DON PBEM - Transport Chaining

[Hot_Enamel]

Background ¡V Read the ¡§Dirty Little Lie¡¨ first

Basically, Vondrack had everything (MA¡¦s & MI¡¦s) advancing into my territory.
I kept disbanding and retreating, thinking he could not reach my only source of aluminium before I got the last tech to build the last SS Part.

Apparantly, I screwed up, and left a single tile with a Railroad left on it.
I also did not realise his spy stole my map, and he knew where my aluminium was.
I missed his tactic of using transports to drop workers along my coast¡Kthus building a rail network into my territory faster than I thought.

Vondrack had everything on our front line, and left his territory unprotected.
I lost my aluminium on the turn I needed it.
However, I had set up a transport chain across the ocean.
I built marines on the same turn.. transported them across the ocean with some tanks.
Took his coast city with marines. Took another coastal city with MA to capture a harbor.
Then headed inland until I reached his aluminium.
Used a combat settler to connect the aluminium..instantly connecting it to my core.
I switched by prebuild to the last SS part.
Game over¡K I won with a Spaceship build.

It did not even occur to me, that Vondrack would think transport chains were an exploit.

When I was originally told it could be done, I thought it was an exploit, but then after reading the arguments, I was convinced otherwise.
The tactic is not banned in any Diplo game I am in.
It¡¦s use was discussed by Trip within the ISDG
The C3C ISDG actually allowed it as a valid tactic.

Only MZO has it listed as an exploit, which I am not involved in.




> H> 3. The Transport hopping.
> H> Unfortunately, Vondrack believes it is an exploit, and I doubt I
> H> will be able to convince him otherwise. I know the feeling all to
> H> well, when you think you have won the game...and then to get
> H> screwed by an event you have no control over. With me... it was not
> H> having any uranium. And I assume with Vondrack... it was me using a
> H> tactic he thought an exploit.
>
> I've never really pondered all that much about the reasons why ship
> chaining should be an exploit - I just felt it was unnatural, to be
> able to ship units across the whole map in a single turn. Though when
> I think about it, one could find good reasons how to explain that (if
> you consider a transport more a "part of a ship lane", rather than a
> single vessel, it may even make sense).
>
> It was that I read about it several times and it was mentioned as a
> no-no or grey-area stuff at those times. Probably just bad luck I did
> not join C3C ISDG - because later on, doing a research on how much of
> an exploit it was considered to be, I found out C3C ISDG expressly
> allowed it. I still think it's a questionable tactics, but I would be
> able to live with it, IF I ONLY KNEW IT WAS ALLOWED. I was very upset
> about what happened, because I knew the only way to attack my coastal
> cities with marines finished in a given turn on that very turn was to
> use transport chaining - and considering that disallowed, I did not
> plan for it.
>
> That was why I left all my cities completely undefended as long as you
> had not a single marine (that was one of your mistakes in this war -
> had you built just one or two, you would never had to face that many
> MIs . That was why I stationed my cities with 1-2 defenders when I
„« saw the first (1) marine on your rooster.


Again.. I did not know that spies gave you my military roster.
You had more info about me than I realised.

I knew your coastal cities were undefended. But did think about using my single marine to take one, because you were not supposed to advance into my territory so quickly.



>
> But yes, it was the fact that all my planning and strategy crumbled
> because of playing by different rules that made me disgusted. Again,
> nothing personal - it was an "unsolvable" issue. That's why I told you
> I was sick of playing a game that needed a 10-page legal paper to make
> sure everybody was playing by the same rules.
>
> H> If it's any consolation... had my marines failed and I was unable
> H> to reach your source of aluminium, I was going to "retire" from the
> H> game. I had a surrender email already typed up and ready to send
> H> out.
>
> Well, yes, I felt I needed just 1-2 more turns and you would be done.
> No aluminium meant no SS win and no new MAs.
>
> H> I am reasonably sure you would beat Leo as well, and with it, a
> H> conquest victory. So...maybe if it eases your mind... if you
> H> consider it an exploit... then I had no other options available to
> H> me, and I was going to retire the next turn and essentially hand
> H> the game over to you.
>
> Well, you know... the issue of the exploitiveness aside (I am still
> uncertain about whether ship chaining is or is not an exploit - and
> I've been pondering about it about quite some time now), it was the
> fact that I didn't know it was allowed that screwed the game for me.
>
> If I knew it WAS allowed, I would have to play very differently,
> though - seeing no marines on your rooster would hardly be a reason to
> leave my coastal cities undefended, significantly lowering the number
> of troops available for my desperate thrust into your lands. I doubt I
> would be able to get as far as I did then. But OTOH, I could use the
> tactic to my own advantage...
>
> Dammit... it's like you organize a great party and it rains then. You
> cannot really blame anyone, but you are still pissed off.
>

Clearly we have different opinions of exploits.
I think the extreme combat settlers was closer to an exploit than ship chaining.
I did not always think that way, but after reading some of the arguments why it should be allowed, and the fact that some of the regular apolytoners believed it a valid tactic (ie Trip), then I changed my mind some time ago.

It is totally bizarre that we have such different views on the three topics above.
I think Extreme combat setters is possibly exploitive.
Yet diplomatic lying & ship chaining is fine.
You (and I guess Leo) have the absolute opposite views.

[Hot_Enamel]

Extreme Combat settling is up next

It is going to come with pictures

But will have to wait until I get home.

[Jon Shafer]

I must say that the ship-chaining scheme I had planned for transferring units over to the other continent was never so diabolical nor as "exploitive" (whatever that word means) as this. I simply wanted to move units from a set of boats heading from one set of ships to another set that met the first in between the two continents. When put in this sort of light, I would prefer to have the entire tactic banned rather than open up the possibilities of something like this happening.

Quite devious for a private PBEM, but you had better not try to pull off something like that in this game though...

[Hot_Enamel]

It's just like GS & RP, and their "unit warping"

They did it, without putting any thought into the consequences of such an action.

My thought was that transport chaining was generally accepted. MZO is the only place that I found it banned....which I only just discovered.

So if its generally accepted by most players, available for all players to use, has not been removed from by the programmers in recent patches, why does it matter what gets transported ?

Playing the turn, it never occured to me as an exploit.

Perhaps I overestimated its general acceptence.

[Jon Shafer]

I think if more people knew about this incident you'd find a lot more people who would be in favor of banning its use. The GS-RP unit warping involved 6 Catapults. Doing something like this would be a game-uprooting event. I could see teams leaving the entire game in protest if something like what you did in that game occurred in an environment like this. And I'm not just talking about GS.

A lot of problems haven't been fixed in recent patches. Hell, they're only just making it so that you can't load someone else's PBEM turn in SP, allowing you to see everyone's turns. As of late, there's been more bugs introduced in new patches than you find eliminated.

Support for Civ 3 has dwindled greatly in the past few months, and unfortunately, "old bugs" are often overlooked in favor of new features like you find in Conquests.

In any case, if you ever wish to use such a tactic, you would be best served to bring it up in the main forum now for discussion and get it settled.

[Hot_Enamel]

I am definitely not suggesting that GoW or any other team use this tactic.
I posted this, just to let everyone know, that Vondrack (therefore Lego) are very well prepared for a marine invasion, and they will probably be quite concerned if we used transports as our naval watch.

However, whether naval chaining is a valid tactic or not is up for discussion.
I see no reason to distinguish between an exploit and a valid tactic, based on how much damage can be done.
If you can use it to transport a settler, then you should be able to use it to transport marines.
The tactic is an exploit … or it’s not. Black and White. No Gray.

MZO definitely has it listed as an exploit. As most here are involved in that demo game, and were involved in setting up the rules, then I would expect that most of you would vote it as an exploit.

But also remember the MZO rules were the starting point for the C3C Demo game. And those teams decided that it was a valid tactic. It was purposely left out as an exploit.

I personally (after C3C Demo game discussion) believe that it to be a valid tactic.
In this PTWDG#1 game.. there is no rules on any exploits.

Trip.. I would back any move you make to try and set up some rules for this game. Being the independent Eye, you would be the perfect person to try and get an agreement.
Now would be a perfect time, while it’s quiet and there are no wars.

The MZO list is a good start.

[Jon Shafer]

H_E, I thank you for the respect you hold for me, my opinions and my role in this game. I find your idea on setting up a banned-exploit/rule list to be a very good one, and I'll start on one tomorrow (1:30am here now).

As far as it either being an exploit or it not being an exploit as a black-or-white affair, I think you can tell where I stand quite clearly. I'm not suggesting that GOW would use such a tactic, simply addressing the possibility (as its an issue that has been brought up, so I am obligated to convey such things). Rest assured I have done so elsewhere on this issue and many others.

Now then, get back to planning this invasion, before Lego and ND get Mechanized Infantry.

And post logs MZ!

[Master Zen]

Trip, don't you think setting up a banned-exploit/rule list so far into the game might perhaps be indicative of certain plans being considered and thus being given away???

[Jon Shafer]

Not necessarily. If I post a thread and bring up the exploit issue as a whole (no specifics) and post the MZO DG exploit list then people can either accept, reject or ammend it. I don't really think it telegraphs anyones plans, especially with all the exploit issues being dealt with in both ISDGs.