Rise of the Daimyo

[Calis]

I don't see why you should have to declare war the turn before. It wouldn't always happen in real life. It will be part of your strategy to keep an eye on rival tribes forces near to you. I don't like the RoP trick in human games though. So if you have R0P you should declare war before stepping over the border to invade. That would be the honourable thing to do.

In games with other human player, I would rate a RoP rape as one of the the worst things you could do.

 

[Cyc]

Recently I have revied Loulong's thread about PBEM etiquette again in order to make sure I don't violate any of the accepted rules amoung you. (In ROJ I had omitted to anounce the completion of a Great Wonder, which apparently is an unspoken rule amoung the PBEM community, and Blaze called my attention to that.) I had read it more than half a year ago, when I started playing PBEM, but since then had already forgotten much of it...

A lot of over-simplified rhetoric was posted long ago. The early members were trying to find a way to standardize the game to validate their strategies. It's a lot easier to control the game if you make the rules. So, to me, the question arose - are the ones who cheat just to win worse than the ones who make the rules just to win? An honorable player is an honorable player. You can't get around that. If there is no rule or guideline posted explaining what you must do in any given situation, you must judge that situation the best that you can and make an honorable decision. Integrity counts.

The CIV3 game cheats all the time. What a great roll model. In my opinion, you have to approach this game with a grain of salt handy. With computers and accessories malfunctioning, it's enough to bring a grown man to tears (not really). I personally don't believe we should get too wrapped up in some posters idea of integrity. But I have no problem with the players of this game posting rules for this game.

Therefore I decided to highlight a few of those akot's rules here, which I think may become significant for this particular game. Perhaps we can agree on whether we want to ban or allow them for this game. (All of them are allowed under GOTM and HOF rules.)

• 3.2 - Hitting F1/back-forward to change production
• 3.5 - Chaining naval transports to quickly move land units across water
• 3.8 - Staying at war to upkeep War Weariness but not actual fighting
  Here I agree that this is not ok and should be banned. But I list it here, because I think it is very hard to enforce. Where is the border-line? Sometimes you can't really determine, whether a player is holding back his units, or whether he is not attacking simply because he doesn't have that many units anymore, but isn't willing to accept peace, because he thinks his opponent is equally weak and hopes to be able to (re-)take one more important city in the near future, before finally making peace.
• Palace Jump

3.2 Never have used it. It's a dweeb geek move used by people who cheat. The software engineer should have removed this, but didn't.
3.5 Don't have a problem with this. I may have used it several years ago, but found no great advantage in it. Have seen it used in team games by others and I don't object to it.
3.8 Touchy question here. If an opponent has declared war on me, it's to take what I have or prevent me from standing in their way to victory. Strictly self-centered reasoning. They are choosing to be at war. If after a while they tire of attacking me and want to quit, fine. Now the decision is placed in my hands. If it's to my advantage to stay at war, I will. I'm not the one who caused all the loss and destruction. If I have more important things to cover before the war is ended, you'll just have to wait and suffer the war weariness. "Sorry, my phone isn't working, I can't hear you. I'll call you back later." Don't like suffering extended war weariness? Don't declare war on me. Of course this is just a game. I'm usually as anxious as anyone might be to end a war, simply to get back to normal production. So, in this light, I don't see a problem. But living in the real world, I know there will probably be people who abuse this to no end.

Here is another point that I found on Apolyton: up to now we thought it is impossible to declare war in multi-player. Therefore war was always declared via a "sneak attack". However, someone on Apolyton found a way to declare war:

• Go to F4 and select the opponent
• Click on "Active Deals" and then pull the "Peace Deal" onto the table. (The advisor will ask you: "Are you really sure, we should renegotiate peace?!")
• Now click on the Peace Deal again to remove it from the table.
• Leave the F4 screen and now your are at war with the opponent!

The question is: do we want to adopt this procedure? This would eliminate the "sneak attacks". The attacked side has time to prepare his defenses (or even deliver the first blow of the war?!). And it would eliminate the "sudden death" of a Daimyo. (Takeda would not have been able to kill the Miyoshi Daimyo right away, they would first have to declare war and then attack next turn. That would make traveling with the Daimyo a bit safer...)
Or do we want to keep the "sneak attack" procedure? I'm ok with both ways.

Lanzelot

I have no problem adopting this very honorable procedure for declaring war. I have even used it in my stand alone games with the AI. Found this procedure by accident and liked it. It had a old European feel to it.

But, on the other hand, I had warts. Seriously, I'm playing with people who are a lot better than I am at C3C. There may come a time when I need to declare war immeditely to save my skin. I've been sneak-attacked before and I'm sure it will happen again. Such is life. One has to be prepared or suffer the consequences. So either way on this rule is acceptable to me.

 

[Blaze Injun]

Hey,

Well, protecting against DEATH BY NINJA is quite easy: the Yamabushi Warrior Monk comes a long time before the Ninja. Is it my fault that you still didn't have any by the time the first Ninjas were roaming Japan...

Not your fault. My fault for not pushing for the rule we had in the
"Samurai Blaze" & "Kamikaze soul" PBEMs.

Rule 2: Humans can not build the Yamabuchi unit.

@Blaze SoDs are not your thing then. How big a stack is a stack of doom anyway? In this scenario a stack of doom is anything big enough to kill your Daimyo.

Later in the game you may see a SoD of 30 units. To me any group over
10 units is a SoD in the field. But over that should only be used as a
Siege force. Now this number is for this scenario.

As for
3.2 Never use.
3.5 Got to keep those chains protected so I use all the time.
3.8 No problem using or not.



Blaze Injun

 

[semental]

Well, protecting against DEATH BY NINJA is quite easy: the Yamabushi Warrior Monk comes a long time before the Ninja. Is it my fault that you still didn't have any by the time the first Ninjas were roaming Japan...

No. Just ribbing you.

 

[Eclipse4449]

GPS to Lanzelot

I have shared a person note here at mt Epsilon game, it basically explains my slow turns. I'm having TL issues but I press forward just a bit slower than usual.

 

[Cyc]

Fear not, Eclipse4449. You have the support of the players here. If we nudge you for the save, it is all in good humor. If there'sanything I can do, let me know.

 

[Lanzelot]

GPS to Cyc.
Sorry to hear about your personal troubles, Eclipse! Keep your head high!
(And don't worry if your turns get delayed. Everyone will understand, a few days won't matter. After all, this is "only" a game, and real life should be prio 1!)

Lanzelot

 

[Lanzelot]

Hey,

Not your fault. My fault for not pushing for the rule we had in the
"Samurai Blaze" & "Kamikaze soul" PBEMs.

Rule 2: Humans can not build the Yamabuchi unit.

I can see the reasoning behind that rule. The Yamabuchi is so powerful that it is bordering on "game-breaking".

• It can move deep into enemy territory and pillage all resources.
• It basically puts an end to all offensive wars until the advent of Samurais. (Taking a town that is defended by Yamabuchis would require suicide attacks by large stacks of combined arms, if it can be done at all.)

However, I still don't like that rule, because then you would have to ban Ninjas as well! (Otherwise everyone's Daimyo is up for grabs, once the Ninja is around... The Yamabuchi is the only defense against the Ninja.)
But Yamabuchis and Ninjas are half the fun in this game...

After the first wars of the "iron age", the Yamabuchi basically enforces a period of peaceful building and researching, until the attack units are again more powerful than the defensive units. I don't see anything wrong with this?! It makes sure that both qualities are required for winning the game: the "warmonger quality" as well as the "builder quality". And the pillaging threat can be countered by protecting the vital resources with spearmen. So I vote for leaving both units in the game.

Lanzelot

 

[Blaze Injun]

Hey,

Well I'll admend it then to what the rule became.

1. One Yamabuchi unit per city for defense. Cannot be
moved. Pure village defense unit.

This leaves the countryside filled with dangerous ninja.

And I guess in those games you would have been out voted or
in the case of "Samurai Blaze" you'd have played that way or
not at all. My game my rules thing you know.

Anyway done posting here for awhile. Remember. I'm out so have
a great game.



Blaze Injun

 

[Cyc]

gps to Calis.

 

[Eclipse4449]

Well there was a lot to catch up on from the previous posts;

RoP rape; I'm guessing this is the act of being inside someones border and declaring war them and essentially be inside their border ready to attack. If this is what that means I agree, this is a horrible thing to do.

3.2 didn't know it could be done nor would I do it
3.5 I don't have a problem with it, I've never been able to pull it off, but I've never really tried.
3.8 I mobilize for war when war is going to happen but in the event Peace is negotiated I have always demobilized to make my citizens happy again.

I like this new to me F4 Declaration of War capability. This basically equals posting a declaration of war on the previous turn, well not quite, but if the screens were checked each turn by everybody it would be. I vote this as a yes. If you've played with me in the past you would know we were going to be at war because I post a story about it. So its really a matter of the rest to vote on.

For many years and many games has the SoD been discussed. Nearly every time the subject is brought up but never really resolved because it has so many levels to it and depending on any given situation.
In an early game 4 warriors stacked apposing an enemy city who only produced 2 warriors a worker and then a settler, some one consider this a stack of doom. It just doesn't hurt your feelings as bad.
On the other hand a player who has produced a decent Army and uses it defend their city is a stack of doom but this is never mentioned.
I use stacks of units to enter ones land because of the visual effect, it is stealth that allows you to get to your intended objective with the least resistance and the highest undamaged rate.
I normally view the battlefield as a whole and depending on the situation my intentions may not be set on taking a SoD to a city and taking it, It might be more important to pillage to stagnate this opponent and in this case a SoD would be worthless.
In almost every case the subject has been brought up, the lesser of the 2 competing foes did not produce the counter unit the aggressor has brought and has no way of combating it. Each making entirely different decisions on the way. The F3 military support soldier tells you of ones most powerful unit and also tells you whether that leader is more powerful than you or not.
Everyone has their strengths and weakness and add to that what they have available to them in regards to their area. Everyone, me included should take a much deeper look at the "whole" picture.
If a clan is expanding fast, chances are he is not defending well, on the other hand a clan waring with another clan is open to attack from another clan. So what happens then? A new rule implicated that one can not attack someone that is attacking someone else. That would be silly.
I hope I spell this word right "Consequences"
Declaring War on someone the previous turn will do little if anything if the other player has not prepared for the possibilities. Although I do agree it is good gaming ettiquette.

Yuck! it seems like everytime I do this, I set out to write a few lines and end up with a half a page

Civ5 announced fall, 2010

 

[Calis]

GPS to Xakzen...

 

[Defacto]

Sorry everyone for not participating in PBEM. I know I'm "late" to talk about it, but I come to apologize. After celebrating the New Year, I spent some time without playing CivIII and only went back when I created a story (for another forum, Portuguese). I want a good game at all.

- Tonyhf

 

[Defacto]

Sorry everyone for not participating in PBEM. I know I'm "late" to talk about it, but I come to apologize. After celebrating the New Year, I spent some time without playing CivIII and only went back when I created a story (for another forum, Portuguese). I want a good game at all.

- Tonyhf

Double post ... Sorry... a moderator can delete this message?

 

[xakzen]

gps -> Semental

 

[Lanzelot]

Sorry everyone for not participating in PBEM. I know I'm "late" to talk about it, but I come to apologize.
- Tonyhf

Ok, but it would still have been nice to send us a short email (also in the "Age of Discovery" scenario, where we waited for 2-3 weeks before looking for a substitute!)

Lanzelot

 

[semental]

gps -> Semental

Wrong turn sent.

 

[semental]

gps.........

 

[Hawklord]

gps..............

 

[Cyc]

I'm not going anywhere but the time between Thursday and Sunday I'll choose to do very little on the computer which creates a problem for those games I play, a few days might go by while I have the turn but I assure you I will play on.

Right on. We made the deadline. Let's keep our fingers crossed.