Old pbem - TTT

[mmontgomery]

bdanv,

Thanks for taking the initiative for setting up the new game. I think it will be very exciting.

When I talk about some of the settings being confusing, it is not your fault. It is the game that has setting like "No Pod Scattering". If all of the settings had been stated positively, it would have been less confusing, but that is never going to change, so we just have to work a little harder to make sure that everything is clear.

Don't worry about that little dialog. It was all based on a misunderstanding. wdplays has already apologized for putting his foot in his mouth.

Mart7x5 is ready to make the game as soon as everyone confirms the settings, so please everyone chime in and confirm your agreement to the settings.

[bdanv]

confirmed!
and think we have an agreement starting from here:

Originally posted by florin79c
No crawlers hurrying secret projects : no..... Do to our new 2 vs 2 idea.
So we will have 2 DataAngels? If this is how you want it, then i'm ok. Let's get this game started

[mmontgomery]

One last point about setup. Based on time zones, wdplays and I should play successively, and bdanv and florin should play successively, I think. This means there will only be two time zone crossings per turn, instead of 4, if it were set up alternately.

[bdanv]

***UPDATED***

NEW GAME SETUP - SMAX game v 2.0

Preference	|	bdanv               florin79c           mmontgomery        wdplays
Factions:	|	DataAngels          PKs                 Gaians              DataAngels
*No AIs

Map size	|	Vets Map
Ocean		|	Custom
Erosion		|	Custom
Life		|	Custom
Clouds		|	Custom
Pods on		|	Yes (have to be added by the CMN)      

Difficulty	|	Transcend

Transcend	|	Yes
Conquest	|	Yes
Diplomatic	|	Yes
Economic	|	Yes
Cooperative	|	Yes
Do or Die	|	Yes
Flexible start	|	Yes
Tech stag	|	Yes
Spoils of war	|	No
Blind research	|	No
Intense riv	|	No
No survey	|	Yes
No scatter	|	No
No rnd events	|	Yes
Time Warp	|	No
Iron man	|	No
Rand person	|	No
Rand social	|	No

Rules:
MULTIPLAYING RESTRICTIONS

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.
• Council notification - immediate broadcast to all players(Post in the thread and e-mail to all immediately by player who has called elections, citing candidates and votes. After each player's turn, post in the thread the running totals).
• 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 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.
• A player may not use build queue manipulation or other loopholes to hurry production at a cost that would be lower than directly hurrying the item that one intends to build.
• A player may not use build queue manipulation or other loopholes to build something you could not directly add to the build queue.
• A player may not upgrade a particular type of unit using the design workshop, and then attack with that unit in the same turn.
• Copters are banned from the game.
• All attrocities banned till council vote allows it.

***UPDATED***

[bdanv]

Originally posted by mmontgomery
One last point about setup. Based on time zones, wdplays and I should play successively, and bdanv and florin should play successively, I think. This means there will only be two time zone crossings per turn, instead of 4, if it were set up alternately.

Yes. And I want Florin after me so I won't have to wait till he returns from work every two days.

[mmontgomery]

So for the turn order, we will have bdanv, florin, wdplays, and mmontgomery.

Also, the moderator should be sure to give each player his partners comm frequency at the start.

One last setup issue is starting location. On the Vets map, there are two possible starting locations for 4 players. We can start in the middle, in the loosely connected islands, or we can start on the southern and northern continents. If we start in the center, we will be having combat by turn 30 (or sooner) and the game will likely be over by turn 70 or sooner.

For this reason, I propose that each team starts in symmetric locations on the continents. For example, wdplays and I can occupy the southern continent, and bdanv and florin can occupy the northern continent. This will allow a longer developing game.

Is everyone OK with starting on the continents?

[bdanv]

Originally posted by mmontgomery
One last setup issue is starting location. On the Vets map, there are two possible starting locations for 4 players. We can start in the middle, in the loosely connected islands, or we can start on the southern and northern continents.

first choice: on the small islands - no need for the rest of the map, short game ...
second choice: 2N-2S - easier to help team mates on the same continent, appealing ...
there is also the third choice: each player on a large continent (this is the way it was ment to be played) - equal starting positions for all 4 players , harder to cooperate with the team mate.

No vote yet. Waiting for the others.

[mmontgomery]

bdanv,

I don't understand your third option? The way I see the map, there are only two continents, north and south, as well as the central island cluster. Perhaps the confusion is that that there appear to be two northern, and two southern, continents, but they are connected on the wraparound map edge. From either of the southern continents, a land unit can walk across the map edge to the other southern continent. Same for the northern continents. So since they are connected, there are really only two continents.

But I agree with the principle that I think you have in mind. I also envisioned that on the continents, that the factions would be spaced to symmetric locations about half a map apart, so it would take some time for the allies to physically connect to each other.

[florin79c]

Well, Europe and Asia are 2 different continents although very much connected. Let's just call them land masses.

[wdplays]

Originally posted by bdanv
I'm little bit dissapointed about our chit-chat here above and also about our the game. I spent some time trying to setup this game and what i get is some 'remarks' about my english, and some 'useful' information about The Manhattan Project and the 'fertile' lands of New Mexico. Who do you think we are? Some guys fallen from the sky right in the middle of some civ-like game.

Dan,
If I've offended you I most sincerely apologize. That certainly wasn't my intent. As far as I can tell the only person in this thread who's had trouble with English is me (the native speaker), which was what I meant by my earlier post. Your table was totally clear. I just got in a rush yesterday as I was leaving work and didn't play attention to what I was reading. The fault was entirely mine. If I gave any other impression, I'm sorry.

As for my Manhattan Project P.S. comments, again I apologize if it seemed I was talking down to you. That certainly wasn't my intention. I've only been to Europe once (1 week in England) and have no first hand knowledge of how much US history and geography the average person there knows. Quite frankly, given the sorry state of public schools in the US, I would have had to make those clarifications for most Americans. I wasn't trying to be condesending; I was just trying to avoid being confusing. My sincere apologies if I ended up offending.

Originally posted by bdanv
You pretend realism and leave the game to be decided by so many random events. It's so skirmish.

Well that's because a little bit of randomness is realistic. To be clear though, I don't mean SMAC random events type randomnes. Having an asteroid dropped on your very best base or a 10,000 EC supply zeroed don't meet my definition of a little bit of randomness. On the other hand, history is full of random events that had a very disproportionate effect. Nazi Germany should have beaten the US to the A-bomb, but their chief scientist had a mistake in one of his equations, and none of his underlings wanted to tell him. They were afraid of him. The Bismark should have been able to get away from the British, but a totally obsolete torpedo plane got a lucky hit on her rudder and she looses steerage. The Confederate States should have won the American Civil War during its first two years, but a string of events, in which if just one goes differently the Confederates do win, buys the Union enough time to get organized and carry the day. My personal perspective is that having to deal with some randomness is part of being a great leader. I think pods are the best way in SMAC to create that effect.

Originally posted by bdanv I'm playing SMAC from 1999. Maybe my playing preferences doesn't meet your expectations, but I never tryied to impose something.

I've never felt like you tried to impose anything. In fact, given that it appears that this game setup has drifted so far your original intent, I think you've been amazingly tolerent

Originally posted by bdanv
P.S:
Why didn't you tech traded the nuclear bomb in the WWII?

Actually we probably did. There's good evidence that FDR allowed the Rosenburgs to spy on the A-bomb work for the USSR. Then, the Truman administration had them tried and executed as spies to cover it up. Don't you just love polititians.

Originally posted by bdanv Why bother to squeeze out a one turn advantage in research when you can get it from AAs or even better, directly from the pods?

Mainly because I've never found that to be reliable. Getting a tech from a pod is certainly handy, but as far as I know it's just pure random chance. Anybody who bases their strategy on that is going to have real trouble in my opinion. AAs aren't really a lot better. In my experience, they very rarely provide the tech you want except in certain circumstances.

[florin79c]

@ Mike : pls look again, we have 4 continets

[mmontgomery]

Are the two northern continents, and the two southern continents, connected as they appear?

If so, then I think those are the best starting locations for the teams.

Does everyone else agree with these starting locations? Can I email mart7x5 that we have agreement and that he can start the game?

[bdanv]

I looked again at the map attached in this thread.
I can't see any connection between the the four large land masses.

[mmontgomery]

Aren't they connected on the wraparound map edge? Doesn't the westmost edge of the western continent connect to the eastmost edge of the eastern continent?

[bdanv]

no. I can't see any touchig point. I even set the map to round ... no way ... and I'm wearing my glasses...