The Evolution of PBEM Rules

[kobayashi]

Gemanos has brought to my attention a problem regarding ZWK (and probably all other PBEMs). It is regarding the giving of units. Generally, when you give a unit to another tribe, it becomes a home=None unit. If allied tribes swap units back and forth, they can make all their units not require support or cause unhappiness went stationed out of town.

Therefore I believe we should adopt a new rule where you canot give a unit to another human player (giving to AI tribes is still allowed).

WillemO brought to my attention another dastardly tactic, selling the city walls of objective cities or simply starving them by changing all the population into entertainers.

Therefore, I beleive we should disallow the selling of city walls for objective cities and disallow starvation of objective cities (starving other cities and selling improvements in general is still allowed)

Anybody have any reasons why these policies are wrong?

 

[Duke of Marlbrough]

In the game we are in (#3), the Allies can give units to the Minor Allies, but the Minor Allies cannot give units to the Allies.

I think that handicapps the Allies a bit if they can't gift units to the Minor Allies. Since the Allies cannot use the Minor Allies cities as bases, it would make it that much harder for the Allies to support them otherwise.

Koby, check your PM.

 

[TimTheEnchanter]

I'm not an experienced PBEM'er but here's some thoughts based mostly on playing ZWK...

I think a prohibition on the gifting units is a very bad idea. It severely limits the options that would otherwise be available to people (Not to mention it makes the zwk Minor Allies almost unplayable against an agressive human Axis). There are other, less severe ways of dealing with the situation. Perhaps just make it that you can't pass them back and forth. I realize this is difficult to define, but perhaps gifting one way (e.g., Allies to Minor allies) is fine, but the receiver can't give similar units back.(EDIT: I see DoM already mentioned this while I was working on my response) You even mention "Lend-Lease" prominently as a viable tactic in your HTML Read-me and I think it should stay part of the game.

Also, is this a "real" problem or just a theoretical one. by this I mean: Has anyone actually been doing this 'back-and-forth' trading to None-support their military? Doesn't this end up putting too many units into one or two cities, leaving others undefended?


The prohibition selling of city walls in objective cities I agree with, as long as "objective city" is defined correctly. I had already thought of it as an effective Axis strategy to preserve the Academy in ZWK and had considered bringing it to your attention myself. An alternative would be to define an additional event on city destruction (I don't know if there is such an event) as well as city capture. If that isn't feasible, I think that rule should be reserved for cities whose capture triggers events, such as Ploesti, or London. Purposefully allowing the destruction of the city has the same effect as renaming it - it causes the event to fail to fire properly - and it should be prohibited. Selling walls in any other cities (e.g., Kiel) should still be allowed, if you want to do it. They are not true objective cities in the same sense. I am also not sure how this rule would apply to scenarios where almost every city is defined as an "objective" with a point value.

 

[elibb]

I think that the gifting of units should be allowed as long as it is not used in order to make NON armies.

EXAMPLE: Support the units from one of your cities once you get them.
You can move them to the city of your choice to support them as long as:
a) the city is a reasonable distance from the unit
b) the unit will attack or get in battle while moving to the city.

 

[germanos]

It is good to know that giving units back and forth doesn't work in all cases, that takes care of one thing.

In ZWK a particular feature is the US being across the ocean. With the unit gifting it is possible to 'teleport' them across the ocean within the blink of an eye. I think this eleminates an important factor in WWII, the transatlantic supplies to europe.
Lend-lease was not achived by airlifting troops , and certainly not armour.

We might consider a more subtel approach to completely ban unit-transfer, but the thing is a simple rule often works better than a complicated one.

I do like Elibb's sugestion though, where units can be given if they are transferred within a reasonable range, for instance within the range they normally have. Thus airsupport would still be possible to France from the southcoast, wheras transatlantic traffic is prohibited.
Question then is how US-Soviet lend-lease will be allowed.

To reply to DoM and Tim:
I think the Allies have sufficient means to support France with groundunits, since they can easily cross the Channel and battle the Germans themselves.
On leaving some cities undefended: The US in virtually untuchable, so there is no danger in leaving them undefended for at least the first year of the war.

I am happy to read that eliminating 'objective' cities through starvation is considerd by many to be not-allowed. I was already fearing that capturing Brest would be impossible through WillemO's startegy of scorched earth. (Excelent thinking though Willem ) I hope we can agree on this.

 

[Duke of Marlbrough]

Originally posted by germanos
To reply to DoM and Tim:
I think the Allies have sufficient means to support France with groundunits, since they can easily cross the Channel and battle the Germans themselves.

But, with no cities to use as bases, you might as well not even try to support France. You can't use fighter cover on an airbase, your troops don't heal so well outside a city either. Plus, the Allies would only have limited reach due to the airbases that are available.

 

[germanos]

Originally posted by Duke of Marlbrough


But, with no cities to use as bases, you might as well not even try to support France... your troops don't heal so well outside a city either

I am new to PBEM, but in regular Civ you can heal your units via the cities of your ally. Does this still work in ZWK? And even if not, the Germans do have the same 'disadvantage' while operating in the field.

And complaining you don't have aircover on your airfields is really to much !! I don't think there is any penalty for airplanes being attacked on an airfield (or is there? like the penalty of ships in port?) so you are not in a bad position there, and I think that attacking airunits while refuling is just a normal and accaptable fact of war.

Offcourse you are limited in your range if you have to be carefull where you station your airplanes, but you can not expect to have an nice airfield in the middle of enemy territory which is invulnarable. I would be gratefull if invulnarable airfields were granted to the Axis outside Paris

 

[Duke of Marlbrough]

Originally posted by germanos
And complaining you don't have aircover on your airfields is really to much !! I don't think there is any penalty for airplanes being attacked on an airfield (or is there? like the penalty of ships in port?) so you are not in a bad position there, and I think that attacking airunits while refuling is just a normal and accaptable fact of war.

There is no penalty, but there is no bonus either. If you had fighters in a city, you get an 'aircover' bonus when another air unit attacks you.

I guess if you follow the logic that the Axis are suppose to take over France, then the Allies are to recapture the cites to use as their own bases, then it flows ok. But all that is needed to stop that is the Axis player to have a 'scorched earth' policy in France.

If the rule change affected everyone I could see it making sense, but since it favors one side over the other I don't like it. The fact that the Axis player can win games makes me think it is still a fairly balanced game as is.

 

[germanos]

[/QUOTE][/B]There is no penalty, but there is no bonus either. If you had fighters in a city, you get an 'aircover' bonus when another air unit attacks you.[?B][/QUOTE]

I think we should not complain about the lack of bonusses

[/QUOTE][/B]I guess if you follow the logic that the Axis are suppose to take over France, then the Allies are to recapture the cites to use as their own bases, then it flows ok. But all that is needed to stop that is the Axis player to have a 'scorched earth' policy in France.[/B][/QUOTE]

Enlighten me on that, because I don't exactly understand what you mean here

[/QUOTE][/B]If the rule change affected everyone I could see it making sense, but since it favors one side over the other I don't like it. The fact that the Axis player can win games makes me think it is still a fairly balanced game as is. [/B][/QUOTE]

Enlighten me here as well please. How does it favor the axis over the Allied. And what rule does this?

 

[Duke of Marlbrough]

The lack of bonuses makse it pretty much impossible to try and defend otherwise.

The rule change (that was the topic of this thread) favors the Axis because they won't be restricted as much by the gifting of troops. Since gifting troops has little benefit for them since they are already in the same areas as the Minor Axis. It is obviously focused to restrict the Allies. I think it goes too far. It's not like the Allies can gift all their units to the Minor Allies in one turn anyway. The most I have been able to give in one turn is 4 units.

I don't even know what game you are playing in, but, by your answers, I would bet you are playing as the Axis.

BTW, how many games of ZWK have you played?

 

[germanos]

I am playing my first (ZWK VI)

I am invading France right now, and France is allready largely pillaged. By the French that is.
Maybe you could tell me what this means in regard to your remark about Germany having a scorched earth policy in France when they land again in Europe, if I will be ever to be able to kick them out.

In a single player game I have been able to move 7 units from the US to France, a Capital ship and a Carrier, two fighters and three armourd div's, presumably arriving in Brest, Dunkirk and the coastal city between them (forgot its name, Cherbourg?).
That could very much mean 7 units a turn: that is enough to stall German conquest of France, and if Germany is not able to capture France, and teleporting units across the atlantic is not prohibited, there is no way Germany can even think about turning it's goal eastwards, lat alone invade britain.

To adress your claim the proposed rule is benefit to the Axis, I can only agree with this in mind: at present it is the Allies who have an overwhelming advantage over the Axis, since even Britain do not have to risk putting their BEF on ships to land in France. Naval supuriority in that area is well established, but airraids might hurt the transports.

 

[Duke of Marlbrough]

Scorched earth policy would be to make sure the cities you have captured from the France are destoryed (raized) when the Allies are counter attacking. That way they would have no cities to use as bases for their counter-attack.

I wish I could send over 7 units a turn. The most I have been able to send is 4, then is seems to reduce down to 1 over 3 or 4 turns, then back up to 4 and it starts all over again.

The Allies do have naval superiority in the North Sea, but the Axis have air and land superiority. Air power seems to dicate the game (as in real life also).

The Axis player is not going to simply walk over the Minor Allies when they are being played by a human player. Whether units are being gifted to them or not.

I would agree that gifting units from the Americas is 'pushing it', but without being able to have the Allies and Minor Allies use each others cities, gifting units seems the only way to let them interact and combine their efforts.

 

[germanos]

In my game it it lookes that allready the germans are not going to get a lot of cities in France. I expect that at least Dijon, Vichy, Bordeaux, Dunkirk and Cherbourg(?) will be taken down to ruble while (if) I enter them. It will not take much to raze the others in a counter attack.

I didn't expect a walkover in France. No problem with that.

I would like to know though if healing through allied cities works in ZWK or other PBEM. I think it is important in our current discussion.

Must take a nap now, but keep posting. I'll get back to it tomorrow

 

[Duke of Marlbrough]

Originally posted by germanos
I would like to know though if healing through allied cities works in ZWK or other PBEM. I think it is important in our current discussion.

Allied troops cannot enter the same square as Minor Allied troops or cities. This is the part that makes it impossible to try and keep the units separate, but effectively use them. They can't support each other as they would in 'real life'.

 

[TimTheEnchanter]

I think there are several issues that are in play here. It seems like some are just Multiplayer issues that many of us are experiencing for the first time with PBEMs.

I gave a cursory look for some generally accepted rules on multiplaying and was surprised at how little I could find. Most of what I found was at apolyton so I don’t know if different rules apply here. Perhaps someone knows of a general rules/cheats list for MP?

Issues:
(1) None-support of gifted units

This was not mentioned as a cheat in any of the MP rules/cheats items I saw. Has this been an issue in “live” MP Games? Nothing I saw said it should be disallowed.

(2) Teleporting units by gifting
The MP items I saw talked about a civ using a unit in one turn, then gifting it to someone else who got a full turn usage out of the same unit on the same turn, then gifting it back. I saw no mention of the teleportation issue in general as long as it was one direction. It seems like this is just part of the game.

If this is an issue, I don’t think there should be any gray area about when to use it and when not to, because every gift involves some free “teleportation”. Even a move of a few squares could be huge if it is across rough terrain, water, or enemy controlled territory.

(3) Perhaps the more important issue: The use of these techniques as they affect the balance of ZWK games
Maybe I’m reading too much into this, but I get the distinct impression that Germanos believes the existence of items 1 and/or 2 gives his Axis a disadvantage in ZWK when the Minor Allies are controlled by a human player (particularly one as accomplished as willemvanoranje). I am not aware of any ZWK PBEM with human Minor players going even close to completion yet. Do human players really give an advantage to the Allies that needs to be rectified? I see no mention of how a human Minor Axis affects the balance in the Mediterranean (where the Allies can normally dominate early against an Italian AI. How’s Darius doing in his Minor Axis game?)

Kobayashi – did you do much playtesting with humans controlling the Minor Allies and Minor Axis? Might there be a balance issue that needs to be addressed? Is limiting when and where unit gifting is allowed the best solution?

There are certainly tradeoffs for the Allies/Minor allies in using the gifting approach:
(1) By using the US to produce units for France rather than wonders, the Allies risk giving up one of their inherent advantages – the ability to build most Wonders in the US without disruption.

(2) By gifting units to the French they increase the likelihood that more cities will be destroyed when taken. This certainly makes it harder for Germany to take out the last few French cities, but I think it makes a Normandy invasion virtually impossible for the allies. Without the protection of cities for the air cover bonus, quicker repair, and not losing stacks of units, moving any sizeable invasion force from NW France into Germany will be difficult to impossible. The units would just get picked off as they approached Germany It limits the options the allies have of ultimately winning the game.

I think we should let the current games continue to see if there is truly an unfairness that needs to be addressed. In one of the current games, I think the Allies/Minor Allies are kicking some arse, but Elibb has already admitted he was much too slow to press the Axis’ advantage in that game so that may not be representative. Even if there is some inequity, I don’t think eliminating unit-gifting is the right answer to solve it. I think perhaps a modified version of the scenario for 5+ human players, which changes some things like city sizes in France, or number of units, etc. would be a preferable solution. I’m not a scenario builder at all, so I don’t know how feasible these types of changes are, but they seem more appropriate than setting up our own rules limiting the way Civ works. If the problem is ZWK specific, I think the solution should be within ZWK.

For full disclosure: I am playing the Minor Allies in my PBEM (also my first) so I stand to benefit if these practices remain unchanged. If those proposed restrictions are generally accepted MP rules, then we should adopt them as well. But if other MP games can work with unit gifting, we should find a way to work with it as well. I think we are all better off staying as much as possible with the way Civ MP usually works and modifying the scenario if there is a playability problem rather than inventing rules (mid-game for most of us) that limit functions that are typically available.

 

[TimTheEnchanter]

Now as for the city fortifications...

Originally posted by germanos
I am happy to read that eliminating 'objective' cities through starvation is considerd by many to be not-allowed. I was already fearing that capturing Brest would be impossible through WillemO's startegy of scorched earth. (Excelent thinking though Willem ) I hope we can agree on this.

Brest is not an objective city in ZWK. That is why I wanted it made clear that it should only affect cities that must be captured to trigger an event. The primary objective cities (involved in winning) are London, Moscow and Berlin. The secondary objectives (which cause obsolescence of Wonders) are Ploesti, Stalingrad and Port Said. Brest is not needed to trigger an event.

I did some testing and the Torpedo event still works even if Brest is destroyed - so long as someone other than the Axis does not occupy the square where the city was (in which case they go to Kiel). The major difference is that the torpedoes come as an unprotected stack and could be destroyed in one shot by a ship or plane out of SW Britain. But if that happens, they just come back by event again. You can load them onto subs if you move the boat up next to that city (you have to use the movement of the Torpedos that turn), you just can't go "into port" in that square to get them.

Anyway, it seems realistic to think that the French could sabotage their ports and infrastructure to make them inoperable for an occupying German force.

 

[kobayashi]

Seems many participants in this thread have got very detailed knowledge regarding ZWK specific PBEM. Glad I did not just post any 'rules' in the PBEM FAQ.

I myself only played several multiplayer games involving 2 guys and one with 3 guys (ZWK PBEM 1) so my experience is mostly second hand knowledge.

Lets see if there are any more arguements - counter arguements I will try to summarise the things which everyone agrees on later.

 

[PinkyGen]

Going from a TSFE perspective, unit trading can be very valuable. I already know the Germans have done it with the Spanish, allowing them to do very well in North Africa against the French. I also may or may not have donated T-34 to my minor nation and Turkish friends.

Generally, I think it should be allowed, just not abused.

 

[Darius]

I'm here to mention a problem that hasn't been mentioned here and that TimTheEnchanter brought to my attention. In ZWK 5, I was gifted two M3's and a spitfire to Novgorod. When I loaded the file and looked there, indeed there were the two M3's, but alongside them was a wehrmacht division and no spitfire. Also, the wehrmacht division caused a science breakthrough and I ended up having the Axis tech, allowing me to build more wehrmacht divisions as well as U-boats.

Tim said on the thread that in hotseat games of his own he tested and found out that this happens very often when the Allies gift to anybody. I'm led to believe we should ban the gifts for this reason as well, that there seems to be some internal bug which screws up what units arrive. This would mean, at least in the case of ZWK, that a ban would have to be in place regardless of how willing people are to not abuse it. Has anyone other than the two of us seen this phenomenon?

 

[kobayashi]

Originally posted by Darius
Has anyone other than the two of us seen this phenomenon?

Yes I tried it out after reading Tim the E's post and indeed after giving a few units, one allied division was transformed into a Wehrmacht division.