I would propose that no forts/barricades be allowed along coastal tiles in this game. Pro/Con?

There is a problem with it, but I'm not really sure it matters, anyway.

The problem: That means that the invasion force can't build a fortification, either, which it might want to do.

The reason it doesn't matter: who's going to attack a coastal plain when they can take a city instead? I know I would rather take a city, immediately get cultural boundaries, unload tanks to take out nearby defenders, and fortify infantry.

Marines with a 8 attack against infantry at 10, fortified behind a city or town (with walls) is about 13% success rate. Barricaded that success rate is ~7.5% and a fort is 12.8%. All on grass...
Without a fort or barricade on grass it's at least 23.8%. Quite a difference by transports imo.

I vote nah. If their were to be such a rule it would of have to been made before the game. Before we knew what the map looked like. This will just make the game easier for conquest vicotory.

There was no way to make it a rule before the game since the only map knowledge was the admins and mapmakers. It's hardly easier for conquest if there's units covering the coast at 23% success rate assuming teams don't have mechs by then.

So what you're saying is it eliminates the opportunity for any conquest and requires a space, UN or culture victory...great...

It's also harder for a peaceful win when you can't defend you're homeland properly. If you can fortify, barricade,stock them all with units, and somehow manage to gather enough points for culture or space race you damn well deserve to win. ALso with a 23% rate can't you just strike som random spot and run it over. It's not like any nation can predict assaults like they can now with ocean travel you can strike any point on a island.

Well I can guarantee a 100k is impossible and a 20k will require a team to get real busy and it's highly unlikely that's possible. If teams need to barricade to win a space then we most definitely have a problem, Houston.

Why because this iterferes with you're team winning. I don't think to many people are going to be willing to rig the game so you're team is at a distinct advantage. None of us knew what this map looked like when we started. If this map didn't look like what you wanted it to than it sure as hell isn't broke. Nor should gameplay reflect that.

I won't argue with you Carlos Zambrano guy since this is hardly an advantage to our team. This is not an issue currently but will be a major issue when all teams have the capability to send marines in a hundredish turns.

Alright you choose to resign. Then you don't resign. I'm sure this wasn't an alternative to to resigning the game. I highly dought that there is anyone stupid enough not to realize that this is very clearly an advantage for your'e team.

Hmm, it seems like some of the flames from the "BABE may resign" thread are sputtering in here, too. I hope they don't flare up any more in this thread :)

I'm opposed to this measure:

* Coastal blockades are a well-known part of the game, and as such, such a ruling should have been raised before the game. "I didn't realize it would be an issue" doesn't mitigate that, IMO; any time you play a game with all random settings (or in this case, Meleet settings), you risk having your favorite tactics rendered ineffective.

* It places artificial constraints on how a civ may improve its territory and play the game. We should stick as closely as possible to the game engine rules, IMO.

* I view this proposal as purely a device to appease the discontented BABEs and convince them not to abandon the game (my apologies if my phrasing choice offends any of the aforementioned BABEs - my intent is description rather than inflammation). I further believe that such an appeasement is inappropriate; if the BABEs wish to retire, let them do so. I'd rather see them drop from the game than modify the rules midgame to better favor their playstyle.

As some teams may have already build fortifications on the coast, I think it's a bit late to discuss a rule like this now. Should these teams be forced to pillage their own tiles?

edit: Oh, and if you just bring enough transports with enough marines in it, then I'm sure you can even beat a fortified infantry on a barricaded mountain.

@cubsfan, please refrain from throwing accusations.

I am opposed, for several reasons.

First of all, barricading your entire coast, and filling it up with enough units, is going to drain huge resources from a team. I would go so far as to say that any team trying to undertake that would dig their own grave. They may survive within their shell, but there's no way they could win the game, because those who don't spend as much resources will have a distinct advantage.

Second, I trust The Great Meleet. I would find it highly unlikely that any team would be given all the necessary resources within their own little continental sphere to pull off a peaceful space race. We are going to see warfare in this game, and lots of it, on that I would bet my hat.

Put A and B together, and I simply don't see the need for any ruling. We could drag up other things as well, such as that something like this should have been decided before the start. I can see that argument, but I think it's rather moot. If something was found to be broken in the game, I could certainly see us making an amendment. But I don't think this is a broken situation at all. I hope we can let the discussion center around that, and not about play styles of various teams.

Second, I trust The Great Meleet. I would find it highly unlikely that any team would be given all the necessary resources within their own little continental sphere to pull off a peaceful space race. We are going to see warfare in this game, and lots of it, on that I would bet my hat.

My line of reasoning too and I'd throw in my shirt as well. That's of course a poor comfort if you happen to have a truckload of goats which might be the case here, but if it is war per se you're longing for then none of us will be let down I'm sure.
Just a little humble reflection on my part; is it pure coincidence that all players thinking island fortress is an exploit is on Babes team and all that don't on other teams? I believe a lot of Babes would see it OK if they were on another team and, also, a lot of Frees/Sabers/Councils/Gongs would deem it exploit were they Babes. Just (trying) to put things in perspective here.

I am against it.


No one can say they were surprised there is coast and need for amphibious assaults. How many civ games have you played with no need for transports? A request for a pangea could have been made before the map was drawn.
forts are very wasteful of worker-turns, therefore they are their own penalty. Every good player always responds to the questions in the strategy threads that static defenses are not good tactics. (exception: 1 tile chokepoints)
This is at the wrong time, this also should have been done before the game was started.

a couple of things:

1) I have no problems with revisiting the ruleset part way through the game. In BABE's mind, we have already done so (they assumed the rules were one way and were surprised to find sentiment completely against them)

2) 20% of the teams in the game think that such a rule will increase enjoyment of the game and I think that they deserve that people think about it on it's on merits.

Why this is a good idea:

1) It will increase warfare late in the game by making it easier to invade other civilizations homelands.

Objections raised:

1) It will make it more difficult to hold beachheads.
2) It is artificial and we are trying to work within the game framework as coded.
3) Some teams may already have fortifications up and they will have to be removed
4) Forts take quite a few worker turns and thus have their own penalties.

Have I missed any on either side?

I would say you summed it up quite nicely. :thumbsup:

And I definitely agree that we should take this discussion seriously.

IIRC, having forts on a tile means that you cannot improve it for any other purpose, so it would generally be used only if team have no use for a tile, meaning that the team is not using that tile effectively enough, which is a bad tactic, so I would say that not being able to use that tile for better use, is bad tactics.

I'm opposed. If your tactics are failing, you should alter your tactics not the game.

One other thing to consider and that is naval bombardment. Even with forts a couple of battleships would be able to red-line the defenders and then using carrier based bombers, the defenders could be eliminated. At that point I'd rather be able to capture a city and unload tanks and continue the offensive as opposed to landing them on the shore and be subject to counterattack.

I'm thinking that the map maker might have desired to see some modern era warfare with combined arms being used as opposed to the usual AA unit steamrollers that usually occur.

There should be some interesting decisions on whether to go for marines or enter the modern era with mech infantry, modern armor and nukes.

As to my opinion, if it keeps Babe from bailing out, then sure. I don't think any team is planning on building a lot of forts anyway.

As a compromise, how about we say that coastal forts may not cover the entire coast? Like denyd says, I doubt anyone is planning that anyway.

One other thing to consider and that is naval bombardment. Even with forts a couple of battleships would be able to red-line the defenders and then using carrier based bombers, the defenders could be eliminated. At that point I'd rather be able to capture a city and unload tanks and continue the offensive as opposed to landing them on the shore and be subject to counterattack.

I'm thinking that the map maker might have desired to see some modern era warfare with combined arms being used as opposed to the usual AA unit steamrollers that usually occur.

There should be some interesting decisions on whether to go for marines or enter the modern era with mech infantry, modern armor and nukes.

As to my opinion, if it keeps Babe from bailing out, then sure. I don't think any team is planning on building a lot of forts anyway.
:agree: very well put.

As a compromise, how about we say that coastal forts may not cover the entire coast?
That works for me.
:salute:

As a compromise, how about we say that coastal forts may not cover the entire coast? Like denyd says, I doubt anyone is planning that anyway.

That might be difficult to write into a rule. Are you suggesting we put in a specific percentage or number of tiles that can or can't be fortified?

Yes, if the compromise is deemed like the best way, I am suggesting that we decide upon a fraction of the coast that may not be fortified. What that fraction should be is a different discussion. But of course we can't just say "not the entire coast", since that would be little restriction if you could leave only one tile open.

New Rule: Max of 50% of costal tiles may be covered with Forts.

Hard to imagine anyone doing that in the first place…

But no problem for me personally to agree to that.

Okay I can agree to that.

Aye, fine by me. What does the other side of the argument have to say on the issue?

It's obvious this will never pass so drop the whole proposal and let's get it on.

New Rule: Max of 50% of costal tiles may be covered with Forts.

I think the amendment is pretty much irrelevant, but if we're going to pass one, I think it needs to be a little clearer - 50% of all coastal tiles owned by a civ, or 50% of coastal tiles on each landmass? What happens when a landmass is shared by 2 or more civs? What about the tiles on such a landmass not owned by either civ?

I'm not trying to be anal, but when teams have different understandings of what the rules are, obviously we get in trouble.

Marines with a 8 attack against infantry at 10, fortified behind a city or town (with walls) is about 13% success rate. Barricaded that success rate is ~7.5% and a fort is 12.8%. All on grass...
Without a fort or barricade on grass it's at least 23.8%. Quite a difference by transports imo.

Just as an aside, marines attack with 12, but your point about there being a huge difference between fort/barricade/town and open grassland is obviously still valid.

EDIT - crossposted that one with Whomp. Feel free to ignore...

Thanks for the clarification Chamnix. Since I don't recall ever using marines I looked at the main page which likely had PTW numbers.

It's a moot point though and we officially drop this proposal.

New Rule: Max of 50% of costal tiles may be covered with Forts.

Coastal would equal tiles that can be invaded, no?

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a358/Box180295/MTDG/ShorelineMapping.jpg

So the Pink Dots would be coastal. True?

Imagine that one of the Pink Dots is a city. Is that tile still coastal?

Imagaine that one of the Yellow Dots is a city. Is that tile still coastal?


Some Nitpicking on a Good Idea
To me it seems that once a city is built in a tile that can be invaded, it should no longer be considered a coastal tile for this rule. That seems a bit backward, but consider a landmass with 100 coastal tiles and 50 cities on those tiles. I can't imagine a landmass just like that with 50 legal cities but let's pretend it could happen. If those cities are still counted as coastal tiles, then 50 other tiles could be made into forts. Fifty forts and fifty cities; I don't think this is what you had in mind.

If city tiles are not considered coastal, then only 50 coastal tiles are left, and of these 50 only 25 could become forts.

Further Nitpicking
Would this apply to all the tiles of nation or to each land mass the nation has in its possession? One tile islands would be excluded from the count but what about two tiles and larger?

It's a moot point though and we officially drop this proposal.

Nevermind.

Get a fleet of carriers and bomb the coast line till its only red units and then send in the marines.

In conquests you can just kill it.