30% Iron Civer Tournament- The Forge of Champions

[alexman]

A: yes to all 1-2 parts
B: yes to ship chaining
C: level 3

Best times to play:
2pm - 10pm GMT: can play any number of turns immediately upon receipt.
10pm - 3am GMT: can play one turn, but usually not immediately.

[bongo]

Forgot my hours of availability:

Weekdays: 1700-2200 UTC
Weekends, a bit more irregular




I'll have the Bongolians, they are religious, industrious, commercial and militaristic. They also got two UUs, one for each age

[Moonbars]

Re: The Time is Nigh...

Originally posted by Rommel2D
All players must first post here stating preference on:
A- Including the 1-2 options form the IC Warrior Code
B- Allowing ship chaining
C- Preferred level of combat reporting

***

"Players shall not coordinate military action unless an alliance is formally declared in the foreign advisor's screen. Players shall not make Mutual Protection Pacts or Trade Embargoes unless they are declared in the foreign advisor's screen."

In Col C (it says Col B in my victory post, BTW) we never declared those alliances against sabre in the game (we all had emabssies, by the by) we just declared them in the thread. I have an issue with the diplo restrications - it is just too hard to enfoce, and hard to define. Sabre got too strong. We took him down. France got to strong, the other two tried to take me down. they declared a MPP in the thread, they never had one in the game. It was all good.

Good on ship chaining.
Level 2 combat reporting.

Availablility:
6:30 - 9am

5:30 - 12pm

please note I work shifts, so sometimes I'll be up at 6:30 and leaving for work at 7, and some times I'll be up at 8:30, etc. I need the save in my inbox at the start of those times to garantee I can play twice a day. It is looking pretty good for some Quick-Fire!! I am also off work all mondays until january, so if you guys can manage some time, we can blitz the start.

[Moonbars]

How about we adopt the SoZ change from the AU Mod.. I found it to be.. Pleasing.. to play with stock C3C again.

Or on a major change from Iron Civ basis, how about adopting the whole AU Mod?

[alexman]

AU Mod's fine with me!

[bongo]

I don't know, never tried the AU mod...


SoZ have been a decisive wonder in colosseum B and C. I would like to keep it as is, just to see if we have learnt enough to deal with it.

It *should* be possible to take down the owner of SoZ with a 3 to 1 alliance. My opinion anyway

[Moonbars]

Originally posted by alexman
AU Mod's fine with me!

LOL, thought it would be

[sabrewolf]

any chance of having DAR threads (or at least 20 turns back where only things are revieled that others don't know yet)?

and moons: i wasn't getting too strong. my military was in fact similar to yours and the score lead was only because of the early popped but never productive village). and the pyramids didn't help me very much when 3 SoDs came from every direction
your clear victory was mainly because of your superior diplomacy skills. had they let us battle out and then enganged the victor, they would stood a real chance. convincing both to gang up with one (you) of the two nearly equally strong players was probably the most effective diplomatical move i've seen in PBEM. well done :b

[snoopy369]

I definitely think the AU mod would be a poor idea for this. It's intended primarily to be a mod that makes SP more challenging / effective, and it changes so much that it's not as much of a fair test of PBEM ability but rather of AU Mod knowledge. Obviously i wouldn't expect it to be used in the final but I don't really care not being in it; but I'd argue strongly against using it in the next round. I've played AU mod, it's interesting, but it's not standard PBEM, and honestly it doesn't add that much to PBEM except taking away some things I like (like powerful armies). Perhaps a "PBEM Version AU-like MOD" would be interesting - one that modified the annoying things in PBEM, but left alone things that were only intended to aid the weaknesses in the AI?

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by sabrewolf
convincing both to gang up with one (you) of the two nearly equally strong players was probably the most effective diplomatical move i've seen in PBEM. well done :b

He might not be American, but he sure understands Cold War Diplomacy 101 ... This was the entire strategy of the US of A during the Cold War - "Team up with us, because we'll probably win, and you'll only survive if you're on a team. And besides, we're a lot nicer than they are." - and clearly proven to be a much more effective diplomatic tactic than the USSR's ("Team up with us or you won't survive.") which is evidence imho that Communism should have veteran spies and conscript Diplomats.

[Rommel2D]

A post of mine from the last thread concerning mods and map settings...

I won't sabotage the map against ag civs, as I'm aiming for a no holds-barred straight-up knock-down brawl between the best players with stock rules. I'll do random settings (climate/temp/age) to throw a little uncertainty out there. There might be a little strategic resource editing also...

[Rommel2D]

Does anyone have concerns about The Worthingtons Manourve or the lack of a 'leave or declare war' ultimatum in PBEM? The first is an exploit of questionable benefit; for the second, we have yet to confirm how the game mechanics work for war happiness in PBEM...

[Andydog]

Originally posted by sabrewolf
and moons: i wasn't getting too strong. my military was in fact similar to yours and the score lead was only because of the early popped but never productive village). and the pyramids didn't help me very much when 3 SoDs came from every direction
your clear victory was mainly because of your superior diplomacy skills. had they let us battle out and then enganged the victor, they would stood a real chance. convincing both to gang up with one (you) of the two nearly equally strong players was probably the most effective diplomatical move i've seen in PBEM. well done :b

Sorry but no.
Your military was the only military at that point with swordsmen. Had England and Portugal sat back and done nothing while you two battled it out, then I think you would have beaten Moonbars. You were in Republic at that point with the tech lead (we were all still despots) and so it would be a simple thing for you to cut science to zero for a bit and buy your way out of the problem with spears and swords. If this had happened then you would have gotten all of Moonbars' land and England and Portugal would have stood no chance against you, so it was too risky to sit back and do nothing.

It was me that suggested the alliance because look what I got out of it: all your land! I'd rather have it than you or Moonbars, and even if he had managed to take it from you by himself, I don't think England and Portugal could have taken it from him afterwards because we wouldn't have your iron and we didn't have much of an army between us - Moonbars had the biggest mob at that point.

Read my AAR: you'll see that England and Portugal had the game in our hands after the first war, but we stupidly cocked it up by going to war against Moonbars too early.

[Rommel2D]

Originally posted by Moonbars
In Col C (it says Col B in my victory post, BTW) [fixed, sorry] we never declared those alliances against sabre in the game (we all had emabssies, by the by) we just declared them in the thread. I have an issue with the diplo restrications - it is just too hard to enfoce, and hard to define. Sabre got too strong. We took him down. France got to strong, the other two tried to take me down. they declared a MPP in the thread, they never had one in the game.

Nothing in the IC Warrior Code except maybe 2-1 and 3-2 can actually be enforced. The idea behind calling it 'etiquette' or a 'code' is that while these ideas may be put before you by your peers, how well you adhere to them is basically between you and any 'higher powers' you have in your life.

As for defining the restrictions- an Alliance involving "coordinat[ed] military action" means mentioning numbers, directions, city names, dates associated with troop actions, anything of that sort. If two tribes happen to decide to declare war on a clear mutual threat, that's something else. In a similar vein, as we discovered, Trade Embargoes only apply to resources and luxuries- not technology or gold.

To me "difficult" in PBEM is making no-retrade deals and trying to keep track of these various techs and timeframes from week-to-week while going 24 hours or more between each turn. Diplomacy restrictions actually make the games easier, since diplomatic status is tracked through the F4 screen. I think people who make the claim these restriction make the game more difficult just don't want to be told what to do in any way, but are afraid to admit it.

The restrictions you quote were removed as options and made mandatory because they have a direct impact on game mechanics, namely War Weariness. The basic notion is that the player is not an absolute dictator of every aspect of their Civ. Formal alliances and conflicts that involve any depth of information exchange and cooperation affect many strata of a society, and the mood of the citizens affected by this has just as much affect on the game as how many luxuries the player aquires. Bypassing this aspect of the game can affect the outcome and could amount to cheating.

I'd like to reread your thread and ask about in-game actions to see just what it is you're calling Alliances and MPPs...

It was all good.

I know Paddy the Scot. I've played with Paddy the Scot. You, my friend, are no Paddy the Scot!

[Moonbars]

Originally posted by Rommel2D

The restrictions you quote were removed as options and made mandatory because they have a direct impact on game mechanics, namely War Weariness. The basic notion is that the player is not an absolute dictator of every aspect of their Civ. Formal alliances and conflicts that involve any depth of information exchange and cooperation affect most strata of a society, and the mood of the citizens affected by this has just as much affect on the game as how many luxuries the player aquires. Bypassing this aspect of the game can affect the outcome and could amount to cheating.

I'd like to reread your thread and ask about in-game actions to see just what it is you're calling Alliances and MPPs...


I know Paddy the Scot. I've played with Paddy the Scot. You, my friend, are no Paddy the Scot!

I think in all cases, any war weariness would have been suffered by Me, not Sabre, and any happyness benefit would have been enjoyed by Sabre, not France.

I don't understand your last sentance, is that something PtS says as well?