Balanced Pangaea PBEM

[alexman]

Perhaps you're right, but it might not turn out that way. I guess the game may go faster or slower because humans are not as predictable as the AI. Isn't is possible that a tech-whoring game will go much slower than a non-whoring game, if there aren't players willing to do (or trade) the research? Isn't it possible that I don't want to sell my tech to anyone if I know that someone else will benefit from by reselling it?

So here is the question: Do we lose anything by increasing the tech costs? I know it would probably benefit early warfare, but would it have any negative side effects if new tech comes too slow? Why not disallow tech whoring, and increase the tech costs? Does anyone have a problem with that?

[DaveMcW]

Increased tech costs is not the answer. It will give warmongers a huge short-term advantage, and a huge long-term disadvantage.

There is just too much motivation for the researchers to protect each other until they have an overwhelming advantage.

In other words: you can take out one civ early but then you are screwed. This will discourage warfare.

[Harovan]

In my (now rare) SP games I use a mod, that increases all tech rates (not tech costs!) by 50%, sets the minimum research time at 6 and the maximum at 60 turns. It helps a lot, a builder style Emperor game lasts till the 19th, sometimes even 20th century instead of having a spaceship launch about 1500.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by DaveMcW
In other words: you can take out one civ early but then you are screwed. This will discourage warfare.

We don't want to take civs out early. The game should have some dynamics, we should fight early for a resource or 1-2 border cities and then make peace. If you fight till the bloody end, yes you are screwed, but it is your own fault.

[DaveMcW]

Originally posted by alexman

As I see it, we have set three goals for this game:

1. Early warfare. Because "staring contests" are boring. To achieve this, we need weak tech alliances, and a slow tech rate.
2. Imprortance of research. Because ignoring research is a one-dimensional strategy that takes away a significant element of the game. To achieve this, we need to somehow restrict trading.
3. Individual play. This means that 3-on-3 team games are not desirable, because they end unfinished when one side wins. In order to achieve this, we need weak tech alliances and weak military alliances.

I would be willing to sacrifice early warfare to avoid all the painful fixes. Just use accelerated production to keep the game moving. Does everyone else think I'm crazy?

[Nor Me]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
I see, that some of us just want to play the same game like against the AI. Freeload research for some miserable gold, stockpile the rest, upgrade, attack the dumb researcher and demand even more. The same silly way like in every SP game. Now who would like to be the dumb AI? I ran away from SP to avoid this mess. Now it takes over MP too. Guess it's GalCiv time.

That's the point. No-one will play like the AI.

I just think that solutions like No tech whoring are worse than leaving research partnerships in with 6 players

Nor Me: We are not playing permanent alliances, nor tolerate we research agreements. And we don't need to enforce these rules. Everyone in this game will play honorable without being enforced. At least I hope so.

(a)Why are we trying to outlaw these in the first place?

(b) If that's the case why alter the rules at all?

By the way, in this game's predecessor (game 4) we basically had a no whore agreement from the mid of the ancient age till the end of the game. Tech pace was fast only because we coordinated research. This won't be the case in this game.

Isn't that the kind of thing we're trying to avoid? If we can, what is the problem.

[Harovan]

Something says me, we can't get this game together.

I will keep the savegame and although I already deleted the scenario, I still have Catts mail in my inbox.

PM me if you need one of them.

[Nor Me]

Originally posted by alexman
[*]Individual play. This means that 3-on-3 team games are not desirable, because they end unfinished when one side wins. In order to achieve this, we need weak tech alliances and weak military alliances.

As I've said before, I just don't think this problem will materialise. A 3-way alliance is less likely to hold than a 2-way one.

If you want any result better than a 3-way draw, we'd have to enable AP and go for the space race. A 3-way draw is fine.

[Nor Me]

Originally posted by DaveMcW
I would be willing to sacrifice early warfare to avoid all the painful fixes. Just use accelerated production to keep the game moving. Does everyone else think I'm crazy?

No. It sounds sensible. I just don't know how to play it.

[alexman]

I would be willing to play any PBEM game with you guys. Accelerated production, no communication, no rules at all, ANYTHING.

But to be fair, for this game I think we should stick close to the settings we agreed upon in the PBEM 4 thread, which are summarized in the first post of this thread (granted, some points in that post need clarification). We can start another game for anyone interested in something else (I would play in that too).

Are we all in?

[Edit: Oops, I see that no-tech-whoring was not specified in that first post. Here we go again... ]

[jshelr]

Sir

Will you accept players' right to form no tech whoring agreements with each other? We would have no comm rules, but no whoring agreements by email that could be published on the thread if transparency is desired. I would much rather trade with a no whoring partner, and that might make the no whoring agreement a natural equilibrium solution that most civs will adopt.

[Harovan]

I think the interests are too different. This game is doomed from the start.

I find both types of games boring to hell. Staring contests, and endless slugfests. I want to encourage short campaigns with changing alliances, that is it what makes a game interesting, at least for me. But I want to penaltize long wars of extermination.

I will not agree to accelerated production. I play it in GS PBEM 1, and although I'm doing pretty well, the crazy tech pace annoys the hell out of me. It is a huge no-no for me.

As it stands, I give this game very low chances ever to start with this staff of players. And even if we get it started, it will be a mess for everyone who was "convinced" to play with rules he didn't want.

Sigh, last try. I would agree for player to player no whoring agreements and hereby announce, that I will heavily favor such trade partners. I will agree for trading my techs only, if my counterpart offers me a tech as well, at least half worth of mine, with differences being paid off in gold. Who offers me only gold, gets no discounts. He will either have to pay full price (25 * reasearch points) or can go get the tech somewhere else.

[jshelr]

The last try looks good to me. I bet Sir does well with his trading rules since they are fair to both sides.

[alexman]

Yes, that's fair, and I think there are several players here that would agree to trade with you on those terms, alexman included.

So players are free to set the "rules" of trade individually with every other player. The only restrictions are that you can't talk about unknown techs, and that you are honest when you promise that you won't whore a tech.

[DaveMcW]

I'll agree to that.

Alexman, can you add the restriction on discussing unknown techs to the rules section?