30% Iron Civer Tournament

[Paddy]

excellent stuff old chap

[Rommel2D]

Battle Reports

I haven't stressed the issue of battle reporting in the games up until now and this has resulted in a disagreement in the B coliseum.

A brief summary of the discussion so far:

Combat reports were brought up at the beginning of the thread, so I'd say they are part of the ground rules agreed to for this game. A brief list of lost hitpoints and units should do...

In that case I must decline. The blindness between turns have been part of PBEMs from the beginning and was also integral in my planning prior to the attack on your forces. Forcing you and your allies to guess how much strength I have left is an advantage I will not part with easily.

The other stuff isn't the information I've requested. I play this game in its spirit and I think it's in its spirit to know the outcome of a battle. It doesn't make me angry in any way that I lost that battle. I had to smile at my own suprise when I was trying to find my troops. Good job, . What does irritate me by now is your reluctancy. Battle reports on every battle is too much work to my opinion and in the field one is able to see the damage on either party by themselve. Therefore my request over this case, where nothing can be seen.

It all boils down do a simple question: Are combat reports part of this games rules?

If it is, I will of course abide and give you it to you.


The reason I'm asking is that I checked the first few pages of this thread and couldn't find an answer. Rommel2D asked about that and galley chaining in one of the first posts. While there was a consensus to allow galley-chaining, no decision was made about combat-reports.

Flandrien said yes(at least I think he did, his post was somewhat ambigous), but he was the only one voicing an opinion.

Here's from the rules btw:
4-2 If players agree to it in advance, the offensive player in a battle must send a combat report listing the resulting details to the defender
25% Aye and 75% quiet isn't exactly a clear answer...

In going back, I'd have said one yea and no nays or objections would mean that battle reports were expected. I understand someone's reluctance to go through the extra work of keeping track and reporting, but using this flaw in the game design as part of a battle strategy reeks of exploitation to me...

Again, I wasn't very insistant on explicit responses, but as it was brought up, recieved an affirmative response with absolutely no negative comments until this came up, it looks to me like battle reporting was part the the accepted ettiquette for the game. As long as a resolution is reached and the game continues, I'm not insisting having them included however.

I'll be expanding on the relevant point in the ettiquette/exploit section, but I think it should be discussed some more first...

[Rommel2D]

originally posted by Bongo:
You can tell people get emotional when they are referring to 'how the game should be played'. Several of the rules here(city gifting to mention one) are made to restrict peoples choices, and in my eyes force them to behave more like AIs.

Only so far as AI programming does not require any means to limit actions they are not programmed to take. Everything on the etiquette/exploit list covers instances where natural intelligence produces strategies that subvert general consensus on how the game should work, that game designers never considered because the AI cannot implement them.

To me, PBEM is to do all the things an AI would never do. Some rules needs to be observed of course, but the fewer the better.

The in-between-turn blindness may be a flaw in the game(more like a not implemented feature) but it is a flaw that affects everyone in the same manner. And like any other game mechanic, I will take advantage of it when I see fit.

The game is Civilization and loosely based on an objective concept. If we're going to disregard the basic consistency of the game's idea and use programming shortcomings to enhance strategies, I'd rather play Chinese Checkers. I think there are endless opportunities to improve on AI performance simply within the confines of how players build their cities and maneuver their units without exceeding the intentions of the game's design...

[Paddy]

personally I find them a waste of time and effort

we all know the many faults in the system and play the game anyway

[snoopy369]

To ME, PBEM is about playing Civ against other people. As such, there are several strategies that i'd never consider using in a PBEM that i happily use in AI games (such as freely making and breaking treaties at will, or building flipper cities). It's not about abusing rules or exploiting flaws. That's just childish.

The in between blindness is a flaw in the game *that makes it less playable*. If there were a 'flaw' in the game that made (for instance) settlers die instead of bulid a city when you push "b", would you be ok with that? Admittedly an absurd instance, but a valid comparison. It makes the game harder to play to not know what the results of a battle are -- so we use battle reports to solve that problem.

Rommel, I personally think you should include battle reports in the IC rules. This exploit -- which is exactly what it is -- is more harmful in many ways than a lot of other exploits you mention here to gameplay.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Paddy the Scot
personally I find them a waste of time and effort

we all know the many faults in the system and play the game anyway

But we know how to fix some of those faults, and it's a lot more fun to play a game with less faults than with more. It takes a very short time indeed to write up a battle report, whether it be super-detailed or just "Four horsemen attacked three spearmen; spearmen dead, one horseman left with 2hp".

Civ is a game of *strategy*. Knowing your opponent's strength is a key element of strategy, and given the lack of espionage options in Civ, pretty much your only way to know how many units your opponent has is to keep track of the ones that he or she lost in battle, and the number that he or she used in battle. Given the hours and hours we devote to each game, is an extra minute to add what you killed onto your turn post too much to ask?

[Aqualung71]

I think a defender has every right to know what units were used in an attack. If you don't want to reveal part of your military strength to your opponent, then don't attack.

Besides which, the number of units attacking at a particular point in time can hardly be used to extrapolate into a statement about one's entire army.....unless of course Bongo has Cavalry for example, and doesn't want the others to know yet

[Paddy]

Originally posted by snoopy369


But we know how to fix some of those faults, and it's a lot more fun to play a game with less faults than with more. It takes a very short time indeed to write up a battle report, whether it be super-detailed or just "Four horsemen attacked three spearmen; spearmen dead, one horseman left with 2hp".

Civ is a game of *strategy*. Knowing your opponent's strength is a key element of strategy, and given the lack of espionage options in Civ, pretty much your only way to know how many units your opponent has is to keep track of the ones that he or she lost in battle, and the number that he or she used in battle. Given the hours and hours we devote to each game, is an extra minute to add what you killed onto your turn post too much to ask?

well said - and good points

[bongo]

The in-between-turns blindness may be a flaw in the game, but it is one that makes the game get *closer* to reality, not further away from it. One of the things that always struck me as highly unrealistic is that you could send units on suicide missions which they never returned from but you would still be able to get all kind of info in return.

I fail to see why an army that is completely destroyed deep into enemy territory should bring back any info at all. After all, none survived to tell the news.

But that's just unfocused rambling from someone who learnt to play PBEM *before* he was introduced to the combat report concept.



Is combat reports required in cososseum B then? From my PoV no. To be required either of the following would have to had taken place.
1) A consensus among the players
2) An admin statement saying yes or no.
One 'yes', one 'don't care' and two silent votes is not a consensus, but the one 'yes' would have been enough had the admin formally closed the matter in some way. He didn't so I can only assume the base rule holds(no combat reports).

[Moonbars]

Bongo, you where subbed in for somebody, yes? When you jonied, did you state your opinion on combat reports? That's the rub for me.. if you didn't intent giving any, and it is mentioned in the rules as something the players need to agree on, then if there are no negative responses and one positive followed by a "I'll go along with that, I am flexible" then I feel you should have stated you didn't intend giving reports when you joined.

[bongo]

I did not explicitly state my opinion on anything when I joined. But joining in the first place more than suggest my willingness to follow the rules.

Combat reports are *not* part of the basic rules, and the vote to include them in colosseum B were never closed. One more 'yes' vote would've been enough, or a simple 'combat reports required' statement from Rommel2D.

We briefly discussed combat reports on page 14 of the turn-tracker. Some of the other players gave reports when they attacked my troops, but after a brief exchange of views(I was against it) the reporting stopped. I have not made any reports so far in the game, and until now, noone has asked me to do so.

Unless the admin tells me otherwise, I will not write any either.

[Rommel2D]

Originally posted by bongo
The in-between-turns blindness may be a flaw in the game, but it is one that makes the game get *closer* to reality, not further away from it. One of the things that always struck me as highly unrealistic is that you could send units on suicide missions which they never returned from but you would still be able to get all kind of info in return.

The game's units are represtative of large combat forces. It's hard to think of any large scale battle where disgnated messengers, a spattering of retreating forces, scattering civilians, or even a grapevine on the victorious side doesn't convey the gist of the battle back to the opposing generals. A small group attacking deep into enemy territory might be one such instance, but wasn't the case in question your attacking of a very heavily defended enemy city? McMeadows himself said he wouldn't have otherwise asked for a report...

[McMeadows]

I was marching (2 tiles) into his territory with 10 units, when lightning struck. Battles of the Ancient time are nowadays made into spectacular movies, because they were reported. The biggest army the Vikings had ever known was evaporated like a drop of water in the scorching sun.

I don't like the rules & guidelines around a game that is there to enjoy and is particularly outside the true world. Nevertheless I have strong feelings on what's fair and what's not (to me). This great battle, where all the tactical honour goes out to bongo and which most probably has decided the game, was not a battle that was decided in on attack. At least 9 units of bongo were required to stop my men. The first sightings of the horror of this slaughter has, without doubt, the general of the Viking army to decide that Scandinavia should be warned for the might of the Mongolian army and he must have sent a messenger home. If this messenger was caught by the Mongolians, I would like to appeal to the Convention of Apolyton,.. release my PoW.

In other words. In every civ game I played (SP), I've been watching my troops win or lose in every participating battle and due to a flaw in PBEM I have not been able to do so now. I'm no fan of having to report every battle, but I think if one requests, it should be honoured.

[alexman]

My humble opinion: This is not about realism, it's about a set of rules you agreed upon before the game started. It looks like the initial players agreed to all optional rules except ship chaining, which would include battle reports.

By the way, I like battle reports because you get to see how lucky/unlucky you were. I gain some consolation when I lose a battle because of a bad RNG, instead of of bad tactics.

Also, in such tournaments where we go to the trouble to make it harder to cheat (by having Rommel set the passwords, for example), battle reports are another element that discourages cheating (a player who is always lucky on the attack is suspicious, for example).

[bongo]

Originally posted by McMeadows
... Battles of the Ancient time are nowadays made into spectacular movies, because they were reported...

Don't worry, like the bloodshed of old it will eventually be reported. I am more than happy to write an AAR when this game is over

... Nevertheless I have strong feelings on what's fair and what's not (to me)...

Ah, fairness. Tough subject that is, depends heavily on the eye of the beholder. That's why we have rules...

...If this messenger was caught by the Mongolians...

Maybe he was, I had several armed scouts positioned between your invading army and your closest friendly position. Getting home in a situation like that could be very difficult indeed.




Game mechanics(or lack thereof) and ethics aside. To me this boils down to two subjects. Preferences and rules. (rules being the key issue)

I prefere to play without reports. I have learnt to use the blindness to my advantage and I expect others to do the same to me.

If I take part in a game where players agree on reporting, I will of course give it to them. My point is that combat reports are optional, and no decision was made to include them in colosseum B. Therefore, I have played under the assumption that combat reports were not required. I am not happy when someone wants to make 'changes' to the rules midgame that will be to my disadvantage.




Oh, I didn't make a full turn-report for my own use either. But I am pretty sure losses/promotions/HPs can be deducted by comparing the saves before and after.