Balanced Pangaea PBEM

[alexman]

This is a 6-player, small pangaea PBEM, played on a balanced map supplied by Catt. The settings encourage ancient-age warfare and weaken the Industrious trait.

Some Rules:
No discussion of unknown techs. No diplomacy unless you have in-game contact. No exchanging maps unless you have Map Making. No alliances without an in-game alliance. Alliances are considered temporary (just as any other per turn deal) and can be broken after 20 turns without guilt. No trading zero-extra resources back and forth every turn, but pillaging and roading is allowed. Tech resale permission decided as part of each trade, and copyrights must be honored if so decided.

Modifications
Stock rules, but Industrious civs start without Masonry.

Settings
Emperor
Small (80x80)
Pangaea
Normal Climate
Temperate Temperature
5 billion years
Random Barbs

Luxury resources
In MP war weariness is reduced, so we weakened the Republic a bit by having a shortage of luxuries. Just one luxury is available to each player in the beginning, and the 7th and 8th luxuries are remotely placed, or even completely absent.

Strategic resources
They are not abundant, but if a player lacks a resource near his start, he has a couple of alternative choices for obtaining a source. As for the number of strategic resources, they are approximately the same as what the random map generator would produce.

Bonus resources
All six starting locations are reasonably balanced in terms of extra food. Other than that, the map generator's quantity of bonus resources are preserved.

Players
(in order of play)

Sir Ralph: Egypt
Nor Me: Arabs
jshelr: Carthage
Dominae: Chinese
alexman: Babylon
DaveMcW: Iroquois

[Catt]

I had some time this morning and the map is well underway - just about done. I've tried to implement everything fairly and in accord with alexman's description -- hopefully it will make for a fun game.

I don't MP, and haven't tried to set up an MP game before -- just remember, you get what you pay for

What should industrious civs start with instead of Masonry?

Also, someone (alexman?) needs to let me know if I need to do anything regarding civs / MP mode / etc. in the editor. I don't see any toggles (other than restricting the playable civs which shouldn't be necessary), and I assume that making changes only to the map will allow the first player to launch the game as a PBEM, with each subsequent player selecting his civ and passing it on? Finally, I used PTW 1.21f to create the bix -- I understand that the bix will work just fine when launched and played under 1.14f.

Should be able to finish the set-up later today or tonight (tomorrow at latest). I'll try launching it myself as a 6-way PBEM (with me as all 6 civs) just to run through the first few turns and make sure something weird doesn't pop up.

Catt

[Harovan]

Industrious civs start with 1 tech only.

It would be nice, if you would set up the game after finishing the scenario. You can set up the civs there. Make sure you set an admin password (and remember it!), this way it's impossible to load up the wrong file. You should deliver a 4000BC savegame to the first player (me, as it looks).

My email is sirralph at gmx dot com

[Catt]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
Industrious civs start with 1 tech only.

It would be nice, if you would set up the game after finishing the scenario. You can set up the civs there. Make sure you set an admin password (and remember it!), this way it's impossible to load up the wrong file. You should deliver a 4000BC savegame to the first player (me, as it looks).

My email is sirralph at gmx dot com

Any chance of roping someone in to start it that plays with 1.14f. I've upgraded and don't want to reinstall and short-patch (or set up the dual boot you discovered)? If everyone has 1.21f, I'm happy to do it, but I thought NorMe might be on 1.14f?

Catt

[DaveMcW]

Originally posted by alexman

Some Rules:
No research partnerships, but fair trades.

Can you clarify that? I assume this means you can't tell anyone what tech you are researching until you finish it. And what is the definition of a fair trade?

[Nor Me]

Originally posted by alexman
No long-term alliances. No research partnerships, but fair trades.

I've not seen a discussion of either of these!

We should at least have the right to play the game to win.

[alexman]

Catt, no problem, we will get someone else to make the 4000 B.C. save with 1.14f. Thanks again for making the map for us!

Dave and Nor Me, the no long-term alliances, no research partnerships was proposed by Sir Ralph in the PBEM 4 thread, because that game turned into a non-aggression game of cooperation against the evil Shaka.

It's not as restricting as it perhaps shounds. It basically means that you can't make an agreement with another player to share all techs without keeping track, or to never attack each other (effectively merging your empires into one nation). I don't think it was intended to mean that you can't plan your research, although not being allowed to disclose your current research is certainly an interesting idea.

[alexman]

Oh yeah, I picked Babylon, so that means all the civs are set.

Sir Ralph, since you're going first, and if nobody objects, I propose you make the 4000 save from the BIX file yourself, if you cover the mini-map area in the MP setup screen. We'll trust you. Just delete the BIX file when you're done, so you don't play an SP game on it by accident!

[Catt]

I played through pop growth to confirm that the difficulty level was emperor and there were no other flukes; I also set the playable civs to the 6 civs in the game. I think I'm done. It will be up to Sir Ralph to launch the game and input the player names, etc. unless you've another approach. If someone confirms that 1.21f is a no-no and you therefore don't want me to start it, I'll send the bix along to SR.

Oh, and I'll check this thread occasionally to see how it progresses

Catt

[Harovan]

1.21f is a no-no for Nor Me. Thanks Atarigreed for not being able to localize a simple patch for so many months.

You can send the bix to me, I will cover the minimap and delete the file after it.

[Dominae]

Some questions/comments:

1. No long-term tech deals: I suggest we implement this by 1) requiring that you can only propose a tech in trade if you currently possess it, and 2) barring any out-of-game tech planning. IMO it is too easy for two players to agree to a long-lasting alliance, and split up the tech tree between them. The goal here is, as far as possible, only use the in-game mechanics (i.e. the diplomacy screen) for tech-trading.

2. Fair trades: I see no way to enforce this without restricting our options. What if you want to gift a tech in order to avoid being attacked? If my suggestion in (1) above is adopted, I do not think we need to also require that tech trades equal out in point cost.

3. No long-term alliances: How is this going to work? If war breaks out in (say) a 2v2, does each side have to change allies every 20 turns!? Diplomacy is what makes PBEM fun for me...I want more fighting than the last game too, but also I want to avoid making this game a pure slug-fest.


Dominae

[Harovan]

I set up the game and played my first turn. Before I send it to Nor Me, we should entirely clarify the ruleset.

[Catt]

Bix sent to Sir Ralph at the address above. SR - I didn't tie the specific civs to specific play order -- you will need to do so when you set up the game as the admin.

Have fun!

Catt

[Nor Me]

Even if we agree not to say so explicitly, we could still end up with unspoken alliances or even research partnerships. Trying to outlaw these is going to seem artificial. It's just often the most sensible way to play.

IMO it is too easy for two players to agree to a long-lasting alliance, and split up the tech tree between them.

You're right but it's easier for three in science. Hopefully a 6 player game will not see any of this at least until players start getting eliminated.

but fair trades

Now this I really object to. I need the right to give away tech etc.


4 player games just become 2 vs 2 alliances. They'd normally only be broken if 1 player thought he could win against the other 3. It is possible to form a secret alliance with someone on the opposite side though obviously I've never had the opportunity to try that in civ.

[Nor Me]

Did I not mention that a problem could be people having the same alliances in different games or giving up in favour of someone else. This is why it should be at least polite to play to win and not to be eliminated etc. Not that that could be enforced.

DaveMcW thinks we ought to play with 1.21f. Obviously this is possible.

[Harovan]

I brought up the issues, let me explain how I meant it:

Alliances:

Alliances shall be visible in the diplo screen. They need an embassy. You can not make an alliance against a civ, if you aren't at war with it. Like in the game, alliances are limited to 2 civs.

You can say: Dear X, I'm attacked by the evil Y, will you help me?

You can not say: Dear X, let's be friends for the whole game, never attack each other and withdraw all forces from the common border.

You can also not say: I will attack Z in about 50 turns, when I have Cavalry, If you want to join me, prepare now for it.

Tech trading:

Tech trading shall be as close as possible to the trading with the AI.

It is not allowed to coordinate the tech research ("research treaty"). It is not allowed to "anounce" an advance, like "I will have Theology in 2 turns", or "I'm researching Polytheism, you should go for another tech".

Tech trades shall be done in 1 step. Like in trades with the AI, differences don't create a debt. If you gave somebody The Wheel for Pottery, it's been your choice and you can not later demand Literature for Mathematics and say "you still owe me 2 points from the previous deal".

It is not allowed to say "I gift you Feudalism now if you gift me Engineering in 5 turns". In this case, both have to wait 5 turns and trade directly. It is, however, allowed to help somebody out by gifting a tech or two. But this creates no debt or another kind of dependence, and it is not allowed later to say "You owe me this or that, because I helped you".

Research treaties are not allowed, you can not agree with a partner to gift him all techs you research, if he gifts you all his researched techs.

No tech whoring:

Just an idea, to be discussed: You have only the right to trade a tech, if you researched it. If you bought a tech, you can not sell it to others. It is, however, allowed to transfer the monopoly over a tech. For instance, A has Polytheism and wants The Republic from B. B answers, that is not a fair trade, I would, however, agree, if you give me the trade license for Polytheism and haven't traded it to nobody else yet and could trade it to at least 2 other civs. If A agrees, the deal is perfect, and from now on A has lost the right to trade both techs, while B can trade both.

[Nor Me]

You can not say: Dear X, let's be friends for the whole game, never attack each other and withdraw all forces from the common border.

As I pointed out above, the chief problem with this is that saying this is almost redundant. If you do say it, it doesn't guarantee that you aren't preparing to attack them and X will no doubt realize this.
Actions are far more important. If undefended cities on your border are given plenty ofopportunity to become defended, if you only trade tech with each other and if there's an obvious dangerous common rival, what needs to be said?

Tech trading:

Your entire list of proposals doesn't stop two players from trading exclusively with each other. Sensible things like researching from techs you've recently researched can greatly weaken your restriction on communication of future research. It would obviously go against the spirit of this for two players to sell techs to each other for 15 gold but what about half-price?


Humans just don't behave like the AI so trying to make deals between them like SP is not going to work.

I can understand the original restrictions on needing Communication and Map-making but I'd imagine that we can get the game to work as it is better than others seem to think.

[Nor Me]

I forgot part of what I was trying to say again.

No tech whoring:

This kind of thing might be a sensible in game agreement but I don't think you can enforce it. Firstly, if the idea is that if A trades a tech to B then B cannot trade it to C, what if A is actually at war with B and C?
Also this will probably encourage players to deliberately research the same tech as others and so might encourage research partnerships.

[Harovan]

Ok, let's drop it then.

[DaveMcW]

I think if we allow "tech whoring" and prohibit "research planning" it will result in a competitive tech market. Nor Me's point about the 2-player research team is valid, so we should agree on some kind of limit to that.

What about non-aggression pacts, or "renegotiating peace." Can players promise not to attack each other for 20 turns? Can they complain if they get backstabbed?

[Dominae]

My vote can be summarized with one simple rule:

Dominae's Rule (cool name?): No communication between players other than with the tools provided by the game.

This means no PMs, emails, chats, etc. If you want to ally with another player, you have to put it on the trade table in-game. If you want to trade a tech, you have to put it on the table in-game.

Crafty players may find some code so that they can communicate with each other in-game, and so more power to them. I say we just avoid the hassle and say that this is not allowed (of course, there would be the problem of figuring out the code just by looking at it, since you would not have any outside "crib sheet").

I know this eliminates the roleplay element of the game, to my chagrin (I loved being Shaka...). But the way people are talking about this one it looks like we all want it to be strategy-first, so the rule against chit-chat should not be a major impediment to fun.

To partially solve this last problem, we could agree that if we want to communicate anything, we have to do so publicly in this thread.

How about it?


Dominae

[Harovan]

Last try:

1. I don't want, nor do I need to enforce anyone to obey the rules. Who needs to be enforced, should leave this game. I can't enforce anyone not to use the load bug or others, too. Who wants to cheat, will cheat. And the rules I proposed actually even need 2 players with cheating energy at the same time.

2.

This kind of thing might be a sensible in game agreement but I don't think you can enforce it. Firstly, if the idea is that if A trades a tech to B then B cannot trade it to C, what if A is actually at war with B and C?

I don't see your point. If A is at war with both B and C, he obviously couldn't trade it to B either. And if the war started after the trade, to C has to research the advance himself.

[alexman]

I actually like Dominae's proposal. It's Sir Ralph's initial idea taken to the extreme.

Besides emphasizing in-game skills as opposed to diplomacy, a game like that would also go faster, as we don't have to negotiate and coordinate our actions with other players. I say let's try it.

[Nor Me]

What exactly were the original problems we're trying to solve here?

[DaveMcW]

You can send brief messages by renaming units every turn, but I think that goes agains the spirit of non-communication.

We still need some standards for communication in the thread to prevent it from turning into a 3 on 3.

[Dominae]

Nor Me, we're trying to avoid a 3v3 standstill/faceoff. If we do not set up restrictions for communication, players will naturally attempt to draw on the immense of power of alliances.

DaveMcW, I agree that renaming units would be abuse, so it should not be allowed (crafty idea, though). The idea of restricting communication to this thread is that anything that could be construed as against the spirit of our theme will be publicly viewable to all players. If you still think this could be a problem, I'm ok with barring comm in this thread, too.

Let's take votes (for my proposal):

Dominae: yea
alexman: yea
DaveMcW: ?
Nor Me: ?
Sir Ralph: ?
jshelr: ?


Dominae

[DaveMcW]

Originally posted by Nor Me
What exactly were the original problems we're trying to solve here?

The researchers vs. warmongers problem. If a small group of researchers gets an age ahead, they can kick the butts of everyone who didn't research, thus eliminating half the competition.

So the only logical ways to play are a peaceful 6-player research team or a 3 on 3 warmonger vs. researcher battle.

We are trying to break up the research team by making it impossible for them to communicate.

[jshelr]

Thanks for waking me up that we switched threads Alexman.

After reading this over, I like my idea from the other thread more than ever. I'll paste it in here. I believe it is a very good idea to keep the barbarian stage barbaric.

[Nor Me]

I'm still not sure it will work.

With communication and in a 3 way alliance, I'd be worried about the other 2 players ganging up on me. That's harder to arrange without communication.

A 2-player research agreement is just as easy without communication. It's just as easy to determine if the other player has broken it. It would not really be that hard to set one up.
A 2-player alliance might actually be better without communication because you know your ally is not planning to backstab you with help from another player.

Yes, I'd play with it. It'll make for an interesting game but I don't know if it's going to solve the problem.

[Harovan]

So will we be allowed to whore around techs we didn't research ourselves?