Captain Yang's Crusade - 3 x 2

[johndmuller]

2183 to Darius / Angels.

[Flubber]

2184 to johnd

[johndmuller]

2184 to Darius / Angels.

(Flubber, no big deal, but you seem to have misnamed the files as if they were 2185; as you said in your post, the year was 2184 in the game; I mention it mainly so you are not so surprised next turn if you see the file name already in use on your system.)

[Flubber]

when I get the turn, I will immediately rename it to 2184a or 2185a or something to avoid confusion

So the year WAS repeated ?? I have seen this bug before where the year won't change for a couple of turns and then it went merrily along again with no other appreciable effects.

[johndmuller]

The year wasn't repeated from my point of view; rather it seemed as if you were wanting to skip a year. The year maintained by the game itself seemed OK, it was just the filenames on the .Sav and .Zip files that were ahead of themselves. The internal game year changes after Darius' turn, but whatever he calls his .Sav and .Zip files is up to him, so perhaps he had been using lagging dates and went to leading dates, catching you by surprise or some such. Whatever happened this turn, you two have been keeping it straight much better than many games I'm in, where lots of time is wasted in pursuit of correct dates and correct files.

As to the game itself's dates failing to advance (or advancing too much), I haven't seen that happen, that I've noticed at least, although I think I've read that if someone 'resigns' or 'retires' or whatever they call it, that the game will skip to the beginning of the next MY, thus skipping the players whose turns are toward the end of the round. {So unless Flubber resigns his Flubber-2 faction before his Flubber-1 faction, there won't be any unfair advantage (to the Flub1 faction) just a skipped year from our point of view, same as if he resigns both of them at the same time - maybe he's getting Darius and I ready for when he resigns, so we will be used to skipped years.}

[Darius]

Originally posted by johndmuller
I think I've read that if someone 'resigns' ... that the game will skip to the beginning of the next MY, thus skipping the players whose turns are toward the end of the round.

I can confirm this. It recently happened in another game I am in. Player #2 resigned, and the game instructed him to send the turn back to player #1. Players #3 (me) and #4 were skipped.

[Flubber]

ahh -- perhaps i screwed it up or something but I will get it back on track

. . . and no I have no plans to resign YET -- so far, my factions have thrived in isolation and hope to continue to thrive in peace and tranquility with all

[johndmuller]

There are some complicated threads here and there about problems with eliminating human players and various methods of dealing with it. As I recall, the "Resign" method was generally considered the second best solution, the preferred method being that the victim-to-be eliminate themselves by disbanding their men and obliterating their base(s) themselves. I have seen this work on several occasions without problem, although most recently it didn't work for the player about-to-be-elimated, but did work when I did it on my machine (don't know whether this is hardware, flakiness or some omission or other human error).

The self imolation method also has its drawbacks, particularly that the conqueror cannot take over the last base of the victim as it must be eliminated, but since the conqueror is probably among the leaders, he can probably afford it, while the resign method leaves an arbitrary number of players short one turn worth of resources, movement, growth and production.

The threads I mentioned earlier also cited some rather strange results to various methods of trying to get around the problem. I think that one method - where the conqueror just eliminated the player directly, without any funny business, and then restarted the game - sometimes worked perfectly, but sometimes lead to varing levels of scrambled faction data, some of which might be subtle enough to miss without looking closely.

Darius, do you think Flubber realizes that we are trying to break it to him gently by means of this roundabout discussion?

[Flubber]

Originally posted by johndmuller

Darius, do you think Flubber realizes that we are trying to break it to him gently by means of this roundabout discussion?

Well Flubber does realize that Flubber was invited to this game by Darius shortly after eradicating Darius in another game

[Flubber]

As for self imolation-- we saw it as the best option in most of my games -- In the case of one conqueror that wanted the advantage of the last conquered base, the defeated player (me) simply gave the conqueror the password so the conqueror (playing the defeated faction) could spit out another colony pod and establish a size 1 to destruct so he could keep the nice size 7 base

[Darius]

Originally posted by Flubber
Flubber was invited to this game by Darius shortly after eradicating Darius in another game

Nobody ever accused me of being very bright.

Sorry about the reload. After switching several times between the game, my notes, and my tech tree, the game stopped responding to mouse clicks. I had to start over.

The turn will be on its way to Flubber when my outgoing mail server decides to start responding.

[Flubber]

2185 on to johnd

[johndmuller]

2185 to Darius / Angels.

[Flubber]

2186 to johnd

[johndmuller]

2186 to Darius / Angels.