30% Iron Civer Tournament- The Forge of Champions

[Rommel2D]

The first three tribes have been selected. Bongo, the ball's in your court. Any more questions?

Ship Chaining will be allowed

For combat reports, we have two for Level 2, one for Level 3, and one for 0/2. Alexman and Bongo: would you like to make an attempt to persuade the others to agree to 0 or 3, or should we just go with Level 2?

Diplomacy restrictions look like they will be a sticking point. I have a hard time understanding what could be difficult about them beyond the learning and development process. To me, that is half the reason for putting the effort into organizing this...

[Rommel2D]

Originally posted by snoopy369
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?

The idea keeps coming up, but no one wants to pick up the ball and run with it as a-man has with the AU mod. I might end up postponing the IC Open to develop this...

[bongo]

I'll read up on tribes/traits/UUs when I get home. Unless you will let me have my feared Bongolians You can except a PM from me in less than 12 hours

Level 2 combat reports then?


Some more on diplomacy:
With all parties involved having embassies and map making, how much coordination is OK between allies if we are to follow the etiquette?

During colosseum B, I felt that one of the biggest factors contributing to my victory was that my enemies didn't seem to coordinate their movement. There was coordination of course, but it seemed rather 'loose', giving me enough room to operate and pick favourable battles.

If the etiquette hampered their cooperation it is perhaps time to loosen it up a bit?

[alexman]

Originally posted by snoopy369
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.

I disagree completely with this statement (take a look at the AU mod's philosophy), but this is not the place to argue about it.

[bongo]

Originally posted by 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...

Wasn't the The Worthingtons Manourve outlawed for tournament games? I think it should btw, even if its use are somewhat limited.



As for the second point. I did some testing with an old ptw-pbem earlier today and the result was clear: He who start a war will not recieve war-happiness, no matter how many units your foe has within your borders. My last test was done with 25+ trespassing units on a standard map. This was done with a medevial save btw, so no spies or nukes involved


As I lack a save to work with(and don't have the patience to play 30+ turns with myself) I haven't tested this on c3c.

Oh, I would be happy if anyone could send me a suitable save to play/test with. It needs to be a c3c save, latest patch, stock rules, human players only, with the possibility for conflict within 3-4 turns. And I need the admin password

[Rommel2D]

Four out of Four PBEM Experts Prefer Ag

Selections have been made for the Tournament's Final clash of civilizations:

Aqualung71 will play the Celts, led by Aquallywelyn
Alexman will play the Sumerians, led by Zander
Bongo will play the Maya, led by Fate
Moonbars will play the Iroquios, led by Moonbars

[Rommel2D]

Originally posted by bongo
With all parties involved having embassies and map making, how much coordination is OK between allies if we are to follow the etiquette?

It depends on what you mean by 'allies'. If this is an Alliance against a third party declared in the F4 screen, anything goes (except that map trading would be required for screen shots).

If there is no formal alliance declared, simply don't discuss information about battle plans. If two tribes have a common enemy that both decide to declare war upon, they needn't be explicitly allied- if they wish to coordinate tactics to fight more effectively, they should be.

[Another point to consider is that any agreements made via email but not backed up in the diplomacy screen are not binding. Sure there is no way to enforce a code that prohibits 'secret alliances', but neither is there a way to enforce such an alliance between it's members.]

During colosseum B, I felt that one of the biggest factors contributing to my victory was that my enemies didn't seem to coordinate their movement. There was coordination of course, but it seemed rather 'loose', giving me enough room to operate and pick favourable battles.

The ability to coordinate is readily available for the cost of an embassy, along with the possible consequence of giving the alliance's target a bit of war happiness. Do you believe they were hampered by the nominal embassy fee or the vagueness of the etiquette?

[Aqualung71]

Re: Four out of Four PBEM Experts Prefer Ag

Originally posted by Rommel2D
Aqualung71 will play the Celts, led by Aquallywelyn
Alexman will play the Sumerians, led by Zander
Bongo will play the Maya, led by Fate
Moonbars will play the Iroquios, led by Moonbars

Exactly the civs I expected, and in the same order too

The ground will tremble under the combined strength of these daunting tribes!

[Rommel2D]

Originally posted by alexman
I disagree completely with this statement (take a look at the AU mod's philosophy), but this is not the place to argue about it.

Although Snoopy may have waxed a bit hyperbolic there, I do have a relevant example of what he mentions.

The first time I tried the Tarzan mod, I tried to cut across a shallow bay with my currack and lost it because it stopped after 1 move onto the sea tile. I had read about the change in advance but still had to learn the hard way to adjust my habitual movement patterns. If this happened in a PBEM and the player was conscientious enough not to reload the turn...

Since this was an AU change primarily made to prevent the player from forming an early communication monopoly over the AIs, it would place someone like Bongo at an unfair disadvantge with little benefit.

[Rommel2D]

Re: Re: Four out of Four PBEM Experts Prefer Ag

Originally posted by Aqualung71
Exactly the civs I expected, and in the same order too

From what I've read recently, I'd have expected the Iroquois higher, if not at the top.

(I sure hope someone remembered to bring iron and horses to the island... )

[Rommel2D]

Originally posted by Moonbars
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'm not sure what you're getting at with this. You're admitting that by bypassing F4 diplomacy, you improved your position and screwed Sabre over?

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

I understand if you didn't get the US political reference (ever hear of Dan Quayle?), but haven't you played a game with Paddy yet? Maybe he was just more talkative back when he only had a few dozen games to contend with...

[bongo]

Originally posted by Rommel2D
It depends on what you mean by 'allies'. If this is an Alliance against a third party declared in the F4 screen, anything goes (except that map trading would be required for screen shots).

If there is no formal alliance declared, simply don't discuss information about battle plans. If two tribes have a common enemy that both decide to declare war upon, they needn't be explicitly allied- if they wish to coordinate tactics to fight more effectively, they should be.

Ah, good to get that one cleared up, not that I've ever been allied to someone in this tournament

[Another point to consider is that any agreements made via email but not backed up in the diplomacy screen are not binding. Sure there is no way to enforce a code that prohibits 'secret alliances', but neither is there a way to enforce such an alliance between it's members.]

I don't view a secret treaty as less binding as a treaty made in the diplo screen. It is less visible of course, so proving treachery is harder.

The ability to coordinate is readily available for the cost of an embassy, along with the possible consequence of giving the alliance's target a bit of war happiness. Do you believe they were hampered by the nominal embassy fee or the vagueness of the etiquette?

AFAIK, all had embassies with each other. Apart from my appearant freedom of movement, there was also a comment by jshelr after I made a post showing the approaching armies, where he said something along the lines of "thanks for showing me the exact position of mcmeadows army". I don't know really, maybe they just didn't talk much?

Since this was an AU change primarily made to prevent the player from forming an early communication monopoly over the AIs, it would place someone like Bongo at an unfair disadvantge with little benefit.

I didn't quite get that one, are you referring to my 'information denial' strategy or what?

[Moonbars]

Re: Re: Re: Four out of Four PBEM Experts Prefer Ag

Originally posted by Rommel2D

From what I've read recently, I'd have expected the Iroquois higher, if not at the top.

(I sure hope someone remembered to bring iron and horses to the island... )

Well they WERE my first choice. Only becuase I figured some of those others would be gone already, lol.

[Moonbars]

Originally posted by Rommel2D

I'm not sure what you're getting at with this. You're admitting that by bypassing F4 diplomacy, you improved your position and screwed Sabre over?

Um, no. Rather the opposite. I am saying that Sabre would have been the beneficary of any odd game mechanics caused by the war. What makes you think he was 'screwed' over? In any event, it's all good.

[Aqualung71]

Ok, so when does the game start.

We have a majority, if not a consensus, on all etiquette issues I believe, don't we?