30% Iron Civer Tournament

[Rommel2D]

Originally posted by smellymummy
no, i don't think so. if it's just discussion what is wrong about having it, in email or anywhere. besides without discussion, there wouldn't be much to lead players to an alliance right?

As Andydog pointed out earlier, alliances are far and away the most powerful tool available in PBEM games (putting aside alexman with boatloads of GSs for now ;-), so I don't think there's any need to 'lead' players to them.

Not allowing alliances to be lined up in email would extend the logic of the other optional etiquette rules. Alliances would still be formed, just not as quick and easily as before.

The down side would be less interesting discussion in the tracker threads. But the down side of not having this is the bad blood that can be generated when one person's power advantage is evicerated by a diplomatic alliance against them. Unfortuantely, since Sabrewolf didn't stick it out til the end, we'll never know how truely hopeless his situation was...

[smellymummy]

what is meant by leading to alliances is how at first players will discuss about the game, other civs, techs, the land.. whatever. this can devellop into mutual trust and friendship within the game, and then that would eventually lead to an alliance.

or like moonbar posted, plotting and planning is the fun part

[Rommel2D]

A regular FDR and Churchill, you two are.

[smellymummy]

if you say so

i just wouldn't like to see discussions w/o an alliance forbidden. and then if that washes into general posts about whats happening in the game

btw, england is out in Game D

[Rommel2D]

Not to get anyone too bent out of shape, this wouldn't be anything that would be forced upon players in this round of the tournament.

I'm basically talking about something similar to what Beta started with the 'silent' games, only with the eventual option of open discussion once an alliance is signed.

Maybe we could keep an open information flow by allowing open discussion only within the tracker thread, as sort of an Associated Press. Just no private email discussing third-party tribes without an alliance.

Personally, as a strategy game, I find the fun in the uncertainty and technical aspects of the game. Plotting and planning alliances seems more like roleplaying to me and loses it's lustre after playing multiple 540-turn games spanning dozens of months. IMO, the game should be more about plotting and planning wars and battles.

[snoopy369]

I suggest that a middle ground is best. For example, I'd say that your original example of an 'alliance' with commitment of troops but no numbers, should have been a declared alliance. But, there's no reason you couldn't have discussed it prior to forming it -- just once you've committed troops, even without numbers, then you have to be allied.

[Aqualung71]

Individual Coliseums may well have agreed to a set of rules regarding alliances, and we should probably leave those as is. I would suggest that after the 4 games have been completed, we get a summary of how these factors played out and the course designer (Rommel) in conjunction with the 4 finalists agree on the preferred etiquette.

[alexman]

A good way to define it would be that embassies are required for initial plotting and planning, while Alliances are required to coordinate military operations (where are you going to attack next, where are the enemy troops, etc).

I think it works well that way.

[Andydog]

This is precisely how we played it in Coliseum C. It does work well.

[sabrewolf]

it worked too well

[Rommel2D]

This still leaves the original issue I raised- where do we draw the line between 'military coordination' and plotting and planning permissible without an alliance? In the game I mentioned earlier, a simple agreement to 'commit foces' on a certain turn brought about a huge military benefit. Exactly what kind of 'plotting and planning' can be done without military implications?

[Rommel2D]

Progress Report

With nine grueling weeks in the drives, the games are progressing as follows:

Coliseum A was at 690BC, slipping to 1.5 turns per day.

Coliseum B was at 1900BC, still struggling along with .7 turns per day.

Coliseum C was at 590BC, jumping into the lead with 1.6 turns per day.

Coliseum D was at 1275BC. They're keeping pace just ahead of the base TPD barrier at 1.1.


Sabrewolf was the first contestant to yield to the IC challenge, surrendering in the face of a 3 against 1 alliance.

Trip was the next to falter, citing Egyptian meanies picking on him as cause for an early withdrawl.

Who will be the next to right click on their empire, and who will go down with both hands clutching the blade of an enemy's sword? Stay tuned for further updates...

Scoring update to follow soon in a news item...

[alexman]

Originally posted by Rommel2D
This still leaves the original issue I raised- where do we draw the line between 'military coordination' and plotting and planning permissible without an alliance?

Of course this is up to each Coliseum to decide, but I think a well-defined line is the war declaration.

You can plot and plan all you like before war breaks out, including military operations (but remember that some games agreed to no screenshots or map exchange before navigation). After war breaks out, if you coordinated your military forces before the war, or if you plan to coordinate your foces during the war, you better sign an alliance.

If you agree to attack a neighbor, but have not coordinated your attacks and don't plan to do so during the war, you can get away with no alliance.

That's how I have been thinking about it anyway.

[snoopy369]

I'd definitely think that an agreement to attack a neighbor is the dictionary definition of a military alliance. "Discussions" about attacking would not constitute an alliance, but an agreement to attack is absolutely an alliance ...

[alexman]

The problem is that you can't sign an alliance before declaring war.