Balanced Pangaea PBEM - Page 2

jshelr · May 18, 2003, 19:17

Last game was not a great experience. Communication outside the game dominated ability to play the game. Sir covered this ground well. I loved Dom's idea -- it makes the game civ. I also like this addition:

The object of this game is to permit and encourage more combat. To that end, I would recommend serious restrictions on tech trading. Last game, there was little time to build up a decent stack in the ancient era because tech trading had us in the middle ages so quickly. Moreover, the Zulu were punished for fighting to some extent in that aggression makes a civ less attractive as a tech trading partner. What do you think of no tech trading unless both civs have researched education? It's a little artificial, but it will make for much more time in the era that is probably going to be the most fun.

Dominae · May 18, 2003, 19:25

Tech whoring, as in SP, is a downside of tech trading. I say leave it in.

jshelr, I'm afraid that no tech trading until Education would change the game too much (for me). The problem with Strat 4 is that all of us were peaceful for a long time, so we were actually one big tech research team. With six civs and the restrictions on communication, I think tech will progress slowly enough.

Dominae

Nor Me · May 18, 2003, 19:26

Personally, I think secret communication should encourage warmongering because it is easier to organise military alliances. Dominae might have been more successful if he hadn't fought alone.

Every man for himself would make us more militaristic but probably not more aggressive.

I'd imagine no tech-whoring would discourage warmongers because they would fall behind in tech faster.

Dominae · May 18, 2003, 19:29

Double-post.

Dominae · May 18, 2003, 19:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Nor Me
Dominae might have been more successful if he hadn't fought alone.

There was a lot more to the situation than is being described here. Let's just say that fear of not being in the "researchers" camp made finding allies very difficult for Shaka. This was not unreasonable on anyone's part, as defense is so strong.

Dominae

Nor Me · May 18, 2003, 19:32

Quote:

Originally posted by DaveMcW
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.

Why is this a problem. It's a result isn't it? The winners still win by war in the end.

Dominae · May 18, 2003, 19:36

Quote:

Originally posted by Nor Me
Why is this a problem. It's a result isn't it? The winners still win by war in the end.

It's a problem, because the staring contest leading up to Infantry/Artillery (maybe Tanks) is pretty boring.

Dominae

DaveMcW · May 18, 2003, 19:36

The problem is that everyone realizes it, and tries to organize mega-alliances to be sure they are on the winning side.

Edit: Dominae beat me to it.

The two counter-strategies, 3 on 3 and world peace, seem to be unacceptable.

Personally I have no problem with world peace, especially if we plan for it by using accelerated production.

Nor Me · May 18, 2003, 19:49

What exactly is wrong with 3 on 3 if it ends with war.

I can understand why we want to stop research agreements but why planned military alliances?

Why:

Quote:

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.

I would have thought that even non-agression pacts would make war more likely.

I just think that no communication or Sir Ralph's suggestions would discourage warfare so much that they might help the researchers.

Nor Me · May 18, 2003, 20:05

So this is my proposal: No discussion of specific techs outside of the civ diplomacy screen. No discussion about when techs are going to be discovered.

Tech whoring, even exclusive research treaties allowed so long as they don't break the above rules. You'd still be allowed to discuss knights before chivalry was diacovered but not how or when you'd have chivalry to get them.

What would the effect of just that be?

Harovan · May 19, 2003, 03:37

I'm still in favor of a general No-whore rule. I would feel very uncomfortable, if somebody used me like an AI in SP, bought a tech I invested 15 or more turns in, and then whores it to all civs I'm currently negotiating with by offering dumping prices. I would be greatly annoyed, if he ended with twice the money he gave me and I remain with the finger in my arse. I almost entirely dropped SP, because this stuff is a game breaker for me, and I would be very disappointed, if it took over in MP too.

Another question is: If we're not entirely satisfied with a deal, how do we say our counterpart, what we'd need to complete the deal? This can't be done in the diplo screen. Example: I offer somebody Iron Working, and he offers me Alphabet in return. I'm not happy with that deal, but would be, if he added 15 gold. How do I tell him, that I'd like to see these 15 gold? This can be done easily in SP by playing with the diplo screen, but without explaining PMs or emails it can take long to negotiate by just accepting/declining offers.

DaveMcW · May 19, 2003, 09:50

If you're uncomfortable with tech reselling, don't be the first to discover anything.

You could also sell techs to everyone on the same turn, giving them a small discount to make sure they buy from you.

I think it is a great way to prevent a research team from running ahead of everyone.

Harovan · May 19, 2003, 10:55

Quote:

Originally posted by DaveMcW
If you're uncomfortable with tech reselling, don't be the first to discover anything.

You could also sell techs to everyone on the same turn, giving them a small discount to make sure they buy from you.

You can't do this. According to Dominaes rules, you can not tell anyone what you want. You can offer a tech and accept the counter-offer or reject it.

This mechanism is a competition killer. Just play like against the AI. Stockpile money, buy and resell. Somebody will be dumb enough to research.

Quote:

I think it is a great way to prevent a research team from running ahead of everyone.

I thought there wouldn't be research teams?

alexman · May 19, 2003, 11:23

I think we are getting confused here, because there are two proposals.

1) Follow in-game mechanics for everything. You're allowed to communicate with other players only to request that they put a specific quantity on the trading table (if they have it, or want to do so). For example, Alphabet + 15g, and you would then be able to offer Iron Working in-game, in SR's example.

2) No discussion of specific techs outside of the civ diplomacy screen. No discussion about when techs are going to be discovered. No incomplete trades for future (even unspecified) goods. All other private communication between players is allowed.

For both proposals, we have the option of disallowing tech whoring.

Do I have this right? All these options sound good to me, by the way, but I think my favorite is 1), with whoring allowed, to keep as close as possible to SP. My second favorite is 2), with whoring banned to slow down the tech rate.

Let's vote so we can get started!

Harovan · May 19, 2003, 11:35

It's not the tech pace I want to lower with no-whoring. With active trade, it will remain almost the same. It's the fact, that research shall be worth something. I really really hate in SP, that I can win by space race not having researched a single tech myself. That's a big fun killer for me.

Dominae · May 19, 2003, 12:58

Sir Ralph has convinced me concerning tech whoring.

My (revised) vote:

1. No communication outside of the game, even in the the turn thread.

2. No tech whoring (i.e. if you acquire a tech through trade, you cannot trade it to someone else, unless the seller gives you permission).

Number 1 includes renaming units to pass messages (and cities, for that matter). No communication will make for a very different game, but I think it will work for us, not against us. I think Nor Me is wrong in guessing that it will be a deterrent to war.

Dominae

alexman · May 19, 2003, 13:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Dominae
...you cannot trade it to someone else, unless the seller gives you permission.

And how exactly will you manage to get that permission, in-game?

That's two votes for in-game diplomacy (Dominae, alexman), two for out-of-game diplomacy (Nor Me, DaveMcW).

Jshelr, Sir Ralph?

Two votes for tech whoring (DaveMcW, Nor Me), two votes for no whoring (Sir Ralph, Dominae). I'll go with the majority on this one.

Jshelr?

jshelr · May 19, 2003, 13:45

Good discussion on everyone's part.

There was nothing wrong with cooperation in the other games under the rules used. But I agree that we've made progress here on a game design that will be more fun.

Let me put on my professional hat. Tech whoring is equivalent to allowing unlimited copying for resale of copywritten material. It will inhibit the market. Sir's proposal will produce an efficient market since the civ that spends the resources to research can recoup through sale.

I vote with Sir on whoring since he feels the strongest on the subject. I think this vote will result in a much faster tech speed, however.

I vote with Dom on method (1) above. Civ alliances are too powerful and reduce the fun. I approve of using them in already started games, for those rules demand alliances. Still, inhibiting communication will reduce alliances effectiveness and that is good.

I believe the votes I've cast will let skills shine through and the better players win. But, I will vote that way anyway.

Dominae · May 19, 2003, 13:53

Quote:

Originally posted by alexman
And how exactly will you manage to get that permission, in-game?

By renaming your units, of course! Seriously, I guess it would be impossible. That's fine with me.

jshelr, if tech whoring is barred, tech would go slower, not faster, right?

Dominae

Harovan · May 19, 2003, 14:05

- In-game diplomacy, when it comes to treaties.
- No tech trading unless it's own research or the researcher gave permission.
- Tech cost negotiations per email are allowed, but only after the techs being discussed are researched.
- Bullying and no-treaty diplomacy per email (E.g. You withdraw that settler or else...!) should be allowed and would increase the fun.

alexman · May 19, 2003, 14:40

OK, at least we settled the tech-whoring issue. Nor Me, Dave, is that OK with you guys?

I agree that bullying should be possible, as it is possible in SP.

Perhaps we can come up with a list of things we can communicate by e-mail, so we all understand what's allowed.

For example:

Trade negotiations, including demand of tribute.
Border negotiations.
Unit location demands.
After being in an alliance, attack coordination.
Permission to trade a traded tech.
Anything else?

Dominae · May 19, 2003, 14:51

I'm not against a list of rules for communication, I just think that "no comm" would be simpler and more interesting. Basically what we would have is a SP game with really good AIs. Does the stunted diplomacy really bother you guys that much?

Dominae

alexman · May 19, 2003, 15:01

But will it really be like SP? In SP, you can tell the AI to get out, and you have knowledge of what they will accept in a trade. You can't do those things without some sort of communication.

So if we are going to allow some sort of communication, why not allow enough communication to make it more fun, or at least more fun for the bullies among us?

jshelr · May 19, 2003, 16:04

jshelr, if tech whoring is barred, tech would go slower, not faster, right?

It is really the research rate that governs tech speed. Wtih whoring permitted, the average research rate may go down, slowing things considerably. the no tech whoring rule was part of the reason that research went so quickly last game.

i think barring whoring makes the tech market efficient and that it will go faster. people will want to trade as much as possible. whoring interferes with trading and also with tech production. with whoring permitted, researchers will think twice about trading and try to get everyone's bid before trading at all. Others will free ride as Sir points out. Why pay full price when the tech will be available on the whore market at less than half price soon? The only way to get everyone researching full out is to make sale easy and profitable.

Nor Me · May 19, 2003, 16:23

If we're having no communication, no tech whoring would make negotiations much harder. Not only can I not tell another civ that I want currency, I don't know which 1 civ I have to trade for currency with. I definately suggest we don't play with both.

I still don't think that research treaties or alliances can be prevented by forbidding communication.

The reason I suggested applying communication only to tech was because the only answer to my question of what the original problems were was that we were trying to avoid a situation where the advantage lay with a group of players researching ahead peacefully to get a military advantage.

By some strange coincidence, this kind of reasoning came from Dominae,DaveMcW and jshelr.

Sir Ralph, what exactly are you trying to achieve here?

Quote:

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
It's not the tech pace I want to lower with no-whoring. With active trade, it will remain almost the same. It's the fact, that research shall be worth something. I really really hate in SP, that I can win by space race not having researched a single tech myself. That's a big fun killer for me.

From many of the posts I've read, it appears that research helped in the last game. So why is no-tech-whoring being suggested to encourage research?

jshelr · May 19, 2003, 16:26

I agree with Dom on "no comm" but can easily live with a short list. expanding communications a little looks like a slippery slope problem and Dom's probably right that simple is best. i also have decided that I'm honoured that he apparently thinks i would be a really good ai.

jshelr · May 19, 2003, 16:36

From many of the posts I've read, it appears that research helped in the last game. So why is no-tech-whoring being suggested to encourage research?

We used three ideas: first, you could buy tech on credit, paying later from the points scale in the editor. this makes your tech instantly marketable and you don't have to worry that others will get your customer. second, we agreed not to trade tech we did not research, third we planned ahead and set a joint schedule. This virtually created the max tech rate possible. Each tech you researched got you two in trade and the ability to sell the tech again, if possible. This is a three-civ job. So, it takes a lot of communication and arbitrarily excludes others, IMO.

Nor Me · May 19, 2003, 16:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Dominae
No communication will make for a very different game, but I think it will work for us, not against us. I think Nor Me is wrong in guessing that it will be a deterrent to war.

My theory is that open alliances are still possible but secret alliances are not. I don't think that's going to help war. They're might be more war early on but late on I'd imagine we'll all have sufficient defence and it will be reduced to the sit there and research staring contest you are trying to avoid.
The simplest result of one player attacking late on is for the others to gang up on them and attack them later. I think no communication will encourage this but diplomacy could result in a different outcome like one of the other players joining them.

Nor Me · May 19, 2003, 16:40

As I said before I'll play with no communications (if tech whoring is allowed; I think both would be unpleasant). I just don't think it will acheive what it was suggested for.

No tech whoring will achieve what it was suggested for but I was under the impression that several players wanted the opposite.

jshelr · May 19, 2003, 16:40

"If we're having no communication, no tech whoring would make negotiations much harder. Not only can I not tell another civ that I want currency, I don't know which 1 civ I have to trade for currency with. I definately suggest we don't play with both."

The civ that has currency to sell -- the one who researched it -- will try to get you to buy it. It should not be necessary to ask around. I would not object, however, to advertising on the thread, open to all.

I can go with whatever is decided. This was an interesting discussion.