Ethical Emperor: Alternate CivCon Ruleset (Draft)

Joined
May 13, 2011
Messages
5,390
This rule set is being developed as an alternate play style. It is not a game mod but a set of rule modifications that give players a different experience with CivCon.

The premise is that the game AI is simple to beat and the games lack tactical and strategic tension. The rule set proposes that the human player adhere to limitations and restrictions above and beyond those imposed by the out of the box edition. No modification of the game files is involved.

Although entitled “Ethical”, the emphasis is not so much on ethics as it is on providing a framework that yields a more competitive and rewarding game.

This is being tested with the following parameters: CivCon fully patched, random civ, 15 random foes on a huge archipelago map of a 400 billion year old planet with a normal, temperate climate. Demigod level. Roaming barbarians. Normal AI aggression. We are restarting as needed to feel good about the starting position, no reloads thereafter. All victory conditions are disabled and the only rules enabled are those that allow AI respawning and cultural conversions. Victory is attained by compiling the highest score of all civilizations at the end of 540 turns.

General Rules

1. Player is prohibited from commencing hostilities and setting war goals against any civilization without a legitimate casus belli, which is defined as receiving a declaration of war followed by an attack on or bombardment of a settlement or assault on population such as a direct attack on workers, slaves or settlers, or an attack on transports with population aboard or attacks on naval vessels in home waters or an invasion of the homeland coupled with attacks on player forces resulting in multiple combat unit losses. In cases where player has received a declaration or has been attacked, player may fight freely including incursions into enemy territory but may not directly attack enemy workers or settlers or directly assault enemy settlements unless and until the provisions set forth above are met. Multiple unit losses are defined as the destruction (or capture) of three or more combat units. Once this requirement is met player may set war goals as provided for in rule 16.

2. A casus belli due to accumulative bad acts occurs when a civilization has committed 7 or more points of provocation as follows: Any declaration of war without the consequences as defined in rule 1 (3 points), joining a military alliance against player without the consequences as defined in rule 1 (2 points), trade embargos (1 point), coercion in diplomacy, verified first use of nuclear weapons against 3rd party civ (2 points), attributable espionage act (1 point), loss of native settlement to cultural conversion (3 points), loss of captured settlement to cultural conversion (2 points). Please note that if a war ensues under this provision it resets the counter to zero.

3. Player is prohibited from entering into mutual defense pacts, right of passage agreements, trade embargos, or military alliances.

4. Player may not engage in known exploits such as, but not limited to, ship chaining, ROP rape, etc. (full list to be added later).

5. Player may not reload except in case of equipment or power failure.

6. Player may not insult, bully, or coerce the AI civilizations.

7. Player may not utilize elements of the game system to entice AI aggression. This includes but is not limited to leaving border settlements ungarrisoned or intentionally, artificially, weakening overall force status.

8. Player is prohibited from razing or abandoning settlements of any size. There is no prohibition however, towards action against small settlements in a valid war that may be destroyed upon the entrance of player’s forces. No sanction accrues to the player as a result of the destruction of a city in this manner, nor does this event count towards war goals as defined in Rule 16.

9. Player is prohibited from the first use of nuclear weapons.

10. Player may use the enslave feature as contained in the game to its full extent.

11. Player is prohibited from using the following espionage options against civilization with which he is not at war, unless a legitimate casus belli is in place. A. Sabotage. B. Propaganda. C. Steal Plans. D. Expose Spy.

12. Player is prohibited from stealing technology for ten turns after an attempt regardless of results.

13. Player may not violate AI borders except in a necessary or reasonable transit that is non-hostile in nature. Player must withdraw immediately if ordered. If warned rather than ordered to withdraw, player may continue with ground combat troops only if such units will not end another turn in violation; player may continue with non-combat units; and player may continue with naval units.

14. Player may utilize explorers/scouts by deploying them inside other national boundaries as intelligence assets. Must be withdrawn if ordered and may not be placed to deny resources or settlement sites. If stationed inside enemy border explorers/scouts may not be used to pillage on first turn of hostilities unless initiated by enemy civilizations. These units are not restricted to the transit restrictions of ground combat units.

15. Player is prohibited from establishing settlements in hostile territory if said settlement would be founded in the native 21 tile working radius of any existing settlement.

16. War Goals and Warscore: In general the player may capture any settlements lost in previous wars plus a maximum of two additional settlements from any single civilization with which it is engaged. In cases where the AI opponent holds settlements captured from a third party civilization that is no longer active in the game, the player may declare a war of liberation in which up to 6 third party settlements may be liberated. A combination of one enemy settlement and 3 liberated settlements may substituted. In cases where the enemy has possession of settlements from two or more extinct civilizations, the player may capture any combination of settlements that does not exceed these limits. A total warscore of 2 may be attained with original enemy settlements counting as one point and liberated third party settlements as 1/3rd point. For this purpose a settlement which has been conquered by your enemy but whose original civilization is still extant counts as one point. Player accrues no warscore for reclaiming his original settlements. In peace negotiations player is free to make demands as desired, however, rule 26 limits leverage.

17. Player is at all times prohibited from razing irrigation.

18. Player is prohibited from any bombardment for the sole purpose of reducing population at all times. When population might be in the range of possible results along with other results player may bombard for the primary purpose of reducing and redlining enemy combat units. There is no restriction on precision bombing.

19. Once a warscore of 2 points has been reached no further settlements may be assaulted by means that could transfer control to the player, including Propaganda.

20. Core cities are defined as those whose distance from your capital is such that only very moderate corruption is present (as adjusted by government type), have fully developed infrastructure (as adjusted by technological advancement), significant population (as adjusted), and are essentially unit producing settlements as opposed to specialist cities.

21. Should player suffer the loss of two or more core cities to a single civilization in one war, or be attacked by nuclear weapons, Rule 3 is suspended for a period of 7 turns. However, any diplomatic actions during this 20 turn period must be reasonable actions designed for self-defense and/or aimed specifically at offending civilizations.

22. When and if the player is attacked by nuclear weapons a nuclear response is permitted but must be proportional. For each attack the player may respond in kind plus one but is limited therein. ICBMs may respond to ICBMs, tactical weapons to tactical weapons, and the plus one may be of either type as the player may chose. Should the player not possess the type of nuclear device necessary to respond in kind, the player may substitute one ICBM for 2 tactical devices and 2 tactical weapons in response for one ICBM. The nuclear response must occur on the turn following the attack except as delay may be required for the positioning of tactical weapons, however, no response may be launched past the third turn following the initial attack. Should this window of opportunity elapse player is prohibited from further nuclear attacks.

23. Player may attempt to expose enemy spy only while at war with a civilization or when in possession of a valid casa belli against that civilization. If in the last case the effort to expose spy fails player is prohibited from trying again until five turns have elapsed.

24. Disputed lands defined: Land adjacent to player’s starting location that has been settled by a combination of player and one or more of player’s neighbors may be designated as disputed if said land can be reasonably construed as part of the natural homeland as it might be defined by geography and other factors. Disputed land is never a just cause for war, however, if war ensues, player may set legitimate war goals of claiming the land if such action would make more natural continuous and geographically constant post war borders. As such disputed cities may count as ½ warscore point in relation to rule 16. In no case however, under this rule, may the player capture more than 6 disputed settlements (in the entire scope of civilized history).

25. Player is restricted in the construction of airfields by workers. In order to construct one airfield the player must have constructed two airports in core cities. Further, for each airfield constructed by workers outside the core, player must have previously constructed one airfield inside the core by workers. There is a limit of three airfields that may be constructed outside the core. The required build pattern is as follows: core airport, core airport, 1st core airfield, core airport, core airport, 1st non-core airfield, core airport, core airport, 2nd core airfield, core airport, core airport, 2nd non-core airfield, core airport, core airport, 3rd core airfield, core airport, core airport, 3rd non-core airfield. Limit of non-core airfields is three (in the entire scope of civilized history) except that a captured or destroyed airfield may be replaced without restriction. Player is not restricted in the construction of airports including rush building options.

26. If during the course of war the player accomplishes war goals the player may continue hostilities for the remainder of that turn and for two full turns afterward at which point no further attacks, bombardment or razing will be allowed in enemy territory. There is no restriction to combat in home territory or international waters on succeeding turns, however, the player must attempt to conclude the war by no later than the third turn after achieving war goals.
 
Certainly interested in feedback on the ruleset plus would be very interested in joining in comparative games under it.

In my playtesting of this ruleset I am on a second run through. The first was too easy and resulted in stiffening up the rules.

In the second test, I am playing as the Dutch, and am currently losing on turn 388, running 6th in score with 4,215 pts to the leaders 6,133. I am still losing ground each turn, but I have a valid casa belli against the leader, Germany, and will at some point declare war and hope to turn that around.

This is a pretty involved position. What I have learned is that you have three main opportunities to expand your score. First, thru initial expansion. Second, thru defensive war. Third, during the latter stages of the game you can expand your territory and score by peaceful means thru founding settlements in territory left vacant in the wake of AI wars.

And of course the 4th opportunity is thru Rule 2 wars, where you have a valid casa belli by accumation of bad acts by the AI or simply have a valid casa belli when you have fought a defensive war and were unable to satisfy your war goals. This is the case in my present position where I both situations with Germany as she has bullied me over the course of the game and I have fought to stalemate on two previous occasions with her. Germany has in this game nuked the other AI to high heaven. I had a long nail biting time here in pursuit of SDI, which I managed to achieve before anyone nuked me.

I built and deployed sub-borne tactical nukes in hopes of detering the AI from attacking me. I don't know if that worked or if it was my catching up in relative force status as the game progressed. Certainly I witnessed the chewing up of weaker AIs, half are extinct at this point in the game. Geography certainly plays a big role in how things sort out. Given the AI's tactical ineptitude they more or less accidently overpower each other.

At present I am on par with the leader, Germany, in force assesment as defined in the advisor screen. This took a long time due to the production bonuses. Had all the AI not essentially gone Fascist and entered into a more less state of forever war I'd not have been able to overcome the handicaps. Now the issue is how to turn around the scoring deficit in the short time I have left.

The whole point of the ruleset is to put oneself in this sort of bind. It would be mind deadeningly simple to win this game if I were to allow myself to just attack the AI at will, but within these restrictions it becomes a real challenge.

I have one settlement on the German continent, can only take 2 points in warscore, and have to sort that out sufficiently to reverse the scoring deficit by 2050AD.
 
Reminds me of an Ironman rule set suggested for another game: Medieval Total War (the first and original MTW). The basic idea is not to exploit the game rules and/or Artificial Idiocity and/or steamroll the AI.
 
Sounds fun and roleplaying-ish. There's a post somewhere of odd things you include in your play (picking enemies, helping down and out AI's, building units/buildings not as strategy but just for asthetics). If it enhances your game playing experience, go for it!

By the way after my account got messed up somehow, Splunge is reborn as Splunge the 2nd! (if anyone remembers me:sad:)
 
Someone did something very similar 2 or 3 years ago, if I can find the thread. Had a pretty good discussion going for a while.
 
Someone did something very similar 2 or 3 years ago, if I can find the thread. Had a pretty good discussion going for a while.

I would really like to read it.

I'd admit this ain't for everyone, but there is something substantial about it. Regarding the game position above, the Germans attacked and destroyed my well garrisoned foothold settlement on one turn. The Dutch public cried for immediate surrender (62%) and having been thrown out of Germany I now must manage a seabourne invasion against an AI with 300 MI and all the other modern bells and whistles. With 138 turns to go I trail by 1991 points. The people are unhappy.

There were no luxuries in my core territory which of course has been another obstacle.

Possible rule change I am mulling for future games is to allow a little more freedom in regard to certain options that have a tendency to trigger war declarations by adopting a simple rule that specifies that if the player does trigger a war no territorial gains may be allowed as a result.
 
With 131 turns left the war with Germany is won. Trailing by 2036 points, however, we succesfully gained 4 settlements at German expense and may be nearing parity.

Without a doubt if playing by normal rules I could have overcome Germany militarily. It is a won game by those rules, but now I will have to struggle to make up the scoring gap.

Germany yielded two settlements in peace negoitations. I am sure I will hear from Bismark again. One note, perhaps because of Germany's extensive use of nukes, no AI joined the war against me.

Another note, rule 17 doesn't work as in this version if you raze or bomb roads the irrigation is destroyed. I will at some point ponder that out.

Edit: Edit to add that in the next turn I have gained one point in score! Of course this pace would still leave me a loser by over 1900 points but its extremely satisfying to me. I also wanted to add that in the one German settlement that Bismark gave up voluntarily the citizens were converted to Dutch. I did not expect that result.
 
You know how scoring works, right?


2 points for every happy laborer, 1 point for every content laborer and every specialist, and 1 point for every land/coast tile within your cultural borders. Of course you still need to multiply that with your level and with (turns you have a given tile, laborer, specialist/540), but that is just a technicality. Just keep in mind that territory in not all; having a large and happy population is maybe even more important.
 
I'm just gonna look at the General Rules, so ...

1. Player is prohibited from commencing hostilities and setting war goals against any civilization without a legitimate casus belli, which is defined as receiving a declaration of war followed by an attack on or bombardment of a settlement or assault on population such as a direct attack on workers, slaves or settlers, or an attack on transports with population aboard or attacks on naval vessels in home waters or an invasion of the homeland coupled with attacks on player forces resulting in multiple combat unit losses. In cases where player has received a declaration or has been attacked, player may fight freely including incursions into enemy territory but may not directly attack enemy workers or settlers or directly assault enemy settlements unless and until the provisions set forth above are met. Multiple unit losses are defined as the destruction (or capture) of three or more combat units. Once this requirement is met player may set war goals as provided for in rule 16.
Uh ... wow. So, the first part is: You're restricted from Full Combat unless and until you take population losses, have a city attacked, or lose multiple units (in your own territory?).
Second part is: Until Full Combat is allowed, you may not attack Settlers, Workers, or Settlements. See Rule 16.

Huh. At first read, it seems like it overly limits you to defensive warfare, but it's actually not that bad .... Well, have to see what 16 says when I get there.

2. A casus belli due to accumulative bad acts occurs when a civilization has committed 7 or more points of provocation as follows: Any declaration of war without the consequences as defined in rule 1 (3 points), joining a military alliance against player without the consequences as defined in rule 1 (2 points), trade embargos (1 point), coercion in diplomacy, verified first use of nuclear weapons against 3rd party civ (2 points), attributable espionage act (1 point), loss of native settlement to cultural conversion (3 points), loss of captured settlement to cultural conversion (2 points). Please note that if a war ensues under this provision it resets the counter to zero.
Hmm ... if I'm understanding this correctly, it's listing the situations which - added up - allow the player to initiate a Full Combat war? Only two issues at the moment: First, listing the "bad acts" in a bullet-point list makes it easier to read, and second, the "coercion in diplomacy" act has no point value.

... And I'm not sure what you mean about the "consequences as defined in Rule 1."

3. Player is prohibited from entering into mutual defense pacts, right of passage agreements, trade embargos, or military alliances.
Uh ... well, MAs are the only ones I've ever used with any frequency, and those are more to prevent someone I've got a legitimate grievance against from dogpiling against me in early wars. Still, not a terribly difficult rule to follow.

4. Player may not engage in known exploits such as, but not limited to, ship chaining, ROP rape, etc. (full list to be added later).

5. Player may not reload except in case of equipment or power failure.
Be an Honorable Player.

6. Player may not insult, bully, or coerce the AI civilizations.
Could you explain what all three are? I'm thinking that "bullying" is demanding gold, but there's not much you can do with that; and that "coercion" is manipulating AI attitude to force it to DoW you (like demanding 3 cities until they're Furious, then giving a Boot Order); but I'm stumped on insulting.

7. Player may not utilize elements of the game system to entice AI aggression. This includes but is not limited to leaving border settlements ungarrisoned or intentionally, artificially, weakening overall force status.
The only problem I have with this particular rule is that it's basically forcing you to brute-force the AI's armies, which at higher levels will likely outnumber your own. Unless I'm reading more into the "not limited to ..." part than you're intending.

8. Player is prohibited from razing or abandoning settlements of any size. There is no prohibition however, towards action against small settlements in a valid war that may be destroyed upon the entrance of player’s forces. No sanction accrues to the player as a result of the destruction of a city in this manner, nor does this event count towards war goals as defined in Rule 16.
Play with the No-Raze patch.

9. Player is prohibited from the first use of nuclear weapons.

10. Player may use the enslave feature as contained in the game to its full extent.

11. Player is prohibited from using the following espionage options against civilization with which he is not at war, unless a legitimate casus belli is in place. A. Sabotage. B. Propaganda. C. Steal Plans. D. Expose Spy.

12. Player is prohibited from stealing technology for ten turns after an attempt regardless of results.
All self-explanatory and reasonable. Particularly with 11, Sabotage is the only one that's occasionally useful (I've used it ... twice? Both times in Wonder races I wanted to win :shrug: ), but the other three are too expensive for the effect they have anyway.

13. Player may not violate AI borders except in a necessary or reasonable transit that is non-hostile in nature. Player must withdraw immediately if ordered. If warned rather than ordered to withdraw, player may continue with ground combat troops only if such units will not end another turn in violation; player may continue with non-combat units; and player may continue with naval units.
Do not violate other nations' territories. Question: If the AI repeatedly attempts to cross your own territory and always submits to the Boot Order, is it allowable to Declare War to eliminate the offending units? I mean, the AI is doing what the player is forbidden to do, and you can't RoP .... So the only options I see are 1) Take it; 2) Continually give out Remove/Boot Orders; 3) DoW and kill them off. I realize this is based on Archipelago (why? Not an issue, but I play Pangaea, so the issue is relevant to me).

14. Player may utilize explorers/scouts by deploying them inside other national boundaries as intelligence assets. Must be withdrawn if ordered and may not be placed to deny resources or settlement sites. If stationed inside enemy border explorers/scouts may not be used to pillage on first turn of hostilities unless initiated by enemy civilizations. These units are not restricted to the transit restrictions of ground combat units.
No Scout/Explorer cheese.

15. Player is prohibited from establishing settlements in hostile territory if said settlement would be founded in the native 21 tile working radius of any existing settlement.
Be careful with your Combat Settlers.

16. War Goals and Warscore: In general the player may capture any settlements lost in previous wars plus a maximum of two additional settlements from any single civilization with which it is engaged. In cases where the AI opponent holds settlements captured from a third party civilization that is no longer active in the game, the player may declare a war of liberation in which up to 6 third party settlements may be liberated. A combination of one enemy settlement and 3 liberated settlements may substituted. In cases where the enemy has possession of settlements from two or more extinct civilizations, the player may capture any combination of settlements that does not exceed these limits. A total warscore of 2 may be attained with original enemy settlements counting as one point and liberated third party settlements as 1/3rd point. For this purpose a settlement which has been conquered by your enemy but whose original civilization is still extant counts as one point. Player accrues no warscore for reclaiming his original settlements. In peace negotiations player is free to make demands as desired, however, rule 26 limits leverage.
Wow. RoEs for the RoE God, much? Ahh ....
You're allowed to take 2 cities per civilization per war (plus any cities you'd lost previously and retake).
If cities belonged to a now-dead civ, you may take up to 6 of those cities from the enemy. You may also take a third enemy city in exchange for 3 "liberated" cities. You may take 1 enemy city and 3 "liberated" cities, if you so desire - see below.
You're allowed 2 points - enemy cities are 1 point each, "liberated" cities are 1/3 each.

17. Player is at all times prohibited from razing irrigation.
Mining is allowed.

18. Player is prohibited from any bombardment for the sole purpose of reducing population at all times. When population might be in the range of possible results along with other results player may bombard for the primary purpose of reducing and redlining enemy combat units. There is no restriction on precision bombing.
Starve cities out instead of bombarding them to death.

19. Once a warscore of 2 points has been reached no further settlements may be assaulted by means that could transfer control to the player, including Propaganda.
You're only allowed to take 2 points worth of cities, as noted in Rule 16.

20. Core cities are defined as those whose distance from your capital is such that only very moderate corruption is present (as adjusted by government type), have fully developed infrastructure (as adjusted by technological advancement), significant population (as adjusted), and are essentially unit producing settlements as opposed to specialist cities.

21. Should player suffer the loss of two or more core cities to a single civilization in one war, or be attacked by nuclear weapons, Rule 3 is suspended for a period of 7 turns. However, any diplomatic actions during this 20 turn period must be reasonable actions designed for self-defense and/or aimed specifically at offending civilizations.
If two or more Core Cities are lost to a single opponent, or if they're attacked by Nuclear Weapons, the Player is free to use RoP, MA, MPP, and Embargo, so long as they do so within 7 turns. Any actions during the Treaty Duration must be Honorable.

22. When and if the player is attacked by nuclear weapons a nuclear response is permitted but must be proportional. For each attack the player may respond in kind plus one but is limited therein. ICBMs may respond to ICBMs, tactical weapons to tactical weapons, and the plus one may be of either type as the player may chose. Should the player not possess the type of nuclear device necessary to respond in kind, the player may substitute one ICBM for 2 tactical devices and 2 tactical weapons in response for one ICBM. The nuclear response must occur on the turn following the attack except as delay may be required for the positioning of tactical weapons, however, no response may be launched past the third turn following the initial attack. Should this window of opportunity elapse player is prohibited from further nuclear attacks.
Nuclear responses must be in kind, and within the three turns from the attack. Question: If attacked by an ICBM and the missile is defeated by the SDI, is the player allowed to retaliate?

23. Player may attempt to expose enemy spy only while at war with a civilization or when in possession of a valid casa belli against that civilization. If in the last case the effort to expose spy fails player is prohibited from trying again until five turns have elapsed.
Self-explanatory.

24. Disputed lands defined: Land adjacent to player’s starting location that has been settled by a combination of player and one or more of player’s neighbors may be designated as disputed if said land can be reasonably construed as part of the natural homeland as it might be defined by geography and other factors. Disputed land is never a just cause for war, however, if war ensues, player may set legitimate war goals of claiming the land if such action would make more natural continuous and geographically constant post war borders. As such disputed cities may count as ½ warscore point in relation to rule 16. In no case however, under this rule, may the player capture more than 6 disputed settlements (in the entire scope of civilized history).
Er ... what? I mean, all the words are understandable, I just don't get the point of the rule ....

25. Player is restricted in the construction of airfields by workers. In order to construct one airfield the player must have constructed two airports in core cities. Further, for each airfield constructed by workers outside the core, player must have previously constructed one airfield inside the core by workers. There is a limit of three airfields that may be constructed outside the core. The required build pattern is as follows: core airport, core airport, 1st core airfield, core airport, core airport, 1st non-core airfield, core airport, core airport, 2nd core airfield, core airport, core airport, 2nd non-core airfield, core airport, core airport, 3rd core airfield, core airport, core airport, 3rd non-core airfield. Limit of non-core airfields is three (in the entire scope of civilized history) except that a captured or destroyed airfield may be replaced without restriction. Player is not restricted in the construction of airports including rush building options.
2 (core city) Airports for each Airfield.
Each non-Core Airfield must have a Core City counterpart.
There may be no more than 3 non-Core Airfields.
You are not allowed to build Airports beyond what is necessary to construct the next Airfield.
You are not allowed to build Core Airfields prior to the construction of non-Core Airfields, barring immediately preceding Core Airfields.
There may be no more than 3 non-Core Airfields.
You may Rush Airports if you wish.

26. If during the course of war the player accomplishes war goals the player may continue hostilities for the remainder of that turn and for two full turns afterward at which point no further attacks, bombardment or razing will be allowed in enemy territory. There is no restriction to combat in home territory or international waters on succeeding turns, however, the player must attempt to conclude the war by no later than the third turn after achieving war goals.
After getting your 2 Points, you have two more turns to GTFO and make peace ASAP. You're not allowed to fight in enemy territory after those two turns.
 
Thank you CA for the markup. Obviously my draft falls far short of being well written.

Rule 1,2,16 are the meat of the ruleset and I have to clarify it. We have defined unrestricted warfare as bad because it makes the game too easy, thus these rules narrow those opportunities. Trying to avoid having one early war when a remote AI DOWs, several join in, but nobody is really serious about it, into an exploitable situation that can result in the Player's early overexpansion.

Hmm ... if I'm understanding this correctly, it's listing the situations which - added up - allow the player to initiate a Full Combat war? Only two issues at the moment: First, listing the "bad acts" in a bullet-point list makes it easier to read, and second, the "coercion in diplomacy" act has no point value.

... And I'm not sure what you mean about the "consequences as defined in Rule 1."



Yeah, at some point I will work on presentation of the text. Coercion I am thinking 2 points, if they demand this or that.

Now what I am saying is that the AI gets a 3 point card for a war declaration that is not followed up with hostilies as per rule one that allow for setting war goals. This is when they declare but do nothing.

Be an Honorable Player.
/is there a ruleset for that?

I must offer disclaimers for my rulewriting. I am from North Carolina, so English is my second language. I am a product of the American education system. I am old, I remember the invention of rust. I have suffered brain injury. And, my introduction to rulesets dates back to the days of cardboard cutout table top wargames where rules on the order of play were often longer and more difficult to understand than various books of the old testment. Panzerblitz!
 
Thank you CA for the markup. Obviously my draft falls far short of being well written.
Not a problem. Just wanted to see how this is going.

Be an Honorable Player.
/is there a ruleset for that?
There a couple that I can think of - here and here, for example, are Allowed and Disallowed exploits for Hall of Fame and Games of the Month. What I was thinking of, though (and am currently unable to find) is a page that had a list of Honorable and Dishonorable player tactics. I'm not sure where it was (although it was a different site), nor which thread I linked to it from.

I must offer disclaimers for my rulewriting. I am from North Carolina, so English is my second language. I am a product of the American education system.
English isn't a language :P And I've always wondered just how bad the AES is; I was an Air Force Brat, so I always wonder about that.

I am old, I remember the invention of rust.
:P Rust good!

I have suffered brain injury.
:(

And, my introduction to rulesets dates back to the days of cardboard cutout table top wargames where rules on the order of play were often longer and more difficult to understand than various books of the old testment. Panzerblitz!
Personally, I never had a problem with THAC0, and I don't see why they got rid of it. Buncha sissies.
 
Now this game is getting down to the end stages with 109 turns left I am gaining 7 points per turn but thats going to leave me over a thousand loser.

As the fascist AIs toil in their inept and endless wars I have transports with settlers voyaging round the world to grab any spot of land left vacant in the turmoil. Most of my core is producing cruise missles and cavalry for the purpose of transfering shields to new settlements in which I am growing happy citizens. Meanwhile I replace millions of acres of fried forrest to counter the effects of global warming. So far I've lost no grassland at all despite having built not a single mitigation facility. I always knew it was a hoax.

This isn't a particularly exciting part of the game. I've got to find another opportunity to expand if victory is to be seen as likely. The AI is not being as irrational in attacking me as it did in my first test game with this ruleset.

OTOH, I do have room for more population growth. I will at least close the gap.
 
BTW, since the first post in this thread I've suffered a fall that broke three ribs and my 8 year old rottweiler, blind, got out of his pen and was lost for several days during which I marched agonizingly in hundred degree temps through the nearby woodlands in a vain attempt to find him. Now he's turned up a couple of blocks away, in bad shape, but we are both recovering nicely today. I think we are basically on the same meds.
 
In response to some of ChaosArbiter's other comments:

Er ... what? I mean, all the words are understandable, I just don't get the point of the rule ....


I inserted this as a result of playtesting to give the player more leeway in cleaning up his borders. This is something that we would do in any event when playing normally in unrestricted warfare so this is just a compromise rule that I think is needed. It works with my position on your comment

Do not violate other nations' territories. Question: If the AI repeatedly attempts to cross your own territory and always submits to the Boot Order, is it allowable to Declare War to eliminate the offending units? I mean, the AI is doing what the player is forbidden to do, and you can't RoP .... So the only options I see are 1) Take it; 2) Continually give out Remove/Boot Orders; 3) DoW and kill them off. I realize this is based on Archipelago (why? Not an issue, but I play Pangaea, so the issue is relevant to me).

My position at present is that the Player has to live with AI encroachment. If you DOW and destroy the offending units doesn't that tick some AI meter in the game that will make it more likely that the AI will mindlessly attack later? It seems to me to be so. We are precluding expansion as a result of provocation, if we demand withdrawal and the AI declares we shouldn't be able to take settlements as that is a way to skirt the whole point of the ruleset. We know that the AI will encroach for a number of reasons and if we allow ourselves to incite a war in that manner its just another way to make the game too easy. Therefore we have to guard the borders as best we can. We can eliminate the AI from being adventurous by sealing the border. In cases where we lack the force to do so, we can surround and guide the AI in an endless loop if the AI's intent is to pass through and if the AI intends to attack it will do so regardless in which case we are free to punish it to the extent the rules allow.

I admit this might be a problem with pangea games, I don't usually play them and never with this ruleset. If we allowed more leeway to say declare and destroy only the offending units would that be sufficient? Certainly the purpose of the ruleset will be pretty much defeated if we allow settlements to be taken as the AI transgresses so much.

I have a hunch that pangea would be easier in any event as I suspect the AI is more likely to declare on us when connected more completely by land rather than sea. Is this not true? This is one reason I am not testing on pangea. This is based on the thought that the more war the easier the win.

Nuclear responses must be in kind, and within the three turns from the attack. Question: If attacked by an ICBM and the missile is defeated by the SDI, is the player allowed to retaliate?

Its clearly an act of war and should allow for war goals to be set but I'd not like to see a nuclear response on population if the SDI prevents the attack. I might allow for a nuclear response on doom stacks or naval concentrations as this would I think be considered proportionate ethically. What you think?

2 (core city) Airports for each Airfield.
Each non-Core Airfield must have a Core City counterpart.
There may be no more than 3 non-Core Airfields.
You are not allowed to build Airports beyond what is necessary to construct the next Airfield.
You are not allowed to build Core Airfields prior to the construction of non-Core Airfields, barring immediately preceding Core Airfields.
There may be no more than 3 non-Core Airfields.
You may Rush Airports if you wish.


Your summary is not much clearer than my ghasty rule and our rules do not agree. Clearly different. This is important in my mind though as when we go through the game there is a point when establishing and air transport system on other landmasses is a huge factor. Putting this rule in taxes the Player and makes a more challenging strategic situation.

Later in the game you will almost always have the cash to rush an airport overseas so its important only in a window of time.

This rule needs work obv.

_________________________________________________________________

I was thinking that another way to make the game more of challenge would be to simply prohibit the player from using bombard weapons except in defense, as the AI does with artillery. I wouldn't do that in conjunction with this ruleset though.
 
A few comments from me:
  • ROPs should be allowed. It's an important mechanism to improve the relations with the AI, prevent DoWs, make good trades etc. As long as you don't abuse the RoP (sneak attacks, resource denial), there shouldn't be a problem with it?
  • I don't think that cultural flips should count as "bad acts" or casus belli. C'mon, if your citizens don't like you and rather join another nation, you can't blame the other nation for it, can you...! Instead of going to war for regaining your settlements, better build some culture yourself, and see whether your citizens "return back home"...
  • Ship chains are not an exploit. It's just a "mitigation" for the poor transport system in this game... Think of it this way: a Galleon would take about 5-6 turns for crossing the Atlantik Ocean. That would be 50-60 years (during the period where a turn is 10 years). Even Columbus did it in a few weeks...!
  • In order to not drag this game on for ever (especially the final stage where you spend ours fighting the consequences of global warming, pollution, nukes, etc must be very boring) you could allow one victory condition, e.g spaceship or one of the cultural conditions.
 
A few comments from me:
  • ROPs should be allowed. It's an important mechanism to improve the relations with the AI, prevent DoWs, make good trades etc. As long as you don't abuse the RoP (sneak attacks, resource denial), there shouldn't be a problem with it?
  • I don't think that cultural flips should count as "bad acts" or casus belli. C'mon, if your citizens don't like you and rather join another nation, you can't blame the other nation for it, can you...! Instead of going to war for regaining your settlements, better build some culture yourself, and see whether your citizens "return back home"...
  • Ship chains are not an exploit. It's just a "mitigation" for the poor transport system in this game... Think of it this way: a Galleon would take about 5-6 turns for crossing the Atlantik Ocean. That would be 50-60 years (during the period where a turn is 10 years). Even Columbus did it in a few weeks...!
  • In order to not drag this game on for ever (especially the final stage where you spend ours fighting the consequences of global warming, pollution, nukes, etc must be very boring) you could allow one victory condition, e.g spaceship or one of the cultural conditions.

Thanks very much for the input.

These are of course reasonable suggestions. The fact that I might not prefer them would be...just a personal preference.

[+]I exclude right of passage because it seems so often eploitative and once again a factor that makes the game too easy...which I am all not about. Once rails are in any declaration by a non-bordering AI on the same landmass is a suicide as we can almost always get an ROP and insta transport cannon and cavalry (or better) to enemy territory. Its just too easy given the fact that the AI seldom does this unless he happens to have a ROP in place first.

[+]Cultural flips are pretty rare so I don't think this is going to make a big difference either way.

[+]On ship chaining, well, if you argue that using it deepens strategic planning because you would have to build and deploy units in advance of an enemy's attack, I would find that a more compeling argument for allowance. In any event units should have to use there movement point to move from ship to ship. I remember, that it might have been an earlier version (or even SMAC), that you could transfer them infinitely which I find unacceptable. It simply gives a capability that the AI can't imagine much less access. Makes it too easy. So, maybe an allowance for one ship to ship jump per turn.

[+] In terms of adding a single other victory condition, yes, it might be pretty interesting since we would not be able to use military to destroy the AI's chance to achieve that condition. I admit to some inexperience here, I have generally played for score or domination wins.

If someone wants to do a documented comparable game with the ruleset (from a common start position), I would certainly be open to negotiating an acceptable version of the ruleset. Its all for fun.
 
Poor play alert!

Maybe its just because I wanted to find a use for cruise missles. I have been producing them in cities where I can do so in one turn and then transporting to new settlements abroad for disbanding to help growth there. Thats really bad play. The carry cost in gold, say it takes five turns to destination at 2 gold per turn, is just too high. Its much better to produce say a modern armor in 2 turns and air lift it.

How can I be so dumb. I fault the game design, each unit should have a sensible use but cruise missles don't, and disbanding modern armor makes no sense. But it does. Yuck.

Note to self: I play bad.

edit: ugh, or just build stealth fighters and fly them out to disband them.....gross
 
I inserted this as a result of playtesting to give the player more leeway in cleaning up his borders. This is something that we would do in any event when playing normally in unrestricted warfare so this is just a compromise rule that I think is needed. It works with my position on your comment
Ah, okay.

My position at present is that the Player has to live with AI encroachment. If you DOW and destroy the offending units doesn't that tick some AI meter in the game that will make it more likely that the AI will mindlessly attack later? It seems to me to be so. We are precluding expansion as a result of provocation, if we demand withdrawal and the AI declares we shouldn't be able to take settlements as that is a way to skirt the whole point of the ruleset. We know that the AI will encroach for a number of reasons and if we allow ourselves to incite a war in that manner its just another way to make the game too easy. Therefore we have to guard the borders as best we can. We can eliminate the AI from being adventurous by sealing the border. In cases where we lack the force to do so, we can surround and guide the AI in an endless loop if the AI's intent is to pass through and if the AI intends to attack it will do so regardless in which case we are free to punish it to the extent the rules allow.

I admit this might be a problem with pangea games, I don't usually play them and never with this ruleset. If we allowed more leeway to say declare and destroy only the offending units would that be sufficient? Certainly the purpose of the ruleset will be pretty much defeated if we allow settlements to be taken as the AI transgresses so much.
Bold is what I was asking about.

I have a hunch that pangea would be easier in any event as I suspect the AI is more likely to declare on us when connected more completely by land rather than sea. Is this not true? This is one reason I am not testing on pangea. This is based on the thought that the more war the easier the win.
Sort of, although mainly because More War = More Armies. And Armies are simply too powerful for the AI to handle.

Its clearly an act of war and should allow for war goals to be set but I'd not like to see a nuclear response on population if the SDI prevents the attack. I might allow for a nuclear response on doom stacks or naval concentrations as this would I think be considered proportionate ethically. What you think?
Sounds good.

Your summary is not much clearer than my ghasty rule and our rules do not agree. Clearly different. This is important in my mind though as when we go through the game there is a point when establishing and air transport system on other landmasses is a huge factor. Putting this rule in taxes the Player and makes a more challenging strategic situation.
Agree that it's not much clearer, but all I (tried) to do was make a rule-space every time I hit a rule in the paragraph. I'm sure that what I put down is not what you intended, but it's what I got out of it when I read ...
Spoiler :
25. Player is restricted in the construction of airfields by workers. In order to construct one airfield the player must have constructed two airports in core cities. Further, for each airfield constructed by workers outside the core, player must have previously constructed one airfield inside the core by workers. There is a limit of three airfields that may be constructed outside the core. The required build pattern is as follows: core airport, core airport, 1st core airfield, core airport, core airport, 1st non-core airfield, core airport, core airport, 2nd core airfield, core airport, core airport, 2nd non-core airfield, core airport, core airport, 3rd core airfield, core airport, core airport, 3rd non-core airfield. Limit of non-core airfields is three (in the entire scope of civilized history) except that a captured or destroyed airfield may be replaced without restriction. Player is not restricted in the construction of airports including rush building options.
For each Airfield, you must build two Core Airports per Airfield. ... Okay, I got this from the second sentence, and (rereading) I see that you must have two Core Airports period, not per 'Field. My bad (I blame going through the whole thing in one sitting :crazyeye: ). The next two are simply rewordings of what you wrote, so I'll skip those. My fourth and fifth lines are based on your required build pattern bolded above (emphasis is mine, as that was part of what I was focusing on). Note that it also supports my original first line, that you must have 2 Airports for each Airfield. My last two lines agree with your last two sentences.

So I'm not sure how our Rules don't agree.


I was thinking that another way to make the game more of challenge would be to simply prohibit the player from using bombard weapons except in defense, as the AI does with artillery. I wouldn't do that in conjunction with this ruleset though.
Or only with Naval units, as the AI does use warships with Bombard offensively, and does so with Bombers ... although a human with intelligent access to those units would be able to beat the stuffing out of an AI (well, except for Naval Units, as their Bombard and RoF values are [bizarrely] far worse than land Artillery, and they're of limited scope).
 
I think there should only be 1 airfield per island, and no limit to airports(this should apply to Conquests only, as vanilla/PTW airfields take tons of worker turns)
 
I have a thing with rule 22 (nukes).

I always play with rule 0.1: If an AI nukes me, they are done for.
 
Back
Top Bottom