BC4S turns

[MariOne]

I gotta admit that I dislike it so much, I hardly tested its whole effects. If I recall correctly though, it allows you to roughly see elevations, but not the whole terrain details. For instance, if I have to plan the location for a new base, I will not get the same information with FoW on or off. I'll pay more attention next time. Then, if I move a plane, don't tiles turn grey immediately after the plane is passed, or do they indeed remain exposed all the turn long?

And more important, bright light seeriously disturbs my eyes, esp when I wear my contact lenses, but watching too dark images trying to figure out what they represent is too much of an effort the other way round too. I tried with the gamma, but when you make it clearer the colors get dull, not bright, and that's depressing...

Thinking it over, I'm sure too that when I watch at AI's moves after my turn in HiTechII, I can see Yang's units moving beyond the see limit of my units, bases or borders.

I'll give it another try, but when I put it on the impression remains, I have less photo-visual references to trigger my direct connection betweem memory-instinct-strategic_thought.

MoSe
- PS: I loved JAM's meta-comment, why you say he got me on that? It's the kind of reactions I look for, to feel that we don't walk alone on this planet...
[This font has been edited by MariOne (edited July 22, 1999).]

PPS: Odissey deprivation brings you to lurk in our thread???
[This message has been edited by MariOne (edited July 22, 1999).]

[MariOne]

a different frame, yet before testing it.

FoW on might show me what I can actually see.
In THAT turn.
It prevents me to look at tiles I can't see in that turn. but even if that information is not up-to-date, it's anyway better to see it rather than not.

[JAMiAM]

M.Y. 2191 to the Spartans.

MoSe,

I agree that FoW is harder on the eyes, initially. It is certainly uglier and in the areas that are beyond your sensor range, it can be annoying to have to guess at the exact terrain (or right click for info on tiles). But, using it does tend to provide incentive for building all of those sensor arrays to cover gaps in your visible areas and to minimize dead space in your empire.

Of course, with as many supply crawlers as you like to build, I doubt that dead space is much of a problem for you! I must admit, I've never seen anyone build so many. Must be nice for rush building those SP's.

JAMiAM

[MariOne]

I gave it another try as promised, and I have to correct my biased memories: FoW only applies a diagonla shading on the tiles, but with some efforts you can still view all terrain details.

I still think it's disturbing for the eyes and for my consent-ratio.

I admit too that my builder character drives me to postpone all defensive items till a danger is probable. I won't build perimeters for instamce when I still have no idea of where other faction are, I take a little of a gamble, hoping that the investment in more fruitful items will make me able to face faster to any odd. And sensors too, can help me spot & defend from fungus, but I always end up to prefer some forest or solar, and say I'll have time for sensors after. I could have saved couple of units here if I had sensors....

And I can gurantee you that I didn't develop a strategy for scrawlers, till I begun to play PBEMs, before I used just some of them.

Then, after some forum discussions, and after seeing how Pagan got ahead of me and Mongoose belching mountains of crawlers out of his factories, I decided that if you can afford the initial time, it'a a worthy investment. The main goal is not to use them in projects, but to increase your resources production exponentially (you use the first to convoy minerals to build the second and so on, then the successives can convoy nutrients to make the city grow and work more tiles...)
At some points when you need to build a SP, you can sacrifice some of them, so that you can build the project in one turn and not give the opponent hints on what you're up to.
In the meantime they've far more than repaid their initial cost.
Dead space, I learned to build many crawlers exactly in order for dead space not to be a problem, not the opposite. In Civ II I got mad if I had to leave a workable tile out of a city radius, here I do not have this problem. I never mastered tho the Prerogative style to cram lots of bases one near the other and send crawlers to work distant tiles. The problem is you should dedicate them only to mono-resourced tiles.
If only I didn't bide my time and got the EG 3-4 turns earlier, as I could easily do...

Hey, these cultural exchanges could have deserved a thread on its own!

MoSe

[This message has been edited by MariOne (edited July 23, 1999).]

[JAMiAM]

M.Y. 2192 to the Spartans.

---

MoSe,

You gotta quit kicking yourself over the loss of the EG! That's MY job.

But seriously, that project has got to be the (along with the WP) most important early game project there is. I was so nervous when I gave you instructions to cover for me in Newhon, that you were going to use the knowledge against me in this game. I am happy that I beat you to the punch.

I am the same way in my games, taking chances on defense, in order to accelerate infrastructure, so that I am able to maximize the exponential growth of my bases and output. For example, in this game, my power graph is only a pathetic fraction of what it could be if were to spend five turns building modern military units and upgrading my vast numbers of garrisons and reserve units. Something I could easily do, but am avoiding, because I don't want to frighten you guys and provoke a misunderstanding of my intentions and possibly, a foolish global war.

Yes, we could start another thread, but this one will do fine, as well. The more threads that I have to keep track of, the easier I get lost! Besides, other than Mongoose the Lurker, you and I are the only ones using this thread, apparently.

JAMiAM
The Firaxian Psychophant

[Mongoose]

Mongoose the Lurker, indeed! Harrumph!

Lurkers don't post. I have more posts here than half of the players in this game.

I read these threads to keep an eye on my opponents in other games. You never know what juicy morsels of data might be found!

Sometimes, I can't resist the impulse to add my $ .02 as well.

[MariOne]

well, we (Dreifels and me)are playing now our turns with ICQ online contact
hope you won't consider this illegal, after all each one makes his own moves in the end...

[MariOne]

2193 UP >> MI

[JAMiAM]

M.Y. 2193 to Duke Veracitas.

---

Mo(ngoo)Se,

Indeed, (you do at that) I would consider it cheating, if Dreifels had his turn rerunning at the time, or on a second computer to avoid the reload tattle, or worse yet, if you two were sharing passwords and walking thru each other's turns. If there is something that I missed, I might or might not consider it cheating, depending on the situation.

However, if you are simply comparing notes, asking for advice, coordinating future plans, conducting diplomacy, reviewing past mistakes, et cetera, I do not consider that cheating. Perhaps, to reduce any possibility of cheating being accused, you should specify exactly how you two are using ICQ, to all of the players and the CMN.

In my email pass-off messages to the Duke, I've sometimes given detailed information, i.e. an IoD outside of his spotting radii, but loaded with worms and possibly headed in his direction. I have no objection to information being passed between turns, I'm a little concerned about possible abuses of real time kibbitzing, though.

Please shed more light on your practice.

JAMiAM

[JAMiAM]

M.Y. 2194 to the Spartans.

[MariOne]

2195 UP >> MI

[MariOne]

That's a delicate matter.
The problem has been brought to my attention in THC, where my opinion as external CMN was asked. No conclusion was made, but no evidence or argument in favour of the cheating line has been reasonably produced. Thus since no agreement was made in our game, I held I was informed enough on the matter to judge if it was worth to stop the game or not. As a matter of fact, it didn't came at all to my mind to ask permission about it in my previuos post, I was just informing.

If before doing it I had thought it was possibly a cheat, I would obviously have refrained to. Or if I intended to cheat (which I never do, just because it spoils my fun, if there weren't other reasons), I would have simply shut up and go ahead.

Now, simply what's happened (but even if had happened more, plain logic would claim it legal):
- we have a pact (you of course know it)
- we decided to cooperate deeply
- this means not only we tell what happens, but we plan together our moves by mail
*so far, nothing to object, I hope. And we agreed (didn't we, Bing?) that once communication is legal, any mean is allowed. E-mail is just a handy choice. But many pointed out that screen-shots too have nothing illegal in them. And anything that can come to your mind. If I had lived in the same town with Dreifels, we could even meet at home.
- we agreed on principal goals for our common research.
- since we were both online when he took his turn, and the tech of election didn't show up in the panel for his choice, HE asked me for my advice with ICQ. I told him what I thought, but in the end he was free to accept my advice or not. Note, that he could have just as well left the game open in the background, mailed me adn waited for my reply. Saying that e-mail is allowed, never was talked about it being legal only before opening the turn.

Should you apply for disallowing that, I could accept only if for the same principle ANY form of out-game communication would be completely banned, which of course you could never practically enforce.

Now, to some other interesting issues you raised, not actually related to our current situation.

I exchanged some mail with Bingmann in Newhon2 (where he plays and I am CMN), and he pointed me out that saving halfway in a turn, doesn't trigger the reload warning, as long as you don't load the same file twice. I never even thought of trying it, so I wasn't aware, and held that it should have been just cheating as reloading, and I showed Bing how it could be used to gain illegal infos.
So, as the game stands, once you regularly produce the official savefile, and don't touch it, and send it on, what are you allowed to do? Anything you want, since the game is now past that point. This means, if you want to rehearse your tactic or strategy, or wanna check the actual figures, or if you just forgot something, you can with clear conscience reload the very same turn you just played, as long as the first runs is safely stored and remains untampered (if it's already on his e-way, how can anything you do later on your PC affect it?).
Thus, if an ally asks you for advice (we can think by e-mail, ICQ would be just a different mean) as you could reload to check something for yourself, the same way you can to have under your eyes what you've been asked for. Or taking it off the top of your mind would be more legal?
The main thing, is each one takes his own turn. Even restricting to inter-turns e-mail, one could ORDER to a less experienced player "next turn you wiil do that and that", and if the second has a weak personality, he would just obey. And they'd be doing a questionable thing using only "legal" means and procedures. You see, IMHO realtime is not really a divider here. (was that you was referring to with "kibbitzing"? I couldn't find it in the OED)

Passing one's turn to another is a very hot potato too (do you use such saying too?).
THC broke up for that reason. I don't like the practice at first thought. Further, but that's my own private preference, even if shared by many others, I'd NEVER give my own password to another player of the same game, for any reason.
But when my opinion was asked for there, I tryed to stick to logic, and not a single argument could be found to sustain such position. cousLee was on my very same standings, even if he needed much more less words to express it, and better too.
If you allow e-mail, if you want you can convey ALL the info you need to with it. So, sending a turn, beware, a past turn, it just a faster and easier way to do the SAME thing. If only you hadn't to pass the PW too...
Once you saved turn, as I said you can do what you want with the beginning of that same turn, and none has been able to explain why that should not include passing it to an ally, in any formn you can think of, from words, to pictures, to the turn itself.
The whole matter unleashes taboo-like reactions in SMACers, it's very interesting, and funny if you want, from a sociological point of view. Now, don't ask me what I think about sex between adult relatives...

"I think it can't be said illegal..."
" NO! NO! NO!!!"
"But WHY?"
"er... BECAUSE!!!"

Of course I could think by myself of the deadly downside of passing your password ("hey, it HAS to be passed, it's in its name" ): if the trusted ally turns his back he could profit of the other's password, and ruin the game for all. But if a player can come to this mean action, he'd be to ban anyway, even without the stupid gift of the password from a naive opponent. And the password issue is collateral, we could play a game w/out PWs, just based upont the trust of each other, and all the above issues would stand the same.

You saw that, as in the FoW matter, I am ope to change my position if someone shows me with logic where I am mistaken.
But on this issue, so far, it seems logically acceptable for me to play in a PBEM where or any form of out-game communications are allowed (after in-game contact is made), either they are all disallowed.

I guess I'm beginning to repeat the same concepts over and over. Two talking turns to you then now .

MoSe

[Bingmann]

Of course you are free to use ICQ and email to communicate at any time after in-game contact.

I am against passing save files and passwords to players who are not the owner for 2 reasons:

1. Taking a literal interpretation of the rules, reloading save files is illegal. The only save file that anyone should be loading is the "current" save file, and it will only be loaded once because a fresher one will be created with Save & Exit. You are not free to do whatever you want with old save files.

2. Sharing passwords with other players defeats the whole purpose of having passwords. I would be inclined to say that if you give your password to another player, that you intend for them to play your turns for you, and you can have no complaint if they actually do that.

[JAMiAM]

M.Y. 2195 to Duke Veracitas.

---

MoSe,

I'm not too sure on the absence of reload tattle for turns, once passed. I do know that you can play a partial turn, save and continue FROM THAT POINT without a tattle. I do it often, when I'm playing at work. My work computer runs Win98, while the facility software is DOS based and doesn't like to multitask, too reliably. So, if a customer comes in, I save the game and replay from that point, when I have the opportunity. If this method is open to potential abuse, I'd like for you to point those out to me, as I'm unaware of any.

My sister and I are playing hotseat/pbem. I seem to recall a situation where she reloaded a past turn by mistake. I was notified by the game of a reload message. I don't intend on having to wade through reload messages every turn, when I open up a pbem game. It would do nothing to foster a degree of trust among the participants. That, if you recall was my major objection to the situation brought up by the HLC players. And, if you recall, the reason for their breakup.

I'm too tired to think much more than this, I'll try to pursue it later.

JAMiAM

[JAMiAM]

M.Y. 2196 to the Spartans.