30% Iron Civer Tournament- The Forge of Champions

[Rommel2D]

Originally posted by Moonbars
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.

When you write 'would have' I read it as 'would have if all alliances had been formally declared'. Apparently by 'would have', you mean 'was'?

[Rommel2D]

Originally posted by bongo
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.

Sorry, I guess I'm applying 'fuzzy logic' to this. I've never actually been in a PBEM alliance. I can't even recall the details of any SP alliances. Do they have the same 20 turn basis in PBEM as in SP? Are there consequences in SP for ending an alliance early? Just a rep hit?

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

By "someone like Bongo", I'm referring to someone unfamilliar with the AU mod.

[Rommel2D]

Originally posted by 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?

When its ready. I think I'll have time to do a bunch of stuff this weekend;

Alexman, are you Ok with level 2 reporting?

Is the alliance stuff clear and Ok by everyone?

Are the 1-2 a) and b) options agreed to by everyone?

Is Worthington's Manouvre an exploit that belongs in the code or do it's consequences balance out any benefits?

I'd like to test the War Happiness mechanics in Conquests also...

[Aqualung71]

Originally posted by Rommel2D
Are there consequences in SP for ending an alliance early? Just a rep hit?

Logic dictates that it's just a rep hit....which is irrelevant in PBEM games with only human players

[Aqualung71]

Originally posted by Rommel2D
Is the alliance stuff clear and Ok by everyone?

Are the 1-2 a) and b) options agreed to by everyone?

Fine by me

Is Worthington's Manouvre an exploit that belongs in the code or do it's consequences balance out any benefits?

I don't really care....anyone who wants to sacrifice enough workers to make it worthwhile is welcome to try in order to beat the other 3 confirmed pro's in this tournament

[Aqualung71]

So Rommel, are you proposing that prior to Nationalism, I can't say for example to Alexman, "how about we don't trade horses to Moonbars cos we don't want him to produce Mounted Warriors"? (or our excess Spices cos we don't want to make his happiness position any easier)?

[alexman]

Originally posted by Rommel2D
Alexman, are you Ok with level 2 reporting?

I'm fine with whatever the majority decides. I just think that battle reports should include enough information for the defender to see if he was lucky or unlucky. Location of the attacking unit is often part of that information.

The alliance stuff is clear and OK by me. It's basiacally to encourage embassies and to provide the attacked party with some early warning and happiness. No big deal if there is no in-game penalty for breaking an alliance.

The 1-2 a) and b) options should not be options, if you ask me.

Is Worthington's Manouvre an exploit that belongs in the code or do it's consequences balance out any benefits?

If you go the trouble to set it up, you deserve all the benefits you get from it, IMHO.

I'd like to test the War Happiness mechanics in Conquests also...

I just did a quick test and it seems that the attacked party gets war happiness and the attacker gets none, no matter where are their units. I believe that the location of your units matter only for AI attitude, not WW.

[Rommel2D]

Originally posted by alexman
I just did a quick test and it seems that the attacked party gets war happiness and the attacker gets none, no matter where are their units. I believe that the location of your units matter only for AI attitude, not WW.

This was in PBEM? In that case I think we should consider some sort of 'leave or declare war' rule to be sent through email and verified by an administrator, or posted in the thread. Otherwise, it really becomes a no-brainer that a player will try to move their SOD up to the city of someone they wish to attack in order to gain some ground and/or happiness as an agressor, right?

[Rommel2D]

Originally posted by Aqualung71
So Rommel, are you proposing that prior to Nationalism, I can't say for example to Alexman, "how about we don't trade horses to Moonbars cos we don't want him to produce Mounted Warriors"? (or our excess Spices cos we don't want to make his happiness position any easier)?

Yep, until you are a true Nation, you don't exert that level of control over the merchant class. Nothing can force you to trade with Moonbars, but the embargo of any sort of luxury or strategic resource can't be discussed with another player before that.

[alexman]

Originally posted by Rommel2D

This was in PBEM? In that case I think we should consider some sort of 'leave or declare war' rule to be sent through email and verified by an administrator, or posted in the thread.

Yes, it was PBEM. I did the test in 5 minutes, so perhaps someone else can verify. It's easy enough to set up a quick scenario.

By the way, I will be gone for 2 weeks, starting the 19th of December. If you want to delay the start of the game by 1 week, you will get 2 extra weeks free to set up the game.

[Moonbars]

I will be away for two weeks starting jan 21st - seems like a good idea to hold start of game until after Xmas, as I bet all of us will have other commitments.

Any of you live near Jackson Hole???

[Rommel2D]

Originally posted by Moonbars
I will be away for two weeks starting jan 21st - seems like a good idea to hold start of game until after Xmas, as I bet all of us will have other commitments.

Beginning Jan 21st? We're talking almost two months here... This does bring up another issue we need to decide on- quality of play should be emphasized over speed for the final. I propose we use the same system as the first round , a 24 hour limit with exceptions for freeze time, only with no limit on total freeze time.

In other words, your turn will be played for you if it's over a day since the turn was sent. The exception to this is when you give advance warning of being unable to play, which you can do as often as needed.

Any of you live near Jackson Hole???

Sounds like a bad Michael Jackson joke...

[Moonbars]

no mate, you have misread me again - I have no problem with starting now, but I will be away from the 21st of jan.

[bongo]

Originally posted by Rommel2D

Yep, until you are a true Nation, you don't exert that level of control over the merchant class. Nothing can force you to trade with Moonbars, but the embargo of any sort of luxury or strategic resource can't be discussed with another player before that.

*Not* trading horses to moonbars really is a no-brainer, unless you want his help in a war of course

[Rommel2D]

Even if Aqualung doesn't have iron and Moonbars is the only one with a source to spare? Sounds like a tough decision...