looking forward to play an email game? - Page 2

RobRoy · January 12, 2001, 19:00

Isn't "die" the singular of "dice"? Or am I misremembering my irregular words.

5 it is! And the lucky winner (loser?) is Shaka!

So Shaka is Spain
RobRoy is Sweden
JayBee is Protestant
Marko is Imperial
Stephen is Danish
Allard is French

I will forward the modified .SCN file to Shaka and he can start whenever he's ready, then forward the file to me when he's done with his turn.

Unless people suddenly decide they object to either the scenario or the civ selection method...

Jay Bee · January 12, 2001, 19:16

quote:

Originally posted by RobRoy on 01-12-2001 06:00 PM
Isn't "die" the singular of "dice"? Or am I misremembering my irregular words.

Hey, this is interesting, you're right according the Webster (US) but not according the Oxford (UK). Anyway I am not a native English speaker so I have no right to argue about this

.

quote:

JayBee is Protestant

What???? You're kidding me? Well.. I guess I can live with it

techumseh · January 12, 2001, 19:36

I've emailed Shaka Naldur by zip file of the 30 yrs war conversion, as per his request. I recommend useing the double movement and double production. Most states will first have to raise an army before they can do any serious conquering. The double movement will keep things moving at a better pace. I do not think it changes the effect of pikemen, who are doubled against cavalry.

Be sure to use pikemen to protect your musketeers and cannon against cavalry. I like this game as multiplayer because the AI can't make use of the correct tactics for the period. I would be willing to take Poland if no one else is interested. Its' situation is not as bad as in 1939, but still...

Jay Bee · January 12, 2001, 19:40

Welcome aboard Tech!

I am afraid the double mov thing would drastically change the feel of the game. Guess we need a rapid consensus on this!

We can trade civs if you want. Not because the Polish are Catholics

. I have no winning desire at this time, so I do not mind leading the weakest civ. It would serve to me as an objective test to tell how good/bad I am at this.

[This message has been edited by Jay Bee (edited January 12, 2001).]

January 12, 2001, 20:04

Hi guys.

Jesus told me there was 1 spot left, so what civ can I play as?

techumseh · January 12, 2001, 20:08

No, I'm just kidding about Poland. When we played this on the net, I lost the argument about double movement and then those that insisted on regular movement complained that the game moved too slowly. And it did.

techumseh · January 12, 2001, 20:12

It's OK Jesus, M.C. can have Poland. I'll fill in for anyone who can't continue.

January 12, 2001, 20:22

Wait a minute, I don't want to take anyone's spot. If Techumseh is playing thats fine. he's the one who made the multiplayer update anyway!

RobRoy · January 12, 2001, 22:56

Shaka - Please tell me you checked the board and started the game with seven players, instead of six? If you haven't started, yet, please make sure you select the 7 civ hotseat option. It sounds like we have a Poland, after all.

Techumseh spoke up first, so I'd have said Poland is his. But then he deferred to MagyarCrusader. But then MagyarCrusader deferred back to him. And then JayBee tried to get out of playing the Protestants. So I have no clue as to who will actually play Poland. Seems to me it's Techumseh's call.

Techumseh - We've been curios about the multi-player update, but I inferred that Shaka couldn't get hold of you. Did you make any changes beyond fixing the "starving barbarians"? That was the only problem obvious to me, with the version I had. Depending on what the changes were, we might want to use that version.

J.B. - Yes we need to address the double move/production issue quickly. No one expressed a strong opinion before, but since one of our (probable) players has expressed a strong opinion, let's try to get some feedback.

Although I am a purist and lean strongly toward keeping the scenario as is, Techumseh's point is well-taken. My concern, all along, with this particular scenario is that it will not move at the pace that some people are expecting - particularly with the PBEM format. This scenario's strongest point, from a Hotseat PBEM perspective, lies in being fairly well-balanced, not in its lightning-fast pace. For me, in the trade-off between a well-balanced and fast-paced scenario, I preferred a fast-pace one, hence my preference for Vikings (actually for End-of-the-Bronze-Age, but I never got a second on that).

Double Movement and/or Double Production may help accelerate the pace without damaging the spirit of the scenario too much, I just don't know. The one thing I am uncomfortable with, though, is that if we use double movement, we should modify the RULES.TXT file to double naval movements as well - just doesn't seem right to juice the land conflict, while marginalizing the naval scene, especially if the arguement is to speed things up.

Unless Shaka has already started, and gotten too far into his turn, it would be useful if we could all sound off with our opinions as soon as possible:

1 - Should we use Double Production?
2 - Should we use Double (Land) Movement?
3 - If we use Double Movement, should we modify the RULES.TXT to double naval movement as well?

Despite my belief that Techumseh is right about the pace of the game, my purist sentiment still causes me to vote:

1 - No
2 - No
3 - Yes

Please note, however, that I am extremely ambivalent, and certainly wouldn't mind playing a juiced-up version.

Unless he posts a clarification, I would interpret J.B.'s posts as a "No", at least on the first two questions. Unless he posts a clarification, I would interpret Techumseh's vote as "Yes", at least on the first two questions.

Shaka - If you've gotten way too far into your turn, and have no intention of doing it over, and if this discussion is therefore a dead letter, please tell us.

techumseh · January 13, 2001, 00:10

Rob Roy, I had to go back and check, it's been a year and a half. It looks like all I did was edit Jesus' events and rules texts for grammar and syntax, and add appropriate sound files. I did eliminate the lines prohibiting negotiation between civs; I'm not sure if that has any effect in a multiplayer game or not.

It looks like I didn't check the barbarian cities, so your scenario file is superior. If you want to improve the English of the scenario, you might want to substitute my events and rules text files. In any event, it's probably a good idea to remove the events limiting negotiations.

I'm game to play Poland, if MJ's OK with it.

Shaka Naldur · January 13, 2001, 01:48

okay, so I see that you don´t like my time of thunder scenario, actually I don´t think that Jesus is in a great advantage, and If you think so, he could play as the spaniards which I think that it´s the hardest country to play, a five side war

again and waiting for an answer
AREN´T WE PLAYING THE SCENARIO BY EMAIL?? the post made me doubt

I don`t want an empire building scenario
I see that nobody wants to play time of thunder, even when it would be my first choice I´ll rather play 30 year war that vicking

so this is my choice

1-30 year war
2-time of thunder
3-vickings

if you guys want to play vicking it wouldn´t be a big deal

Shaka Naldur · January 13, 2001, 01:51

sorry for this Jesus,

"okay, so I see that you don´t like my time of thunder scenario"

I meant to say:

okay, so I see that you don´t like my idea of playing Jesus´ Time of thunder scenario

Jay Bee · January 13, 2001, 07:45

quote:

Originally posted by RobRoy on 01-12-2001 09:56 PM
And then JayBee tried to get out of playing the Protestants.

It was only a joke.

quote:

Unless he posts a clarification, I would interpret J.B.'s posts as a "No", at least on the first two questions

That's correct. No on the third one as well.

PS. Let's start out today please!!!

Stefan Härtel · January 13, 2001, 08:05

OK, if I get this correctly then somebody mails me the game where he had already moved a turn, I move a turn and mail it to the next one, and this all in the shortest possible distance (i.e. we're all online at the same time).
And I should play this with the Multiplayer version to make sure that everything runs.

Modifications only appear to the *.scn files, so the scenario files I already have would run the same way?

Wouldn't ICQ be good to have in this matter?

------------------
Follow the masses!
30,000 lemmings can't be wrong!

The vast majority of our imports come from outside the country.
-George W. Bush

Shahan Shah Eran ud Aneran

Visit my Homepage at: http://members.xoom.com/SHaertel/Index.html

Shaka Naldur · January 13, 2001, 08:34

sorry guys I havern´t checked the post until now, I´ll download tecumseh multiplayer version,

I think that we should keep the game like in real civ
so my answer it´s a no to the three answer

but the road just doble the movement, it should be like in real civ also, I think that it is very important, we should change that

I´ll take a look to the tecumseh scenario
when you guys say I´ll begin the game

Jesus,
it would be a good idea to play Time of Thunder with the spaniards of the forum (including Allard

)

Shaka Naldur · January 13, 2001, 08:36

by the way guys,

my email is miguelsana@mixmail.com

don´t send me emails to my email in the apolyton account, I don´t read it really often

Jay Bee · January 13, 2001, 08:51

quote:

Originally posted by Shaka Naldur on 01-13-2001 07:34 AM
Jesus,
it would be a good idea to play Time of Thunder with the spaniards of the forum (including Allard

)

I've just asked Allard by e-mail. If he says yes, we are almost there!

Allard HS · January 13, 2001, 09:14

As for me, I'd prefer no to all questions too. Let's keep it the way it was meant.

And I'd love to play Thunder, even if I would feel a bit intimidated between all those "Spanjolen" around me, who caused us so much trouble..
My only fear is that I am not as military brilliant as Prince Maurits, as politically inspiring as William of Orange, or as nationalistic and strategic as William III.

But we're not all as brillian generals as Xin Yu...

Stefan Härtel · January 13, 2001, 09:51

So when are we going to play?

Allard HS · January 13, 2001, 10:53

quote:

but the road just doble the movement, it should be like in real civ also, I think that it is very important, we should change that

I agree. Doubling is maybe not necessary, but making it 3 instead of 2 would probably be a good move, as it is impossible to make any fun offensive or to move an army from one place to another with a road movement of 2.

Let's quickly agree on these matters, and start, as there is no need to spend days discussing. Better one little thing not everyone agrees with, than days of talking about it.

Allard HS · January 13, 2001, 11:02

Oh yes, and remove the nonegotiation event, as that is useless anyway for human players, and AI players communicate anyway.

techumseh · January 13, 2001, 12:07

Shaka: If you change the movement of cavalry from 2 in the rules text, then the pikemen will not be doubled against them. This is critical to the tactics of the period.

RobRoy · January 13, 2001, 12:11

Stefan - We probably wouldn't be online at approximately the same time. We'd just keep sending the .HOT file to each other. At times we'll be lucky and may get several turns done. At other times, we could get stuck behind someone's schedule. A "Tales from the Front" type thread might help us all know what the current status is and whose turn it is.

Shaka - I sent the modified .SCN file to you, but to the address listed in Apolyton. I'll send future mail to the mixmail.com address, but do you need me to resend the file? Or can you go ahead and start? Jesus M. got back to me and confirmed that the only major problem was the "starving barbarian one"

Techumseh and Allard - I do not think we should remove the negotiations restriction, actually. It would be necessary to do so in a standard internet game, but could be dangerous in a hotseat game. You can't really do anything interesting with player-player hotseat diplomacy, anyway, and I've already thought of several Xin-Yu-esque ways I could take advantage of the hotseat diplomacy and extort techs (perhaps including restricted techs) or tribute from the AI, change war status, etc., without the human opponent ever knowing about it. Remember, while someone else is playing his turn in hotseat, our civs will be ably (hah!) controlled by the AI, blithely giving away our techs and cash to buy meaningless cease-fires. I think arrangements we reach in our player-to-player diplomacy will be more important, even if we see anomalous "war" messages, or meaningless penalties to reputation.

In general, we should be real careful about what modified files we use, especially RULES.TXT because the files will have to be replicated on all seven computers. If we think movement is too slow, I think we should use double movement, rather than changing the designer's road movement rates. Jesus' message to me indicated he didn't have any problem with double movement (I didn't ask him about modifying his road movement rates). But I still hesitate juicing land movement without also changing sea movement.

I think Shaka should go ahead and start the scenario. If we decide to change movement, change production, remove negotiation restrictions, or whatever, we can do it just as well during the game. In fact, I predict we'll seriously reconsider juicing movement after a few turns, anyway. As long as we do so fairly (make such changes at the beginning of the Spanish player's turn, give players a few turns warning to modify any now-exposed positions, etc.), I don't any major fairness problem.

By the way, if half the players prefer to play Thunder, rather than 30 Years War...why are we playing 30 Years War? I'm perfectly willing to play that one, too. Are peoples' votes changing?

Stefan Härtel · January 13, 2001, 12:36

Let's flip a coin

I have no problem with Thunder, I have more experience with it too...

Shaka Naldur · January 13, 2001, 12:48

RobRoy,

so I´ll begin right tonight or tomorrow morning

I´ll modify the road movement and use your file,
no don´t worry I already have your file but send future emails to miguelsana@mixmail.com

I think that the time of thunder scenario is gonna be played by the spaniards in apolyton (jesus if I´m wrong tell me so)

waiting for an authorization to modify the road move

Allard HS · January 13, 2001, 12:50

I myself agree with all points made by RobRoy.

- Ok, let's keep nonegotiation
- Let's see how road movement works after a few turns.
- Let's play Thunder (although I don't really care), and redistribute the civs according to RobRoy's magnificent system
- Let's start!

Shaka Naldur · January 13, 2001, 12:54

this is so complicated....
what do I do???
do I begin the game....??

Jay Bee · January 13, 2001, 15:18

quote:

Originally posted by Shaka Naldur on 01-13-2001 11:54 AM
this is so complicated....
what do I do???
do I begin the game....??

YES!!!

We agreed on 30 years war, let's keep it that way. Next one will be Thunder. Is that okay?

Allard HS · January 13, 2001, 15:35

I don't care what kind of scenario.

Just start!

Shaka Naldur · January 13, 2001, 15:37

okay, so I play robroy´s version or Tecumseh´s version??

too many complications

by the way

TECUMSEH
what are the differences betweeen your modified version and the original file??

so we don´t change extra fortress either??
they have a 99 in defense, we could just put a 6 or 7 in defense....

I play the turn or I don´t????