Can we have a discussion and vote on using CivAssist and/or any other external programs?

There is some information that is available in CA2 that is not available in the game. I realize that I was one of the major supporters of using it in the first MTDG, but that was my first MP game in [c3c]. I didn't know the differences between SP & MP games. We actually had to create test games to see what happened in different situations in Team KISS. Now that I have MTDG, ISDG, and a few PBEM games under my belt, I know that there is some spoiler information available in CA2.

The ISDG doesn't allow use of external saved-game readers. And I don't think that this game should either

I think the MTDG is such that, since it goes turn-by-turn, micromanaging is sort of easy, almost second nature. You have all the time you want to worry about playing just that 1 turn, so yeah, I see your point about banning CA2 (and others).

I don't mind if you guys want to ban it. I think if we poll this, it should be done by everyone, not just the teams. It's more a personal issue, I think.

I know ainwood intended it to be spoiler-free - what spoiler information is there?

While I'm not eager to use it because it does give those who do not a disadvantage IMO.

Is there anyway to really police this?

yes the same way we police replaying a save. Just don't do it if it's banned. There's no way to find out if someone is using it.

I would like to use CAII. It isn't necessarily a MM issue, but rather an easy way to compile information for reporting to the team in a clean manner.

For example, a screenshot of a table from CAII takes up a lot less space and is much easier to understand than a screenshot of the Domestic Advisor screen.

One of the reasons I suggested not using CAII is it gives more detailed information about your opponents than the foreign advisor screen which simply tells you what your opponent does not have. By eliminating it there would be more left to the imagination in diplomacy and add another interesting element to the game.

As Ginger Ale said it's only one turn that mm'ing needs to be done.

Is the difference simply that you can't see the opponents half of the trade screen in multiplayer, so you have no legitemate way to count opponents techs, resources available, or cities you haven't seen. This is available in single player, so isn't regarded as spoiler info.

Is the difference simply that you can't see the opponents half of the trade screen in multiplayer, so you have no legitemate way to count opponents techs, resources available, or cities you haven't seen. This is available in single player, so isn't regarded as spoiler info.
It is different in pbem. You can not see techs, resources, cities, gold. I think that adds a dimension to human vs. human diplo that could make things that much more interesting.

@RFHolloway ... yes that is exactly the reason.

I tend to agree with Whomp.

However, if it is allowed, then perhaps ensure that it is available to ALL teams ... my system and slow dialup prohibits its use.

It is different in pbem. You can not see techs, resources, cities, gold

Forgive my ignorance - CAII would not work on my old computer so I am not very familiar with it, but does CAII show this information in a multiplayer game? If it does show gold or number of cities, then I agree that is spoiler information and should be banned. For techs - well, that depends on exactly what it shows, since it is certainly possible to glean more information about rivals' techs legitimately than is shown by the Foreign Advisor.

I'm not really sure I prefer to allow CAII anyway, since there are other reasons to consider banning it, but is there really spoiler information? If yes, then I think the decision is a no-brainer; if no, then let's drop the spoiler argument and talk about other reasons to ban or to allow.

Cham the foreign advisor screen on pbems simply show what techs/lux/resources your opponent does not have. IE what's available to export (no imports). No gold is displayed and no cities are shown.

The only way to get any information on opponents tech situation is seeing the price of a researched tech come down in price (through turns to completion).

This is why the ISDG banned it for the finals.

Can't the price of a researched tech be determined by closely monitoring how long it takes to research a tech compared to how many beakers you are generating?

Can't the price of a researched tech be determined by closely monitoring how long it takes to research a tech compared to how many beakers you are generating?
It could but that would require a little team effort. ;)

Regarding the lowering of tech cost, yes that is evident in the Science Screen ... however you cannot be sure which of the rivals have it. If the CAII utility shows this information, then surely it puts other teams at a disadvantage.

It could but that would require a little team effort.

Then it's not spoiler info. ;)

Regarding the lowering of tech cost, yes that is evident in the Science Screen ... however you cannot be sure which of the rivals have it. If the CAII utility shows this information, then surely it puts other teams at a disadvantage.

As I recall, CAII only shows this information in single-player mode. I may be mistaken but it doesn't show it in multi-player.

Also, this can be determined by monitoring score increases. When a team's score increases substantially on the same turn that the tech cost drops, it can be assumed that they are the team that learned the tech.

G(raham)B(uffet)--I guess spoiler is the wrong word. However, it wouldn't give you information on techs you aren't researching which CAII would along with the resources and lux info. The resource one is big imo. Take an example...if that mountain MIA negotiated had been in our hands we would've controlled all the saltpeter. You would not know this without CAII

Plus you democracies teams have to put your players to work in needless jobs to keep their interest up. :D

Cham the foreign advisor screen on pbems simply show what techs/lux/resources your opponent does not have. IE what's available to export (no imports). No gold is displayed and no cities are shown.


I understand what the game/Foreign Advisor shows (I did play a turn or two last game ;)) - my question is what does CAII show that is not shown in game?

X-posted there - I guess I'll fire up CAII on my brand spankin' new computer at home :dance: and load some previous MTDG saves to see what it shows for resources and techs. I agree completely that if CAII has information that the game doesn't, then it shouldn't be used, but I'm still not understanding exactly what information that is.

I understand what the game/Foreign Advisor shows (I did play a turn or two last game ;)) - my question is what does CAII show that is not shown in game?

X-posted there - I guess I'll fire up CAII on my brand spankin' new computer at home :dance: and load some previous MTDG saves to see what it shows for resources and techs. I agree completely that if CAII has information that the game doesn't, then it shouldn't be used, but I'm still not understanding exactly what information that is.Oh I know. Believe me I know. :D
The foreign advisor screen when you dial up an opponent only shows what you are up on that opponent. IE Techs, luxs, resources.

It does not show what they have that you do not know. For instance, it does not show how much gold, gpt, resources and luxs they have nor number of cities.

I think not because if a turn-player can't run it for whatever reason it puts them at a disadvantage, and CAII gives spoiler info.

Plus you democracies teams have to put your players to work in needless jobs to keep their interest up. I didn't think of this and I completly agree.

CAII doesn't show any resources or gold either. It does help find resources in explored territory, and doesn't show anything about non-explored. A good player can determine everying that it shows about techs, by the aforementioned methods of watching scores and the FA screen every turn.

The difference between using it and not using it:

If using it, it is very easy to find out what techs the other team has, but there is no advantage because everyone can use it.

If not using it, it is very difficult to find out what techs the other team has. There is no advantage because everyone can use the close observation techniques to discover the same things.

If you think keeping very detailed and precise records of what appears on the in-game interface from turn to turn is fun, then not using the utility should be your choice. If you find keeping detailed records a tedious and useless exercize except that not doing it puts you at a disadvantage, then choose to use the utility.

I hate detailed record keeping. It's a game and should be played by gamers, not accountants, so I'd vote to allow the utility. :D

If people feel the need to go onto the close observation accountancy mode, I believe it is their loss. Even with CA2, there's quite a bit of accountancy involved if one wishes to go around figuring global tech rates, let alone deeper economical data on any given civ. It's (almost) just a nicer, more efficient GUI compared to the game's menus with respect to this issue.

I'm against, simply because it has been overused last time IMHO, and partly because the vast majority of us live in free countries where losing (absurdly much of) one's time by keeping detailed records is not a sin or crime - and I think they're welcome to do so.

Wasn't this spoiler problem fixed sometime ago?

I remember I noticed it last game. And Ainwood fixed it, if I am not mistaken.

Are you running the latest version?

...The difference between using it and not using it:

If using it, it is very easy to find out what techs the other team has, but there is no advantage because everyone can use it.

If not using it, it is very difficult to find out what techs the other team has. There is no advantage because everyone can use the close observation techniques to discover the same things.

...

I hate detailed record keeping. It's a game and should be played by gamers, not accountants, so I'd vote to allow the utility. :D

Here! Here! :agree:

My sentiments exactly.

I used CivAssist in the first MTDG, and don't recal any "spoiler" information in the latest version. Maybe I missed it?
If I'm wrong, then sure, ban it. That's only fair.

Otherwise, I'm of the opinion it should be allowed.

Keep CAII! if someone can show me an example of spoiler info from CAII, then by all means ban it. but if no one can do so, then i don't see any other reason not to allow CAII to be used as a game utility.

OK my bad. As long as gold, gpt, luxs and resources then we're all good. I'd prefer this information be undisclosed. The tech thing is really minor.

What Daveshack has said has convinced me that it should be used. Provided there aren't any major spoilers. Saves you from having to load up the game to look up information as well.

It also seems that there are members on all teams who are users of this programme so there will be no disadvantage ... therefore let's use it.

If I read things correctly, using CAII is not a problem.

What of MapStat?

(FYI - My PC is older: 500 MHz, 128 MB RAM. CAII and C3C do not run well at the same time. MS Word and C3C don't run together at all. C3C and MapStat do work together quite well. I can use CAII to examine a save; I cannot use it while I play.)

Hmm, it's been more than a year so this is a bit fuzzy, but didn't a new version of MapStat come out around the same time as the last version of CAII, with essentially the same anti-spoiler features?

If this doesn't have a definitive answer from someone else by Friday afternoon, I'll download and check MapStat's info.

Mapstat seems to show no spoiler information. Just make sure everyone has the latest versions of CAII and Mapstat.

The problem with that rule is that we'll have to post updates anytime that Ainwood updates CA2.

I think last game it was updated 2 or 3 times. I don't check daily to see if it's updated.

The problem with that rule is that we'll have to post updates anytime that Ainwood updates CA2.

I think last game it was updated 2 or 3 times. I don't check daily to see if it's updated.

Well there is a high chance that at least 1 CA2 user in the MTDG is subscribed to the CA2 thread, and would be able to inform everyone when there is an update. As it happens, i am subscribed to the CA2 thread, but I wouldn't actually be able to guarantee my laziness wouldn't stop me from informing you all. :lol:

And it surely isn't too hard to get people to download the latest version if they are planning to use it for the MTDG?

sometimes it's too hard for memembers to post. I wouldn't trust myself to go and check any if I'm using the latest version.

if it is allowed then I would prefer that we stick with the version that it is now. That way no one would be in violation of the rule.

But I still think that if you need CA2 to play one turn then you need help.

If it is allowed (as I think it should be), then it is the responsibility of the user to make sure they are using the latest version. Simple.

That's not too much to ask. And if it is, then that player obviously isn't responsible enough to use the utility responsibly.

Please, this is not that difficult!

meh.. could we just vote on it?

No external readers. That's my $0.02. It would enhance diplomacy challenges.

Come on, do we really have to get this complicated?

The less rules we can get by with and still have a good game, the better.

Either let people use their CivAssist2s and Mapstats, since so-called 'spoiler' information is minimal anyway. Or, just ban it all together and call case-closed.

Either way, be quick about it, there are far more important discussions and polls that need to take place.

That's my opinion.

-Elear

But I still think that if you need CA2 to play one turn then you need help.

This is where I stand, but from reading this thread, it seems people are pretty divided. Perhaps we just should have a user-by-user (e.g. non-team) poll to determine this (we can just set up, say, a 3 day poll, to ensure it'll end quick enough).

That seems like a good idea Ginger.

And I stand on the side of there's no need for such programs when you discuss each turn as a team. What is the team for then? To look pretty? :lol:

-Elear

sounds good to me too. a user poll would be a better representation of the populace on this matter.

Agreed ... Let's get this baby up and running

It's not that I need it for MM for a PBEM; I don't want to calculate the corruption of every city by hand (and considering the placement of the FP, several times?). (The technology tab is nice as well, but it's easy to keep track of how much you've researched.)

Why spend hours figuring out something that CA2 will figure out very quickly? It would be silly not to allow it.

:mischief: perhaps those who use it have forgotten how to play without :p

Actually any chance of having the poll open, I'd be interested in seeing who votes for what.

:mischief: perhaps those who use it have forgotten how to play without :p

I only use MapStat, unless I want to plan my cities (rare), going for a culture win (rarer) or want to jump my palace (rarest). :p

I just don't see the point of being adverse to these programs. :confused: They will not win the game for you. Spoiler information is not minimal, it's non-existant. All it does is to save you time, RL time, and that is a commodity I value above any other. The programs can never substitute any team discussion, they just produce raw data, so I just don't see that argument. I would be very annoyed if these programs were banned just because some people think they are not needed, when in fact the issue is something very different.

I don't understand this discussion.

If you don't want to use CivAssist or MapStat for some reason, that's fine. Nobody is forcing you to use it. But why deny the option to others who do like to use it?

Whatever...I guess we can poll it, as some of you have supported, but we could just save time and allow it (provided its the latest version) - any compelling reasons to poll it, as we've already had the previous 2 posts in strong support of just allowing it outright?

Why don't we vote on whether or not to poll it :crazyeye:?

I said earlier I'm fine with the programs. I use mapstat and it can't be used on pbems so I wasn't aware civassistII didn't give info.

I can pretty much guarantee it would be unanimous to use them if we voted.

There's actually a lot of opposition Whomp.

But as I said, just get it moving along and I am happy.

I was one of the ones wanting it banned, but I could live with it too. So I see no reason to poll it. Unless more people (at least 5) show up stating that they don't want it allowed. I was just concerned about stuff that's available in it that's not available in game (I thought that I've seen spoiler stuff in there before). But if everyone is satisified with it, then I'm ok too. At least everyone has the same amount of information available, and it wouldn't benefit one team over the other.

So I say just allow it and not poll it.

Let's have a poll on whether we should have a poll. :joke:

Let's use these things so we can have a more enjoyable game.

Lets take things a step further and poll whether we should poll whether we should poll allowing CAII. :crazyeye:

The use or not-use of ca2 will hardly have an impact on the outcome of this game. I'm looking fwd to the final ruleset (we will accept) and to get going.
Kudos to everyone who puts work into this, but please don't overdo it.

Okay, I will just go ahead and allow CA2 and MS. I'll also include a clause saying if other people want to use other utilities, they should ask the admins for approval, just so we don't have to come up with wording like "utilities used for the purpose of cheating or gaining spoiler information or that provide an unfair advantage...". I guess I'm trying to stray away from vagueness. :)

Okay, I will just go ahead and allow CA2 and MS. I'll also include a clause saying if other people want to use other utilities, they should ask the admins for approval, just so we don't have to come up with wording like "utilities used for the purpose of cheating or gaining spoiler information or that provide an unfair advantage...". I guess I'm trying to stray away from vagueness. :)

Sounds great. One final suggestion is to include in the rule the exact version of CAII and MS that is allowed along with a disclaimer that any other version must be approved by admins before use in the MTDG.

I'm beginning to see why the Canadian Parliament never gets anything done.

Sounds great. One final suggestion is to include in the rule the exact version of CAII and MS that is allowed along with a disclaimer that any other version must be approved by admins before use in the MTDG.Shut up about the rules... just play fair. You'll get me to start shouting obscenities soon

Shut up about the rules... just play fair. You'll get me to start shouting obscenities soon

I always play fair. I'll make a deal with you. I'll shut up about the rules if you promise not to make silly complaints about rules getting broken once the game starts. Deal?

sure that's a deal... no more from you then?? :p

Come on guys ... I'll have to tell mummy if you don't play nice :p

Oh and I will also tell the fat man in red as well ;)

Oh let the children be Fe, after all we need something to keep ourselves entertained while we wait for the game to start ;)

sure that's a deal... no more from you then?? :p

No more from me until someone starts complaining that someone else broke the rules.