ICR-2 Replacement Fun!

[snoopy369]

heya, thought I'd start a thread so we have somewhere to post to If you didn't figure it out, this is for replacement game #2 in the Iron Civver tourney. This is where we figure out who will fill in if someone bows out...

Turn Order:

JShelr
Arnelos
Krill
Snoopy369

For reference: read this etiquette/exploit list since it's the one we're using in this minitourney

In particular 1-2a,3a,3b -- I assume we're going with these?

Particularly, no exchanging info until you can see the other civ on your F4 screen in-game (1-3) and don't forget to dismiss pop-ups until end of production phase (3-1).

(The above are paraphrased from Rommel2d's posts in the four official tourney games)

Let's kick some iron rear!!

edit: last thing, do we want to require combat reports, and what should we include in them (detailed "I killed two mech infs in Brussels with my Pikeman" or just "two pikemen in Brussels dead"; including own casualties as well as opps, and assumably only sent on to the person who you attacked (and any allies I guess) but not posted?)

[snoopy369]

my opinion:

1-2a is fine either way (directional language before mapmaking) ... don't care much, I guess we should assume it applies unless anyone disagrees?

1-3a and 1-3b are definitely important (no discussion of tech before embassies are established, no out of game mutual protection pacts, military alliances, or trade embargoes without same declared through proper in-game means). Definitely key in a tournament (and in general I'd expect anyone I play with to follow by this, unless it's a really silly game).

4-2 (goto command double movement) I'll try to behave according to, I do use goto a lot so I'll probably make a mistake occasionally but I'll keep it in mind as much as possible, and if you notice me do it mention it and I'll spacebar my piece or something next turn (well, 2 turns later since it auto does so next turn) to make up for it.

[snoopy369]

here it is, ICR2 folks ... please post feelings on these guidelines/etiquettes

[Arnelos]

* In my experience with another game, 1-2 is absolutely idiotic. It's a hell of a lot more hassle than it's really worth. I'll live with it if I have to, but I'll warn you it's a pain in the a--. It sounds great on paper, but in practice it causes nothing but headaches. Face it, human players are going to exchange maplike information in one way or another and you might as well just let them trade maps. The area where this rule has caused the most headaches has been border agreements. For PBEM play, border agreements, almost of necessity, involve sending someone information of "I won't cross this tile, this tile, this tile, etc." You could require people to spell these issues out in words rather than making a map, but then you're just creating extra work for the same impact. If you think that if it has the same impact, it still breaks the rule, how on earth are you supposed to agree to a border??? Afterall, it wouldn't have been terribly hard for two primitive cultures to at least agree not to cross X river or X mountain range or X forest, even if they didn't have literal MAPS of the landscape.

Now, if you want to bar the trading of mini-maps or map information of internal territory likely not to have been explored by another player, that could be workable (and what the game I mention above eventually ended up making the rule since the original one just wasn't workable). Barring ALL trading of maps or even maplike information, however, is just going to create headaches.

* While I've never had to suffer under 1-3, I'm going to assume that it's a similar issue. Sounds great on paper in terms of staying with the "spirit of the game", but does little more than pointlessly create more hassle with extra rules than the "improved gameplay" is worth (and I'm not one who believes it actually IMPROVES gameplay...).

* 2-2 seems too restrictive to me. Granted, not being this strict would require you to specify out under what cases city gifting is ok and under what cases it is not, but there are some fairly clear cases where it would be ok... the issue is not so much whether a city gift occurs as a result of ending a war (as this restriction would allow), but that the city gift is PERMANENT and does not cause unit warping or other exploits. As far as I'm concerned, city gifting (effectively ceding territory) is fine as long as the gifts are *intended to be permanent*. I'd be willing to have an honor code on that one.

* 2-2-1, however, is a no brainer (good rule ). I hate unit warping.

* 4-1 is fine by me, though I know some people don't like allowing naval chains.

[snoopy369]

1.2 I'd basically agree with you on, if for no other reason than I'm not really in this for roleplaying (for that I have Morrowind .
1.3 I agree it's not really possible to enforce except in extreme cases, but I think it's important nonetheless. I don't think any of us are going to try to cheat, and this includes making deals out of the game, but nonetheless I think we should spell that out so people don't do something without thinking about it.

2.2 I think is along the same lines as 1.3 - no gifting cities because it's unreasonable for a civ to actually do that, except illegitimate reasons. There's no reason to gift a city to someone that doesn't involve either losing a war (obvious) or wanting to benefit that person over someone else, often as a result of losing a war with a third party. I think a lot of people have probably been frustrated, if I make my guess right, with the "Monopoly" effect -- if you've ever played with a family you know what I'm talking about, which is when you're dominating the game, and about to drive someone out of the game, when they suddenly sell all of their property to a third person for $1, instead of going bankrupt and giving it to you (and making you even more likely to win). This could easily happen in Civ3 ...tho my lack of experience means I've never seen it.

4.1, naval chains, I am fine with allowing, I generally don't use them (in SP games, since I've not had the chance in MP) but in the scheme of things I don't see them as being any different from using a remount on horseback ... and again only really objectionable as a roleplaying feature, since they're something we could all do (and can easily prevent by having a halfway decent navy).

My two cents.

[snoopy369]

and do we have a game going around or what?

[Krill]

I'm happy to agree to rules and etiqutte. And I think the game has been dropped, so jshelr should start another game.

[Krill]

FYI, I'll be away from friday night, and back on tuesday afternoon (GMT+1). I may be back, if the weather is bad, on Monday afternoon.

[snoopy369]

I agree, jshelr please start a new game and send it on

[Arnelos]

*bump*

jshelr?

[Arnelos]

*bump*

Um.... weren't we going to start this?

[Rommel2D]

Would any of you be interested in playing in an additional replacement qulaifier?

[Arnelos]

perhaps.

*bump*

HELLO?????

[Krill]

Arnelos, I think this game has self destructed.

[Arnelos]

May it rest in peace