Ladies' Tea party (signup thread)

[SebP]

so... i propose: 4 colony pods 3 infantry scouts, but will go with just about any other proposals to speed this up

we also have the following votes scattered across the thread:
directed research (me/flubber)
no coop victories (me/flubber)
intended builder's game (-> guess i'll play the drones, i'm too weak to try anything odd), but no special rules to support this

what about energy stockpile after unit builds? we could ban it to enforce the builder notion? though it also profits builders when massbuilding crawlers... it would especially profit the drones, so since i am the drones i'll have to vote for banning it. instead to speed the game up, we might start with even more pods

[Flubber]

Originally posted by SebP
so... i propose: 4 colony pods 3 infantry scouts, but will go with just about any other proposals to speed this up

we also have the following votes scattered across the thread:
directed research (me/flubber)
no coop victories (me/flubber)
intended builder's game (-> guess i'll play the drones, i'm too weak to try anything odd), but no special rules to support this

what about energy stockpile after unit builds? we could ban it to enforce the builder notion? though it also profits builders when massbuilding crawlers... it would especially profit the drones, so since i am the drones i'll have to vote for banning it. instead to speed the game up, we might start with even more pods

All that sounds great but if the intent is a builders game I should NOT be the cult . The only thing they would build is a huge mindworm army to attack someone . I could still try the Pirates although even they may be a little too aggressive for this concept.

I've played the Drones, Hive and Uni to death as builder so in the interest of trying something new for me, I'll take the ANGELS, CONSCIOUSNESS or MORGANITES.

My question though is how do we enforce the builders game idea if there are no special rules? Because we can have that intent but if a weak AI is sitting astride my path to really good land, I think a war will occurr. So what is the thinking here?

[SebP]

I think Trotsky wanted a somewhat peaceful game... i too have no good idea how to enforce it. Also, enforce may be too strong a term? If any special rules are made, they should in my opinion only be slight hints into the direction of builder play. I thought about some kind of archipelago map for a sec, probably too slow though. And i don't know enough about sea warfare in SMAC, on secpnd thought it might be in fact exceptionally easy for the attacker.

We might also abandon the peaceful thing, i don't care either way. Trotsky, what exactly did you have in mind anyways? Actual trancendence victories? Or only a game where peace would last beyond doctrine:air? (or even only up to, i don't know how fast you guys usually declare)

On AIs: I'd like to just leave them out of the game.

[Leon Trotsky]

I started this thread as a reaction to what it stroke to me as extremely aggresive, militaristic, short games. Alpha Centauri is a great game, and no doubt making war with recon rovers is interesting, but I wondered... how would it be like if someone actually reached fusion power and used it? Are satellites THAT good? What sound do plasma shards make? I don't pretend the game to drag into transcendence for the sake of having that ending, I just think a bit of building would be... I'm not sure, fun, perhaps?

The problem is, how do we "enforce" I don't like that term either. But let's see what could... influence a game to make it more builder-friendly, based on an honour system:

Don't commit atrocities wantonly unless you are yang, or have been seriously wronged (and by that I don't mean planetbusting a headquarters just because your beautiful borehole got shelled by a gun foil. Sorry). Treason should be frowned upon. No arbitrary attacks - to start a war, one should have casus belli. Morgan shouldn't attack a peaceful neighbour marketeer to get the uranium fields (he MIGHT, however, weave an intrigue which would provoke the wrath of the other faction). Related to the latter, one should, so far as possible, follow the faction agenda. And by that I don't mean "pick the faction's favourite Social Engineering setting". Deirdre should avoid getting high ecodamage in her bases, Lal should actually seek a balance of power in planet instead of bandwagoning (also shouldn't build punishment spheres nor genejack factories), Yang should hunt down democracies ("threats to security"), and so on.

As you see, this is not just a "builder versus momentum" dichotomy, but also about "roleplaying", if you please. I'd like players to behave more or less similarly to what would the faction leaders do, not just what is the shortest path to victory. You may say I am a dreamer, but I am not the only one... that's it, I am ranting already... tell me if something of the above makes any sense.

[Flubber]

I have seen games where people were "required" to roleplay their factions throughout. It can be quite fun but is not necessarily a teat of skill since a player could know that a certain route was more likely to bring victory but would instead choose the route more in keeping with their faction ideals

[Flubber]

Oh and I have often heard the sound of shard weapons in a PBEM. I have even had one or two that went to transcendence even without special rules limiting fighting

[SebP]

i have played only 4 pbems, 3 to completion. one saw my whole air force upgraded to fusion and the use of at least one planet buster both towards the end a 7 (human player!) faction world war and would have gotten even more fun if not for coop victories and my fear of attacking my senior partner at the right time (i was really afraid of his playing ability, could still bite myself for not having tried it because it was a real interesting game which i am kindy responsible for ending way too early. I'm not a treasonous person, but i often see that as unfortunate since treason makes games more interesting. In the mentioned world war, there was 2 treasonous players, one changing sides and one trying to play out the 2 sides against each other, thus in a way triggering the war in the first place. So... treason can be great fun, even for the betrayed players ;-)). in another game i was destroyed with laser rovers. The third was boring because it was only 3 players, and one was so strong economically that there was not really a time to attack him. -> extremely boring transcendence victory

There was no special rules in any of those

anyways. from my limited experience. i think it depends mostly on the player's basic characters and on starting positions. this is kind of a give away, but know this: since i am sort of a builder, same as you, i think we are already set. If someone goes aggressive, pacts will result

about the roleplay. i'm bad at narrating. just playing out my faction would be easy though. especially since the drones as i see them, despite being the "good" communists, would probably be able to justify just about any diplomatic/military action (except for mass destruction weapons)
But really, i don't like the faction agenda->casus belli idea. Especially with the builder faction agendas chosen here, it would probably result in transcendence victory (if flubber is really one of teh people who play yang as a builder, probably his transcendence victory ;-) ). I think it would be better if builders are from the start required to build and upgrade a good defensive arsenal and a road/sensor network to limit the fighting. Or making themselves more useful to the direct threat by being alive (by using double PK votes to vote HIM for planetary governor), off course always plotting behind their backs. Or...

[SebP]

So, what about AI and energy stockpile?

[Mid]

Directed research and no co-op victories sounds good to me.

I'm also happy to RP the Gaians.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by SebP
So, what about AI and energy stockpile?

I am just as happy with no AI as with having them. It does slow the game a little not to have them, since they tend to research some of the crappier techs for you. On the other hand, the whims of the AI can sometimes really annoy me and its a purer game without them.

I tend to like stockpile on for the pragmatic reason that it means more cash which equals faster builds and so faster development but again I can play either way

[Mid]

A few questions:

No energy stockpile - does that mean queueing something up after every build unit or structure? Is using ES acceptable in its own right?

I'm also happy with or without AIs.

[SebP]

energy stockpile would be allowed, just not getting the double benefit if you put in into the queue after unit builds

flubber: i too voted for energy stockpile ON in the RiG game. The idea for the tea party game though was to use it as a device to strengthen builder play (which is usually associated with building more base structures, though this may be questionable since builders might build lots of cheap units too, even more than momentum players perhaps)

We could even go to the extreme which was identified in RiG as the most unfair: NOT preventing the automatic occurence of the stockpile bug after building base structures

again, i am NOT sure if putting Stockpile in the queue after unit builds really helps momentum over builder play as is often proposed, see above. Any thoughts on this? It's pretty definite that it will be strongest for factions with a good industry rating though (-> drones, aka me, and that's why i voted for disallowing it)

There's always other ways to speed up the game, like additional colpods. Those may be unbalanced too, though

So ultimately, i don't care about the option too much, it was an idea on how to make the intended builder notion work. An idea that may be totally flawed

[SebP]

let's just vote, shall we.
my vote: automatic stockpiling after buildings on, stockpiling after units off. No AIs. Standard restrictive ruleset about other big exploits like crawler upgrading for cheap wonders, design workshop / SE selector quirks and so on (can't remember most so i think i probably don't use them)

4 colpods 3 scouts.

Builder notion: don't really want to go to extremes roleplaying my faction but if you want (you all seem ok with this), i'll try. would that mean i can steal technology without being declared on? in RL declaring war for this seems pretty harsh.

[Flubber]

let's just vote, shall we.---- OK

my vote: automatic stockpiling after buildings on, -- OK

stockpiling after units off.-- I vote ON

No AIs. -- ABSTAIN-- I don't care

Standard restrictive ruleset-- I AM NOT SURE WHAT THIS MEANS

about other big exploits like crawler upgrading for cheap wonders,-- I LIKE HAVING THE ABILITY TO UPGRADE CRAWERS


design workshop TWHAT"S THE ISSUE HERE??

SE selector quirks and so on-- SE QUICKIES ARE BANNED IN EVERY RULESET I HAVE SEEN
4 colpods 3 scouts.

--

[Flubber]

Here is the ruleset I most commonly seen-- copied from CGN


Do or Die - eliminated players are not restarted
Bell Curve - no random events
Non-Blind Research
Look first - HQ not established

Restrictions - general gameplay:
- A player may not restart a turn without good reason. The player should specify the reason in the game thread if he was not able to avoid reloading the turn. (Obviously, if a player has suffered some sort of crash during a turn, such a reload is unavoidable)

- A player is not permitted to establish contact with another faction prior to having met them in-game.

- If a player performs a probe team action other than to infiltrate against another player with whom (s)he is in a truce, treaty or pact, they must inform the probed player what it was they did and what they stole/sabotaged. They must also choose the 'declare vendetta/cancel pact' option when they perform the action.

- A player is not permitted to make more than one social engineering change per line, per turn. For instance, one is not permitted to start the turn in wealth, switch to power mid-turn for the extra disbanded minerals, and then switch back to wealth that same turn, getting the refund.

- A player is not permitted to use the 'demand withdrawal' feature against another player, leaving the AI the decision of whether to withdraw or not.

- A player may not accept a bribe from another player's AI during council sessions.

- A player may not perform multiple airdrops in a single turn with the same unit using the right-click menu.

- A player may not use the F4 screen when infiltrated to change an opponent's workers to specialists.

Contentious issues

- A player may not insert stockpile energy into the build queue after the production of a military unit. Due to a bug in the game, should you put stockpile energy into the queue, you will get the benefit of the extra energy on the same turn as production of your military unit. -- I WANT THIS ON

- If a player declares vendetta upon another player, either directly or indirectly, they must not accept a pending diplomatic agreement between the two factions in the same turn.

- A player may not upgrade a particular type of unit using the design workshop, and then attack with that unit in the same turn. -- I CAN GO EITHER WAY ON THIS

- A player may not make air drops using the right click "air drop to" function, when it is not possible to do so with the "i" button, ie. after already having moved or made a drop.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm good with these rules except I would prefer stockpile ON-- mainly because I have more games with it on than OFF and I like it as a reminder when units are completed rather than have the game start to build another unit. With buildings I also liked using the queue before I knew it had other implications.