Team PBEM

[sabrewolf]

sent to paddy a while ago

[Paddy]

and recieved

and then onto Aqualung just now

[Aqualung71]

Received from the Mongol B*****D and on to MFC

[MFCamillus]

On to Snoopy

[snoopy369]

On to Zord.

I'm quite amused by all of this Our little corner of the world is very quiet

(And MFC and I are officially allowed to post anything + everything we want to in this thread now, since we have contact with all 3 teams. I think some of the rest of you have met this qualification as well... if not all? Don't forget, contact with one team member is contact with both for this game.)

You should still limit (as in don't send them! ) direct messages / emails. From what I recall, we were going to limit diplomacy to the thread as much as possible (ie, no secret alliances please

[Zord]

sent on

[Mickeyj]

And Away.

I'm quite enjoying this little bloodfest

[ChrisiusMaximus]

Turn away to sabrewolf

We also have contact in game with all 3 teams and would like to openly request that Babylon withdraws her scouting warriors from chinese lands

[sabrewolf]

speaking of that, i'd like to request following rule: if you ENTER the oponents land and intend to do anything more than just pass through (therefore explicit permission should be asked for), you MUST first declare war.

why?

mickeyj entered my borders without asking. i could have attacked him (and probably killed him), but then he would have profited from war happiness. but then he attacked my city.

in SP you can force the AI to "withdraw his troops or declare war". as in MP there is no "withdraw troops" possibility (due to asynchronuous playing), this rule would cover that disadvantage for the attackee.

[snoopy369]

I don't think so, sabre. You have a valid point - though I'd argue that the AI almost never offers me that opportunity, i can't enumerate the number of times that I've asked the AI to leave every turn for ten or more turns without having the "leave or declare war" option - but I think it's a strategic decision for you, whether your attack is better or trying to get war happiness. I think you take away options for the attacker - for example, intimidation, and intentionally leaving it as unclear if you were attacking or not - and even I'd consider the war happiness to be a strategic option. It's not a big enough exploit to me to justify eliminating it.

But that's just my feeling ... I wonder what Rommel would say, anyhow? I'm sure he considered it when writing the IC rules ...

[Aqualung71]

Although I have also suffered the same fate as Sabre at the hands of that Barbarian Scottish Mongol, I cannot agree with Sabre's suggestion. In PBEM one must assume that all other humans are opportunistic, hypocritical, untrustworthy and ruthless (in other words, just like myself), and defend one's cities accordingly. If a human player waltzes into my territory unannounced, I'll make damn certain that I have 2 defenders in the nearest town.....and I'll also make sure that the prime defender is not my Ancient Age UU! He can then declare war if he likes and give me the War Happiness

This game was a little unusual in that we started with multiple Settlers and insufficient time to defend them all properly against a very early wandering Warrior.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Aqualung71
This game was a little unusual in that we started with multiple Settlers and insufficient time to defend them all properly against a very early wandering Warrior.

Strictly speaking, I'd argue that the strategy apparently taken by the aggressor (i'm not sure of all the details) was quite a dangerous one - equivalent to Chrisius' (failed) strategy in Europe in Flames, or Beta's in PTW Classics - leaving a city (or cities) undefended with the hopes of exploring more effectively and surviving until they can build some defensive help. In this case it seems to have paid off, at least early on.

I'd also argue with your supposition that it's hard to defend cities from an early wandering warrior. REX strategy, followed by most PBEMers, dictates that your first three cities should be within 3 squares of each other (in fact 2, from what I recall, if you're a serious REXer) and that allows you to double-reinforce any city with an opponent nearby. I think what happened was not a result of the 'nature of the game' but a result of strategic decisions made on both sides, and perhaps bad luck as well.

But like I said, I'm not sure of exactly what happens so I can't really say

[sabrewolf]

3200bc to paddy

[snoopy369]

I'd like to crosslink to the discussion in Iron Civer about this rule, that sabre started here...

[sabrewolf]

agreed