30% Iron Civer Tournament

[alexman]

Originally posted by bongo

My point is that combat reports are optional, and no decision was made to include them in colosseum B.

Actually, from what I can see from the turn thread, the initial players agreed to follow all optional rules, with the exception of ship chaining.

[Moonbars]

Originally posted by alexman


Actually, from what I can see from the turn thread, the initial players agreed to follow all optional rules, with the exception of ship chaining.

That was my reading as well.

[snoopy369]

I just reread the turn thread and i quote the following:

originally posted by Flandrien
I suppose you refer to ship chaining and combat reports.
I would say yes to both.

originally posted by Conqueror
I also declare my agreement on all things mentioned on etiquette/exploit list

If anyone has other things in mind that need to be agreed on before the game starts, or you dont agree with the exploit list , now is the time to speak

Let the games begin

originally posted by LzPrst
I agree with the exploit list, except ship chaining, I feel this should be allowed...
but if there is consensus among the rest I'll give in to the will of the majority.

originally posted by McMeadows
I have accepted the invite and just read the rules. I'm ok with them. Most of the exploits I wasn't even aware of.
...snip... (a question about another game)

That's the original four posters. Not only did all four agree to all elements of the etiquette/exploit list, except for ship chaining, but Conqueror's post is pretty clear: If you don't agree with the exploit list, now is the time to post. All four in agreement, plus nobody making any statements otherwise, makes it crystal clear to me that Iron Civer Colliseum B is playing with combat reports as mandatory.

[bongo]

Originally posted by snoopy369 ...All four in agreement, plus nobody making any statements otherwise, makes it crystal clear to me that Iron Civer Colliseum B is playing with combat reports as mandatory.

Please read the rules and thread again.


4. Options

4-1 Naval chains are allowed unless players agree otherwise in advance.

4-1.1 Chaining naval transports to quickly move land units across water

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.

Combat reports are optional. Optional means 'if you want it'. For combat reports to be required you need an explicit statement saying they are in. No such statement was made.

[Rommel2D]

IC e/e Clarification

Here's my tentative clarification of the Iron Civer etiquette/exploits on combat reporting:

There are 4 basic levels of combat reporting;

Level 1>
(The default level to be used unless there is a consensus to use one of the other levels.)
A summary of combat results is required to be sent to the defender if, and only if, they make any sort of inquiry soon afterward.
['soon' should allow for a few turns to realize a unit is missing, but could only be one turn cycle for simplicity if the attacker wants to be a hard-ass about it. :-]

Level 0>
No reporting whatsoever, unless the attacker feels like gloating.

Level 2>
A player making any attack must indicate to the defender that it has taken place and provide a brief summary of units involved, along with damage taken.

Level 2.5>
Same as level 2, except any unit moving into and out of another player's fog of war on the same turn must be reported.

Level 3>
A player making any attack must indicate to the defender that it has taken palce and provide a detailed account of each unit's location and resulting damage status.

Level 3.5>
Same as level 3, except any unit moving into and out of another player's fog of war on the same turn must be reported.

All information need only pass between the affected parties. Post it in the turn thread only if you wish to broadcast results to the world (or are too lazy to make a seperate email )

From what I've seen, most players would choose to play with either level 1 or 2, although 0 and 3 would appeal to some players on occasion. 2.5 and 3.5 I threw in because they seem like glaring ommisions to date in the reporting I've seen, but important nonetheless.

[Rommel2D]

Originally posted by bongo
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.

In my estimation, most players won't make this assumption when playing the game. When I started reading up on Civ III PBEM here a year and a half ago, the combat visibility problem was one of the fist and most consistant complaints about the game and I've continually come across it since. PBEM is essentially a multiplayer version of the SP game and as such, the 'average' player who doesn't put much thought into improving or exploiting the system, would expect combat feedback somewhat equivalent to what is experienced in SP.

Since it seems the game has come to a halt pending a decision on this, I'll say the game should progress using Level 1 reporting as outlined above, starting with a summary of the battle in question. If everyone agrees to continue from here at a different level, the change would take effect next time McMeadows plays his turn.

(As others have indicated, I read the set-up thread to indicate something closer to level 2, but since no one has shown much interest in active reporting, level 1 seems more appropriate. The old wording simply said 'agreement', it did not discern between explicit or implicit. I took the conversation to be implicit agreement.)

[bongo]

The decision is not totally to my liking but I am nonetheless glad it was made.


Any guidelines on the level of detail on level 1 reports? Lost units? Lost HPs? Bombard results? Retreats? Promotions? Promotions among defenders? Leaders? Composition of attackers?


Problem with reporting movement in and out of enemys fog-of-war is that on occasion(armies, subs, fortified ships) you will be unaware that you have been inside his range of vision.

[Rommel2D]

Originally posted by alexman
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).

I'll reinforce this idea. In my first PBEM I played before I even had a notion of combat reporting, two of the other players were eliminated and/or halfheartedly quit, telling me they thought the eventual winner was reloading because his attacks were so successful. After the game, I asked him about it and it sounded like he used information denial tactics similar to Bongo's. Perhaps admirable in retrospect, but at the time it made the game a miserable experience, with the 'cheat' possibility constantly lingering...

[Rommel2D]

Originally posted by bongo
Any guidelines on the level of detail on level 1 reports? Lost units? Lost HPs? Bombard results? Retreats? Promotions? Promotions among defenders? Leaders? Composition of attackers?

I'm thinking a summary of all units taking part in the combat, lost or surviving, with resulting HP levels. No need to recount each individual combat result. Promotions would already be evident, but GLs should be noted.

[bongo]

It still feels like I'm being punished because the majority of players are unable to cope with the blindness like I do.


'Information denial' huh? Good name for a strong concept

[Paddy]

Originally posted by bongo
It still feels like I'm being punished because the majority of players are unable to cope with the blindness like I do.


'Information denial' huh? Good name for a strong concept

well here's looking forward to all these action reports...

certainly hope you don't have to many units in a war at any one time...

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by bongo
It still feels like I'm being punished because the majority of players are unable to cope with the blindness like I do.


'Information denial' huh? Good name for a strong concept

Bongo ... you're not being punished, and it's not that the majority of players are 'unable to cope with the blindness'. We all *could* play with blindness.

The majority of players do not WANT to cope with the blindness, do not feel like it is either fair or fun.

And each and every one of the four initial players (well, counting mcmeadows as an initial player) agreed with reports. Read Rommel's statement at the top of the iron civer B colliseum , not the general one in this thread, and then read the wording of each player's agreement. Only McMeadows, in fact, is remotely vague about it (and i think it's pretty obvious how he clarifys his agreement here ).

edit: More specifically, it's pretty obvious to me that each player that said "agree with the ett/exp list" meant by that "agree with combat reports" based on Rommel's wording of that initial post (well post #2 really), but i suppose i could see how you'd not read it that way. Nonetheless, the fact that none of the players did anything that could be remotely construed -- at all -- as disagreeing tells me that my reading is probably correct. Rommel ... next time i suggest a more ... affirmative statement for people to agree with though, one way or the other...

[McMeadows]

In a way we're all beta testers of the tournament set-up. Rommel2D's aim was to set a guideline for PBEM. I have proclaimed before that I don't like too many rules, but I'm nonetheless acting according to the standard set here in other games as well. The importance of establishing an embassy with another civ has gone up quite a few notches for me.

As Paddy likes to say, it's all good...

[bongo]

Originally posted by snoopy369 ... Rommel ... next time i suggest a more ... affirmative statement for people to agree with though, one way or the other...

That's what I've been missing all the time.

The initial wording in the etiquette/exploit list indicate that were will be no reporting unless players agree to it in advance. I still can't see such agreement was made in the turn-thread for colosseum B. Their agreement was to the list in general, not to the optional points. Ah well, a moot point now the admin finally decided to intervene

[Rommel2D]

Originally posted by bongo
Problem with reporting movement in and out of enemys fog-of-war is that on occasion(armies, subs, fortified ships) you will be unaware that you have been inside his range of vision.

I'd guess this would still cover > 95% of the cases, as these units are rare, and once encountered, the moving unit would likely end it's turn in site of them anyway.