare how map conditions vs. strategic decisions affect the outcome, etc.

[Aqualung71]

Originally posted by Rommel2D
Nope, its in order clear up war weariness suffered by the exploitive tribe. Apperantly the exploit is that the peace seeking player doesn't receive a 'declaration of war' pop-up at the beginning of their turn to indicate what happened. It looks to them like the offer was simply declined.

But since WW only dissipates at 1/20 per turn, won't it just reactivate the next turn?

[Rommel2D]

Originally posted by Dominae
Let the Civil Disorder commence!

Should we name these rules for easier reference? I nominate 'The LA Law' for this one. :-)

Although this does remove some strategic possibilities from MP/PBEM play, I think it is worth it. Gifting cities is rarely strategically interesting, it just puts the attacker in a slight pickle with respect to treaties, alliances, etc. The "peaceful" uses of city gifting are uncommon.

If you want to test each other's skill at Civ3, you're better off not throwing city gifting into the mix; it perverts the game into something far removed from SP.

So: better to disallow city exchange entirely or only during peace?

[Rommel2D]

Originally posted by alexman
I like alliances and MPPs to be declared by in-game agreements. Especially in-game alliances are good, because they require both attacking parties to declare war, so an ally to the aggressor never gets a war-weariness bonus if they get attacked first.
[...]
I'm not entirely sure either, but I think you get a happiness bonus if you are attacked as long as you weren't the first to attack that civ in the past.

I always thought War Moodiness was affected by respective postitions and history, but never paid that close of attention. If so, forming alliances without declaring it with an embassy would have a direct affect on game mechanics, as you say, and is more an exploit than an ettiquette breach...

[Rommel2D]

Does Monarch level for the first round sound good?