30% Iron Civer Tournament

[Paddy]

Originally posted by Rommel2D


What's all this about a job? I thought you were a vagabond civ player and storyteller...

[I'm guessing that, as the only ag tribe in his game, Paddy had a river start and hasn't looked back...?]

/me pours a drink, sits back and enjoys the show

ahh indeed a river has been in my life...

you certainly have an amazing crystal ball there old chap

well we are a long long way to the end... and the Lords that I share my lands with have many interesting times ahead as we enter a new age... and certain UU's become applicable

oh, yes well in truth I really am a hobo who wanders this lovely island, forever on the search of fun, a good steak and an early opener

[Aqualung71]

[Rommel2D]

Originally posted by Paddy the Scot
you certainly have an amazing crystal ball there old chap

Just insight based on Monty-Zuma experience. Are your opponents aware that you have used such advanced computer modeling to plan your dominant strategy? ;-)

[ricketyclik]

I thought I posted the turn send...

290BC to Paddy

[Rommel2D]

You did, but it was in the turn tracking thread.

We must be getting too chatty in this one...

[bongo]

Only a detail but I didn't find it anywhere:

You allowed reloads for correcting manual errors(with the obvious limitations about uncovering black void, fog of war or changing combat results)

How about reloading for other purposes?

Personally, I like to make screenshots and cut'n paste them into a world map(which I use for planning purposes). To speed things up, I play, save and send my turn, then reload to make the screenshots (of course observing the 'look but not touch' rule)

And should someone send me a message asking if I want 'tech X', I would reload the last save to see what I had to offer, rather than wait for the next save to come around.


Should there be any rules limiting 'look but not touch'-reloading of older(anything that is not the current turn) saves?

[Rommel2D]

Reloading a sent save for screenshots is definitely Ok. Previewing tech trades is a little questionable, as is changing strategy after moving pieces or correcting a mis-key. As long as it doesn't affect an RNG event or reveal new map information, I don't think anyone would begrudge it, but I could be wrong...

[bongo]

I have made myself two simple rules for acceptable reloading.

Don't consume anything

That would be movement points, units, gold, pop, RNG events.

In another way:
If what you did during the reload could be done with the 'original' save without changing the game in any manner, it is okay

Edit: corrected the first line a bit(test shows I cannot count to two)

[Rommel2D]

Discussion continued from Coliseum B thread, starting with this post.

This discussion isn't about rules, it's about etiquette. The basic idea behind point 1-2's optional sub-points was that PBEM diplomacy is such a dominating part of the game, it can usually overshadow every other part of the game. By adopting these limitations on diplomatic conduct, my hope was that more emphasis would fall upon strategic gameplay, while still allowing enough leeway for diplomacy to compensate for bad luck.

The 'embargo' announced above was clearly counter to the spirit of this ettiquette. There is no way to force any player to trade with another, but my hope was that prior to Nationalism, embargoes would only develop in extreme cases, when the disparity was so obvious that no announcement or explicit agreement would be needed between the players.

This game is a special case. Neither jshelr nor Bongo, as mid-game replacements, were explicitly asked to review and accept the etiquette/exploit list and take a stance on the options. This is my fault for not being thorough enough at that point in the game.

The fact that none of the three players involved questioned the issue themselves indicates a clear problem with 1-2d. Is it just a matter of raising awareness or is this an unworkable idea?

[Rommel2D]

Originally posted by jshelr
Let's not argue, but in the spirit of debating the rules, if we wait until the game offers trade embargos, there is no need to put them on the thread because they appear in the diplomacy screen. Item (d) would be unnecessary if we all agreed that such actions had to wait for nationalism.

That you have to wait until Nationalism to mention embargoes in the thread (or email for that matter) is the entire point behind 1-2d. That is in fact what the rest of the players agreed to jhshelr, although in your case we didn't do it formally in the thread.

If everyone decides not to trade with Mongolia on their own, that is of course fine and likely what would have occured anyway. But you shouldn't just email the other players and tell/ask them not to trade for the same reason you shouldn't take the first player in the game you run into and say "you research the monarchy branch, I'll go for Literature"...

[McMeadows]

I think the etiquette are there to formalize what we think is the spirit of the game. What is being suggested in the above is that in that particular situation each of the players by themselves have to think of not trading with the party in question. And isn't that just the situation? The only benefit of declaring the "embargo" is that we thought it was fair towards bongo to let him know, he does not have to expect us to trade with him as his supremacy is unbalancing the game.

We play for fun, believe in fairness and want to play in the spirit of the game. Etiquette should be a guideline, to help us, not a set of "rules" where we have to look for the loopholes.

[Rommel2D]

Originally posted by McMeadows
What is being suggested in the above is that in that particular situation each of the players by themselves have to think of not trading with the party in question. And isn't that just the situation? The only benefit of declaring the "embargo" is that we thought it was fair towards bongo to let him know, he does not have to expect us to trade with him as his supremacy is unbalancing the game.

The impression I got was that the three of you discussed in private email about not trading with Mongolia, which isn't the same as each player deciding to do it on their own. Once the agreement was reached in email, the thread announcement was the right thing to do, but the point is there shouldn't have been any email discussion in the first place.

I don't see what you mean about rules and loopholes. If all players agree to the optional 1-2 points, they should simply not discuss the described information under the given circumstances and should remind other players who bring up the subject with them. There are no loopholes, only players who don't share the same understanding or players who out-and-out cheat. I haven't heard about any of the latter around here at all...

Of course this is about fun, but I'd assume most people enjoy Civ in particular because of it's historical elements. One of those elements has to do with national identity and trade practices. I like 1-2d because it restores this historic element that is usually eradicated by PBEM diplomacy. The question is: do players fully understand the rule and do they wish abide by it in future games?

[bongo]

Originally posted by Rommel2D

The impression I got was that the three of you discussed in private email about not trading with Mongolia...

This is pretty much my understanding as well.

When taking over this posistion I was quite shocked to find a SGL waiting for me. While a SGL is a nice thing to have in single player it can be quite dangerous in PBEMs due to the 'dogpile-effect'.

After rushing SoZ I immediately sent diplomatic notes to the other players to see if they had any interests in trade/territory agreements etc. They hadn't. But I couldn't help noticing how much time they needed to answer, and when the answer came they looked like they had put much effort into making them as vague as possible. It all gave the impression that they were just holding me off while they were discussing the matter between them.

What's next? A 3-front coordinated invasion?

[Rommel2D]

Now I know why LzPrst was reluctant to give up the position...

I'm not sure if there is anything that can be done to rectify the situation with the embargo. It was not done with the intention to violate the etiquette. The results in this case don't sound like they will imbalance the game. The point in bringing it up here is, again, mostly about discussing the rules/etiquette, seeing what people think is practical and/or necessary for other games.

[McMeadows]

Off course we (Scandinavia, Russia & Carthage) started to discuss the situation in our world after (the Mongolian) SoZ appeared in the F11 screen. We established embassies to be able to talk more freely. It seemed to be obvious amongst us all we would not trade with Mongolia and for etiquette we thought we should make it an official anouncement.

My point was not so much we didn't discuss a non-trade agreement as much as it would be a loophole to state it each for its own. I think we shouldn't make it all too difficult by etiquette. If the embargo is against the etiquette, the representant of the Vikings will make an official statement at the next meeting of the tribes as Scandinavia will not trade with Mongolia for the time being.

Settler from a goody hut in the first 10 turns, ivory in the backyard, SGL ... shouldn't there be an etiquette to distribute the luck more evenly in the game? How on earth is it possible the other players thought something should be done to oppose the might of Mongolia?
Hiostorical setting? Isn't the key to many great civilizations the uniting of smaller tribes? The Greek, Inca's, Romans to name a few. And didn't history learn us they eventually dispersed again?