RAH rules VI: No Spamming! - Page 3

Panag · October 31, 2003, 17:36

Quote:

Originally posted by Rasputin
i think it is a stupid part in the programming that allows that situation to occur, if they refuse to meet with you, you should still be able to break nay treaty. another good thing with civ3 is that those type of deals only last 20 turns not all game. so if they do refuse to speak you only have to wait that max turns, but i guess even that may be too long.

The solution of course is no alliances, which is how i usually play may hinder movement in civ2 but as you say at least protects your territory.

hi ,

still civ II has a cheat , easy programming and some wonders that work wonders on the diplo level , ....

but indeed the best way to play on safe mode is no treaty

have a nice day

Ljube · November 1, 2003, 10:48

Quote:

Originally posted by Rasputin
i think it is a stupid part in the programming that allows that situation to occur, if they refuse to meet with you, you should still be able to break nay treaty.

SMAC has a nice feature for this. You can right click the one you want to cancel the alliance with/declare war to and simply select the appropriate option from the menu.

Unfortunately, SMAC MP is bug infested otherwise.

rah · November 18, 2003, 17:38

Someone asked about this thread, so it's time to shamelessly bump it.

atawa · December 28, 2003, 10:19

I agree, it doesnt show on the 30 days list anymore.

rah · January 10, 2004, 16:56

Another shameless bump.

rah · January 24, 2004, 15:52

Well someone was looking for this thread, so it's time for another shameless bump.

Deity Dude · February 8, 2004, 00:51

ok here's my contribution to RAH's rules:

Situation

You are disconnected from the game and come back. But vy the time you get back the AI has taken your turn and messed everything up for you. So the host (RAH) agrees to pull up an autosave. But the autosave is earlier then when u left.

Question:

Do all players have to attempt to make the same moves that they made prior to the disconnection or can they move as they see fit?

In our game we tried to make the same moves, which makes sense to me, but RAH said to post it.

rah · February 8, 2004, 17:00

Yes you should try to do the same thing. BUT, in the situation that you mentioned, I did not. It wasn't intentional, but I had a unit that was fortified and originally I moved him a few squares. When we restarted I forgot to move him since he was fortified and never came up in the rotation. I would hate to be considered a cheater because I had a few beers.

I say moved must be duplicated to the best of your ability.
What do the rest of you think.

Keep in mind, that I usually have other saves than the autos and this is a rare occurance.

Ljube · February 10, 2004, 04:02

RAH is a cheater???!!!

Rasputin · February 10, 2004, 05:50

sacriledge...... !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

CHEATER CHEATER !!!!

rah · February 10, 2004, 09:19

Silly boys, that's why I requested that it be "to the best of your ability". Currently there is no standard.

-Jrabbit · February 10, 2004, 09:43

If I am required to remember exactly what I did 5 minutes ago,

I'm in deep doodoo.

rah · February 10, 2004, 10:51

I take it that means, that you will support "duplicate to the best of your abilities" notion?

-Jrabbit · February 10, 2004, 11:16

Absolutely.

rah · February 10, 2004, 11:29

Ya know, I see ljcvetko and Rasputin chiming in with smart ass posts and I wonder. The least they could have done was provide their opinion on the rule being discussed. If not, they might be accused of simple spamming. And we know how we deal with those types.

Ljube · February 10, 2004, 11:34

Nobody accused me of spamming before. I am offended.

And related to the rule, I think one should be allowed not to repeat the moves exactly. Even "duplicate to the best of your abilities" is somewhat questionable.

I think it should be duplicated if important and seen by others. Otherwise, play as you wish.

rah · February 10, 2004, 11:39

Well that's the point. My fortified warrior not being moved had no impact. All my other moves I duplicated. If you forget a move and an opponent reminds you, because it has some impact to him, then you must reload and make the move. But as pointed out, everyone is not perfect, and as long as the spirit of the rule is to duplicate, I have no problem with it.

And thanks for your opinion.

Deity Dude · February 10, 2004, 13:24

Actually it came up during our game, not because I was worried about RAH or others. In the game, I was considering changing one of my moves but wanted to know if it was legal. I figured I knew what the answer would be before I asked it. I just wanted it agreed on by all the players before we proceeded.

rah · February 10, 2004, 14:44

Of course that leaves the more tricky question of, if there was an attack that occured, would you keep reloading until the same resolution occured?

ColdWizard · February 11, 2004, 17:50

Seems to me that reloading for specific resolutions for combat would be a major pain in the ass, especially if it was an unlikely outcome.

But I thought y'all stopped and waited without advancing when somebody dropped, lengthy drop this time or did no one notice?

Deity Dude · February 11, 2004, 20:29

Quote:

Originally posted by rah
Of course that leaves the more tricky question of, if there was an attack that occured, would you keep reloading until the same resolution occured?

Under the "best of ability" clause, I would say repest the attack as it happened to the best of your ability. If it turns out different, it was still attempted to be the same to the best of your ability. same goes with huts.

Ljube · February 15, 2004, 23:18

Quote:

Originally posted by ColdWizard
2b. Allowed:

...diploguiding...

Why do you allow diploguiding?

deity · February 16, 2004, 06:03

Quote:

Originally posted by ljcvetko

Why do you allow diploguiding?

Because...

Ming · February 16, 2004, 08:45

Quote:

Originally posted by ljcvetko
Why do you allow diploguiding?

I think it's because most of the original players in the group had no problem with it. It was always considered part of the game... and nobody raised hell when it was originally discussed.

Ljube · February 16, 2004, 08:57

Well, diploguiding renders forts useless for defensive purpose.
And diploguiding negates zone of control.

Isn't this enough to at least start a discussion about it?

-Jrabbit · February 16, 2004, 10:25

My 2 cents --

What's the big deal? I think the ZOC abilities of dips/spies is in total alignment with their intended use.

The real question should be:
Should walls and fortresses make a city impenetrable by diplomats and spies?
The answer should be obvious.

With 1x movement, if you can't foresee and forestall violation of your ZOC from a fortress, I can't muster much sympathy.

rah · February 16, 2004, 12:14

Yes, diploguiding has been around so long that people take it for granted. It makes diplos be even more useful as part of your attack force. Since it adds to strategic thinking, I thinks it's good for the game. Very few people have ever voiced an opinion against it.

Deity Dude · February 16, 2004, 12:56

I always considered diploguiding as an intentional feature of diplomats and not an unintended exploit.

rah · February 16, 2004, 13:51

Yeah, that's kinda how we saw it too.

deity · February 17, 2004, 08:14

Me too