PBEM Game Discussion, Tips and Introductions

One has to be in city with unit that can paradrop. Inbn unmodded game paradrop range is 5 tiles radius IF you can see the target tile and that tile is empty (and not a peak or coast or ocean).
 
Eclipse4449 said:
I don't understand
Click to expand...

Paratroopers can only paradrop when they are in a city or fort and haven't moved yet that turn. From there they can jump onto any landtile within range that is visible and not occupied by enemy units, although they do have a chance of being intercepted so you better secure air superiority first.
 
Imp. Knoedel said:
Paratroopers can only paradrop when they are in a city or fort and haven't moved yet that turn. From there they can jump onto any landtile within range that is visible and not occupied by enemy units, although they do have a chance of being intercepted so you better secure air superiority first.
Click to expand...

Ok thanks for the clarification
 
Does anyone understand this, use this? I'm guessing this is the relationship at a glance, if that is the case I understand you would follow across and or down to where they meet to get the relationship. So if that is true I understand that.

But why is there a ( + ) that can be changed to a ( - ) and when you select a leader on the top all of the numbers rearrange, a similar thing happens if you select a leader on the side.



Does this effect this? This is me Communication with Knoedel, notice he is (Cautious)

 
Last time I checked I didn't have such a rad beard. :D

Tbh I never use this screen.
 
Espionage. Civics switch.

I'd like to discuss the possibility of introducing a new standard house rule in pretty much all games I'm in, yes also those that are already running. As some might have noticed the espionage missions which change a civ's civics are way too cheap for what they cost, and an opportunistic player, especially when controlling a Spiritual leader or the Cristo Redentor wonder, can easily abuse this to wreak havoc on other players. Thus I'd like to come up with a solution to fix this without just straight out banning it for good. Ideally I'd like to apply the same house rule in all games I'm in without variation, apart of course for those of Tigranes with his crazy strict house rules, to keep things simple, which is why I'm bringing this up in this general PBEM thread.

I for one see four possibilities:

1.: You may only change one civic once for a civ after you have infiltrated it with a Great Spy.
2.: You have to pay the civ whose civic you changed an amount of gold equal to the cost in espionage points you spent on changing the civic.
3.: You have to delete any spy who conducted a successful coup immediately.
4.: You may only change the civics of a civ if you have more espionage points against them than they have against you.

I feel like the first option is too strict and the second kind of defeats the point of espionage, seeing as you can't possibly keep your identity secret when a player suddenly gets a bunch of money offered for free the same turn someone changed his civics via espionage. Then again it's now already always possible to discern the identity of the instigator of any espionage missions by paying close attention to turn order, or comparing espionage points of every player against you with the turn before etc.

I feel like the last two options are the most intuitive, so unless someone can bring up good arguments for the first two we should just discuss those.

Lastly, should this also apply to change of state religion via espionage?

Thoughts?
 
Imp. Knoedel said:
1.: You may only change one civic once for a civ after you have infiltrated it with a Great Spy.
2.: You have to pay the civ whose civic you changed an amount of gold equal to the cost in espionage points you spent on changing the civic.
3.: You have to delete any spy who conducted a successful coup immediately.
4.: You may only change the civics of a civ if you have more espionage points against them than they have against you.
Click to expand...
Good idea to discuss this here! :goodjob:

My thoughts:
1. I agree with you - too strict.
2. I agree with you - you have to announce yourself as the culprit.
3. Too soft. I don't think it does the trick. Few spying points + 1 spy it is still cheap (IMO).
4. This is potentially good one. If the CR owner has more points it wouldn't help but at least players know what they have to do to not be a target of this spying action.

But what about a time resctriction rule?
5a. One Civ can only suffer one Civic change every n turns?
5b. One Civ can only attempt a Civic change every n Turns?

I think that a combination of 4. + 5. (one of them) could be balanced.
 
I would simply ban these kinds of switches. That makes understanding & enforcing the house rule extremely simple. Most of the other espionage missions still target the economy, but with a more reasonable and/or local effect.
 
Zacar said:
I would simply ban these kinds of switches. That makes understanding & enforcing the house rule extremely simple. Most of the other espionage missions still target the economy, but with a more reasonable and/or local effect.
Click to expand...

That's precisely what I don't want.

Personally I'd prefer the fourth option, seeing as it naturally makes it harder for consecutive coups to be enacted, especially when you and your victim ae very close in espionage against each other.
 
One thing you might not realise is I am pretty sure you can only switch to civics that you are running and that they can also run; therefore you can de facto announce yourself. Also you will be able to see a drastic change in the ratios (no idea why everyone can see them).
 
ReallyEvilMuff said:
One thing you might not realise is I am pretty sure you can only switch to civics that you are running and that they can also run; therefore you can de facto announce yourself. Also you will be able to see a drastic change in the ratios (no idea why everyone can see them).
Click to expand...

The game I'm most scared of this happening to me is one where I have two rivals who both have free market and loads of corporations everywhere, while I based my entire economy around State Property. Like, I've got about twice as many cities on a continent without my capital than the one it is on. If someone were to switch me out of State Property I would make it my single goal for the rest of the game to wipe the perpetrator off the map.

What's your point anyway? That we might as well just go with the first option?
 
Just that an idea that exposes the perpetrator could work too. Essentially the only way you wouldn't know is if 2+ people who were running the same civics did missions against you that turn which were all successful so you knew it was one of 2 people. That's all. I'm not saying that a switch to a civic they are using cant be bad. There's the opposite of you switching them out of free market if they have spread around a corp. Lots of cities could be thrown into starvation! Don't know a good outcome, but gold tribute is easily measured and altered. Your option 4 I think does not get away from the inherent value for money of the move at the beginning, using minimal esp points.
 
Imp. Knoedel said:
I have two rivals who both have free market and loads of corporations everywhere
Click to expand...
Rivals??? I am not your rival! You were the one that told me to attack Rome and then decided to have him as a subject!!!

But switching your Civic... hmmm, that is a good idea... but I have to do it before new houserules are implemented, don't I? :lol:
 
Luthor_Saxburg said:
Rivals??? I am not your rival! You were the one that told me to attack Rome and then decided to have him as a subject!!!

But switching your Civic... hmmm, that is a good idea... but I have to do it before new houserules are implemented, don't I? :lol:
Click to expand...

Well it's not my fault you were taking forever and Augutus is such a pushover that he threw himself at me after I only took one inconsequential far away city.

Your ability to switch me out of State Property is the only deterrent keeping me from invading you whenever I feel like it. Doing that is equivalent to signing your death warrant.

I'll be honest, that game is the biggest reason I'm bringing up the introduction of such a house rule in the first place, though I figured I should post it in this general thread to keep people from being biased against it.
 
@Eclipse, post #106:

* by clicking on a leader you see what everybody else thinks of that leader..
* I use this screen most to find out what the others are trading with each other
(> can be crucial: for example an iron trade to a nation without iron)
 
Urgh, how do I get a mod to stick this thread?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

sinimusta
Any interest in new bts pbem?
2 3
Replies
52
Views
2K
Qgqqqqq
Q
Alvarez_Player
[BTS] Waiting for player bug
Replies
0
Views
310
Alvarez_Player
Alvarez_Player
WeirdoJoker
1st game at Emperor
Replies
15
Views
987
justanick
J
P
[BTS] Need help with the early game
Replies
5
Views
511
lymond
lymond
N
NEW GAME 2022!! Realism Invictus Mod
7 8 9
Replies
179
Views
15K
genealogyxie
G
Top Bottom