30% Iron Civer Tournament- The Forge of Champions

[Rommel2D]

Originally posted by Rommel2D
Tiny pangaea, 60% water

After a little experimentation, 70% makes for better maps...

[Rommel2D]

code amendment proposal

Concerning Sabrewolf's point a while back about PBEM not including a 'leave or declare war option';

How about if the player to first attack (declaring war) would only be allowed to initiate combat with one unit outside of their cultural borders? All other units would have to wait until the following turn to attack. The initiator can attack as many targets as they would like within their own borders the first turn, but may only attack the same opponent with one unit in that player's land or in neutral areas.

This would in effect allow a defending player to wait and force a trasspasser to attack first (thereby giving war happiness to the defender), as long as they can defend their cities against any single unit (blitzing army?).

[Krill]

That gives the defender to much of ann advatage...they ought to defend their borders better...

[Rommel2D]

Right. This is meant to compensate for the lack of a 'leave or declare war' mechanism- the above rule is too broad in scope. What if it only applied to units already in the other player's cultural borders? Only one of those could attack.

The problem is that an agressor spoiling for war can march a few stacks up to his opponent's cities to set up for a 'deliberate blitz', forcing the defender to strike pre-emptively. This gives the War Happiness to the agressor, the exact opposite of how it is supposed to work.

[Moonbars]

there is a leave or declare war option. If somebody enters you land , you tell them to leave. If they don't, you kill them.

Originally posted by Rommel2D
Right. This is meant to compensate for the lack of a 'leave or declare war' mechanism- the above rule is too broad in scope. What if it only applied to units already in the other player's cultural borders? Only one of those could attack.

The problem is that an agressor spoiling for war can march a few stacks up to his opponent's cities to set up for a 'deliberate blitz', forcing the defender to strike pre-emptively. This gives the War Happiness to the agressor, the exact opposite of how it is supposed to work.

[sabrewolf]

Originally posted by Moonbars
there is a leave or declare war option. If somebody enters you land , you tell them to leave. If they don't, you kill them.

... giving the attacker the war happiness bonus!

[bongo]

So? If it's worth it, you attack. If not, you let him attack...

[Moonbars]

Originally posted by sabrewolf


... giving the attacker the war happiness bonus!

so?

[Rommel2D]

Originally posted by Moonbars
there is a leave or declare war option.

The point is that it's about the mechanism, not the option. The game was specifically designed to work one way in SP, but because of the sequential phases in PBEM, it often works precisely the opposite of the SP design. It's basically a way for experienced PBEMers to exploit the war weariness system against newer or less informed players. I think what we're trying to work toward here is to see players gain the advantage based on conventional tactics and strategies, rather than by irregularities introduced by poor programming implementation...

[Aqualung71]

You can't make someone declare war just for being in your territory.

Just because the game works a certain way under SP doesn't mean it must work the same way under PBEM. I actually think that the current system adds more strategic depth to the PBEM experience than if we implemented an "honour" system whereby you must declare war or leave.....the strategic depth being that you must decide whether attacking a player in your territory is worth the cost of giving him war happiness. In most cases the answer will revolve around the implications of the war itself, rather than the war happiness.

This goes to the core of PBEM strategy - if another player enters your territory and you are not prepared for it because you prioritised other builds over defence, then you must accept your lot! In such circumstances, the war happiness issue is irrelevant.

Remember also, that human players don't tend to like aggressors....so provoking an attack simply to give yourself war happiness is likely to have wider-reaching consequences for your longer term health in the game

[bongo]

Well said aqua, couldn't agree more

[Rommel2D]

Originally posted by Aqualung71
This goes to the core of PBEM strategy - if another player enters your territory and you are not prepared for it because you prioritised other builds over defence, then you must accept your lot! In such circumstances, the war happiness issue is irrelevant.

This has nothing to do with how prepared the defender is. If the defender is that unprepared, they will lose whether they get the first round of attacks in or not.

Although war happiness isn't a huge factor in the overall game, few of the other exploits covered in the code are game-breakers either. This is about giving an advantage, however minor, to one of the players. The SP game is designed to give the defender a certain advantage against an agressor. The PBEM mechanisms turn this into an advantage for the agressor if they know how to exploit it- it is broken.

To me, the code concerning etiquette and exploits is there to create a tournament environment where new players experienced in SP can participate on an equal footing with experienced PBEMers in a contest based on conventional game strategy and the RNG. I'm reading the arguments here as essentially "I've learned to use this exploit to my advantage, I should be able to benefit by playing against someone who hasn't". I'm extemely skeptical of the claim that since the situation is the opposite of how the SP game works, it adds any "strategic depth". There is a difference between deep strategy and cheap tricks. If there was an argument that this wasn't an exploit based purely on PBEM's poorly designed mechanics, I'd be inclined to just drop it...

if we implemented an "honour" system whereby you must declare war or leave.....

That's not the proposal. The hard-and-fast rule would be that if you have multiple units in a given enemy's territory, only one of those units may attack on the first turn in order to initiate war.

This is not as powerful as the LoDW option (agressor units may still trespass unhindered all they want), but it addresses what seems to be the most harmful exploit: The defender is not forced to make a pre-emptive strike and send what should be their War Happiness to the aggressor just to avoid having a number of his/her cities wiped out before s/he can get a single round of combat in.

[BTW this is not just an arbitrary rule- prior to the industrial revolution, opposing armies did not simply wash over the enemy. Usually armies would meet, size each other up, and the leader of the agressor would make some token act to signal the outbreak of complete hostilities.]

[Modo44]

Rommel2D
The hard-and-fast rule would be that if you have multiple units in a given enemy's territory, only one of those units may attack on the first turn in order to initiate war.

What for? You can declare war without attacking any units. This means, that if someone marches into your territory, the reason is pretty obvious. Whether you can force him to attack where you want is a matter of strategy and tactics then. Has nothing to do with exploits.

[Rommel2D]

War Happiness is designed specifically to give the defender an advantage in such a situation. Without LoDW, the tables are turned and the agressor gains an advantage if they are familliar with the unique PBEM mechanics and wish to use this to their advantage (exploit).

Trespassing with the intent to later attack is not strategy, and it is only a tactic in the sense that shooting your enemy's horse or kneeing an opponent's groin in sports when the ref isn't looking are.

[alexman]

It's true, that isn't strategy for the attacker, although there is some strategy involved in the defender's response.

Still, I would prefer an honor code of declaring war when you are trespassing with intent to attack.