Forum Wars - The Ultimate Challenge

[Solver]

SITS,
Not to sound long - answers to both questions is no. If you post to Apolyton/Community forum, you'll get more and deeper replies there.

[Fistandantilus]

I agree with Misotu.
It's really difficult that a 6 players game runs at a faster pace than 2 days/turn.
Plus summer is nigh and there will be inevitable delays due to players going on vacation (I'm gonna be AWOL for two weeks in August for example).
The first 10-20 turns are going to take a month at minimum and if we start we no or minimal acceleration most of them are just of the 'move colony, move scout, end turn' type.
I don't think I'm going to be overwhelmed with turns...
Said that, it's most likely that we'll be still playing these games when civ3 is out... that could be a problem

[Keygen]

Although I was frustrated when I first heared of Googlie's suggestion of having 3 simultaneous games each team I kind find it an interesting proposal now. It is a little hard for me too to get involved in many games plus that I play quite many CTP games and about to start some more both CTP & SMAC/X. But I would really like to play with all the teams . Besides it is true that some games and form time to time all the games get quite slow so I don't accually have a serious problem on playing each game as I receive 1-3 turn(s) per day although I play in 11 or 12 games and subing usually in 2-3 games too.

[Googlie]

We're almost ready to go !!

Here are the suggested default conditions. (Default in the sense that if any group of six players want different conditions, by mutual agreement, the defaults can be modified. This would include smac or smax, map size, playing conditions, rules, etc.

Structure

Nine games with six players in each game (in sets of 2, representing the three forums), arranged in 3 series of 3 games each:

(where A=ACOL, C=CGN and P='Poly)

Series I
A1 vs C1 vs P1
A2 vs C2 vs P2
A3 vs C3 vs P3

Series II
A1 vs C2 vs P3
A2 vs C3 vs P1
A3 vs C1 vs P2

Series III
A1 vs C3 vs P2
A2 vs C1 vs P3
A3 vs C2 vs P1

(Note that the same players do not need to form the A1, etc, team for all three series. That will give players the opportunity of participating in just 1 match, or of playing with different partners in subsequent matches)

Forum Wars Defaults

Platform

SMAC

Settings

Planet size 55 x 110 (between Large and Huge)
Ocean Coverage 50% to 70% water
Erosive Forces Average
Native LifeForms Average
Cloud Cover Average
Difficulty Level Transcend

Scenario set-up

No restrictions on seed pod contents
Full 400 year term (from 2100 to 2500) as per Transcend norm

(All nine maps would be different (so that one team cannot coach another in another game as to what they have found in the map)

Factions

Any faction can be chosen, even duplicates.

Game Set-up Rules

Higher Goal Allow Victory by Transcendence - OK
Total War Allow Victory by Conquest - OK
Peace in Our Time Allow Diplomatic Victory - OK
Mine, All Mine Allow Economic Victory - OK
One for All Allow Cooperative Victory - OK
Do or Die Don't restart eliminated players - NO
Look First Flexible starting locations - OK
Tech Stagnation Slower rate of research discoveries - NO
Spoils of War Steal tech when conquer base - NO
Blind Research Cannot set precise research goals - NO
Intense Rivalry [AI] Opponents more aggressive n/a
No Unity Survey - World Map not visible - OK
No Unity Scattering Supply Pods only at landing sites - NO (i.e. have pod scattering)
Bell Curve - No Random Events - OK
Time Warp Accelerated Start - NO
Iron Man Save/Restore restricted to exit - OK
Randomize Personalities n/a
Randomize Social agendas n/a

Alternate Acceleration:

Extra Units: 1 extra Colony Pod and scout for each faction

At Transcend there would normally be 2 CPs and 1 scout. (Sparta 2 CPs and 1 Unity Rover) - this change will give 3 pods and 2 scouts (3 pods, a rover and a scout for Sparta).

Rules (such as they are):

 Communications - none till contact, obtain commlink, or build EG (even between teammates)

 Total freedom in Design Workshop (upgrades anytime, during turn or on-field)

 Retro-engineering - OK, except for using the probe rover chassis before discovery of Doc. Mobility

 SE switches "quickies" forbidden - (obviously you can experiment to see what effect various SE choices have, but cannot change, play moves, then change back in the same turn)

 Council notification - immediate broadcast to all players (Post in the thread and e-mail to all immediately by player who has called elections, citing candidates and votes. After each player's turn, post in the thread the running totals)

 Stockpiling in Qs anytime - OK

 Crawlers Upgrade anytime - OK

 Probe actions: Must choose vendetta option when probing other players (OK to probe teammate at any time)

 Using the AI - Cannot use the AI to bribe on coucil votes nor to demand withdrawal of units

Series I will play on the default settings, and can get underway as soon as teams notify me of their faction choices. Can the teams e-mail to me at:

linfrew@aol.com

Match #1
ACOL: Fistandantilus & SMAniaC
Poly: Keygen & Stuntman19
CGN: Scipio & Provost

Match #2
ACOL: MoSe & JAMiAM
Poly: Misotu & big_canuk
CGN: mark13 & Buster

Match #3
ACOL: Hobbes & JSchwab
Poly: Dilithium Dad & Flo
CGN: Blarney & Gusto

Then we can go

G.

[big_canuk]

I'd like to take exception to the no communication between teammates until contact. It seems to me that this could unbalance the game in 2 ways:

1. It opens a wide door for cheaters (Where are you? Lets meet at xx:xx)

2. Even if cheating does not occur, the ability to meet a specific faction (your teammate), will vary widely from case to case. The team that happens to "luck out" will be at a huge advantage. This strikes me as a test of luck, not ability.

Am I missing something?

bc

[JAMiAM]

bc, guess I should likewise crosspost...

This, I posted on the ACOL thread regarding this series:

For our match, I strongly advocate the following departures from the default settings.
Do or die should be checked, so we don't have to go chasing factions all across the board to eliminate them, and to avoid cheesy restarts.

Communications between players should be open, from the beginning. With talk of a 150 day limit and the fact that 6 player games will be lucky to average more than 2 turns per week, we should try to accelerate this game, as much as practical. Not to mention the nagging doubt which may exist, should a team just "happen" to find each other early in the game.

While on the subject, I recommend a minimum 200 day limit for the first series of matches.

"Using the AI" seems to be a non-issue, as there should be NO AI in the game, to begin with. The seventh faction should be eliminated, by the CMN, by whichever method he/she prefers.

The other settings I can live with, or actually prefer.

I'm ready to play...email to the following:

iamjamiam@yahoo.com
boardgamer@home.com

[Misotu]

Well, here's my opinion, FWIW -

Time limit
I have a real problem with this one. 6 players, different time zones, with the best will in the world 150 days is ludicrous. At 2 turns/week, that's 43 turns. At 3 turns/week, 64 turns. 200 days is hardly better - 57 or 86 turns. On a map size between large and huge? I can't see it.

I'd like to think that we could do better than this kind of rate, but it's holiday season and that, inevitably, will introduce delays. I'll be out of touch for several weeks late summer for example, no way round it, and probably for a week in July too.

I really have no interest in spending so much time on a game, only to have it called off because it didn't make it within some arbitrary time limit!

Using the AI
The AI is always in the game, like it or not. Not playing a faction, sure. But the AI still controls the decision to withdraw, if you demand it through the menus. It also permits you to bribe a human player in an election. So we do need a ruling on how the AI may be used.

No comms between team-mates until contact
Too unbalancing, too dependent on luck as Big_C and JAM have already mentioned.

DW workshop upgrades at any time
I don't agree with this one, but haven't sounded out the rest of the Poly players on it. I think there should be a vote of the actual players to decide this. Anyone not used to playing with DW freely permitted will be pretty disadvantaged, and there are other considerations too.

Other rules
Since at least one player is promising to play the game to the hilt unless we specifically ban the silly stuff , should we add:
No multiple drops
No demon boils from patrol routes
etc etc

???

I think we're nearly there anyway - maybe the last few issues can be resolved by player votes? I think it'll be easier if the default rules, at least, reflect the majority view otherwise we're going to end up with a lot of different rule sets on a game-by-game basis?

[JAMiAM]

Originally posted by Misotu
Well, here's my opinion, FWIW -

Time limit
I have a real problem with this one. 6 players, different time zones, with the best will in the world 150 days is ludicrous. At 2 turns/week, that's 43 turns. At 3 turns/week, 64 turns. 200 days is hardly better - 57 or 86 turns. On a map size between large and huge? I can't see it.

I'd like to think that we could do better than this kind of rate, but it's holiday season and that, inevitably, will introduce delays. I'll be out of touch for several weeks late summer for example, no way round it, and probably for a week in July too.

I really have no interest in spending so much time on a game, only to have it called off because it didn't make it within some arbitrary time limit!

I agree, completely.

People...note that I said a *minimum* 200 day limit. I am open for (nay, advocate) a longer period.

Originally posted by Misotu
Well, here's my opinion, FWIW -

Using the AI
The AI is always in the game, like it or not. Not playing a faction, sure. But the AI still controls the decision to withdraw, if you demand it through the menus. It also permits you to bribe a human player in an election. So we do need a ruling on how the AI may be used.

Excuse me, but I've never seen how the AI allows the bribing of a human player in an election. Would you care to explain exactly how this works?

Regarding the demand withdrawal behavior...I agree that the AI will the one to decide whether compliance will be achieved, but it is a necessary evil, and I have found that it is generally well implimented.

It would be MUCH worse to disallow the use of demand withdrawal...

Originally posted by Misotu
Well, here's my opinion, FWIW -

DW workshop upgrades at any time
I don't agree with this one, but haven't sounded out the rest of the Poly players on it. I think there should be a vote of the actual players to decide this. Anyone not used to playing with DW freely permitted will be pretty disadvantaged, and there are other considerations too.

Other rules
Since at least one player is promising to play the game to the hilt unless we specifically ban the silly stuff , should we add:
No multiple drops
No demon boils from patrol routes
etc etc

???

I'll address these together, as they are both directed to me (my comments in the ACOL thread) and associated.

No multiple drops *is* one of the rules that I requested.

No demon boils from patrols? Gimme a break! The reason that you get demon boils is that in automating patrols, your units search out natives, kill them, get upgrades, rest, and continue. It's part of the game! It doesn't just happen magically. People reporting miraculous growth are just not paying attention to the mechanics. These mechanics are the same as manually controlling the boils with the conscious use of the feature described in my post in the ACOL thread (Keygen's lesson 5).

I really don't want to drag the thread down into a debate about the merits/concerns of the DW and its use. Some well respected players have spoken both in favor, and against, its unrestricted usage. My opinion is that it is a rich part of the game, and that disallowing its full utilization is sacrificing a large part of the game.

I hate to sound petulant, but one of the reasons that I wanted to minimize the rules restrictions is to avoid long drawn out discussions on how severely we're going to prune this game and its features down to satisfy the lowest common denominator.

As I stated quite clearly, from the beginning (again, at the ACOL thread), if the restrictions are not minimized, I'm not interested in playing. I suppose that I should have followed this thread more carefully so as to not let my silence be considered assent. My apolygies for any misunderstandings.

[Fistandantilus]

AI bribing a human player in an election?
Oh, it's really easy, JAM. I'm surprised you never saw that happen.
When the coucil screen pops up if your vote is going to be decisive for the elections sometimes the AI takes the part of the player and offers you money or tech in exchange of your support in the elections.
Obviously the human player knows nothing of it and can't prevent it to happen so I think accepting the bribe is definitely cheating (expecially if the human player has already sent you money for your vote ).

[Misotu]

Timing

I still say that the games should run their course, with no artificial time limits of the minimum, maximum or medium variety. We need a few things agreed to keep the games moving - having partners subbing for each other might help here? (Good suggestion Flo!)

Election bribing

MoSE is aware of this JAM, and has actually raised it already as an issue.

Click on the portrait of a human player in the Council screen. Just as in SP, a screen will pop up asking you how you want them to vote. The AI will then set a price for the change in vote - energy or tech. Or it may say "this is far too important for me to change my mind" etc, whatever the wording is. But it is possible to change the outcome of a Council vote, including elections, by using this method to bribe a human player.

By the same token, a "human" player may suddenly offer you a bribe in an election. This has happened to me in several games - the AI decides that it wants to bribe you when the Council screen pops up. I have even seen it once when my vote would not have affected the outcome unless the AI bribed a second human player.

Allowing withdrawal

A thread here a few months ago showed that there are actually a number of opinions on this, and an arguement can be made for it, against it, and for a compromise position. Saying that disallowing it would be "much worse" is a personal opinion. Perfectly valid, but personal nonetheless. This should be put to the vote, in my personal opinion.

I'll address these together, as they are both directed to me (my comments in the ACOL thread) and associated.

Nope. Didn't have you in mind at all. It was another player actually, whose email I still have. I don't read the ACOL thread - no time - and this was written before my first visit there this morning.

Sorry to disappoint you

So I am very pleased to hear that you want multiple drops banned, but that's really incidental. I was just quoting it as an example. There are a number of other, similarly silly bugs that shouldn't be used in MP except by agreement, and this was the point I was making. These silly bugs include ...

The Demon Boil Bug

I have sent you 2 SMAC game files. One is called hatch2103.SAV. The other, funnily enough, is called demonboil2103.SAV. I can assure you that I moved from one, to the other, without moving my worm, exiting from the game, or activating the editor. No monoliths, no native life encountered.
I await your explanation with interest.

Design Workshop

Like I said, not directed at you (are you having a paranoid day or something JAM? )

Permitted use of the design workshop varies a lot around the boards. Like you, I don't particularly want to go through the debate again. I used to advocate free use. More experience has changed my mind. I think it should simply be put to a vote and I'm happy to go with the majority. I personally have a problem with losing the -50% attack penalty for drop, but not everyone may see it that way ...

... one of the reasons that I wanted to minimize the rules restrictions is to avoid long drawn out discussions on how severely we're going to prune this game and its features down to satisfy the lowest common denominator.

I'd like to minimise debate too, since these are old subjects, and I think the easiest way is for each team rep to collect the 6 votes for the team and send them to Googlie. No big discussion, and no big time consumption either.

To be honest, the restrictions are, I think, being minimised. Stock en is in, reverse engineering is in, crawler upgrades are in, duplicate factions appear to be in ...

DW upgrades have a massive influence on the game, and many players are unused to free use, so it's not unreasonable to have a vote on this from all the players.

Drawing up a list of known bugs that no-one wants to see used is not unreasonable either.

Not everyone knows about all the bugs in the game (Bribing human players. Demon boils. QED). I'm probably a bit old-fashioned, or the lowest common denominator or something, but I'd like to see skill, rather than an extensive knowledge of exploitable bugs, play a part in these games.

As far as I can tell, we are very nearly there on the rules. We should be able to wrap this up in a few days, if we can all control our impatience for that long. There are 18 players involved here, all of whom will be playing these games for some time to come. I am sure that we can come up with something that will make everyone pretty content, but this will be hard to do unless everyone is prepared to compromise. Unlimited DW upgrades, which seems to be your primary concern, might well be in if we take a vote.

[JAMiAM]

Fist,

Thanks for the info. That explains why I've never seen it. Most of my games, I get the Empath Guild, and do the bulk of the calling of elections. It stands to reason that I've never got the opportunity to witness it.

I wonder what kind of gifts, I've sent off without ever knowing...



Misotu,

I received your emailed files regarding the hatchling to demon boil phenomenom. But, upon loading the game, and trying to play it, I can NOT duplicate your results. Please tell me the exact sequence of commands necessary to do so.

i.e, reload your file, as a SP game, and write down the exact keystrokes. Thanks.

[JAMiAM]

Hello all,

My apologies to Misotu, for sounding harsh, and being a fool.

And, my thanks, as well. For showing me how the Instant Demon Boil trick works. Never using waypoints in patrolling, led to my ignorance on that issue, and I stand corrected.

Further, I agree that it would be a cheat to utilize that tactic.

[Misotu]

No problem, JAM, and a generous post.

[Fistandantilus]

Since we're talking about rules...
is opening the .sav file with a text editor to take a peek of what the other players wrote in the diplomacy box allowed?

Ok, seriously,
Bingmann's site was full of useful information covering these SMAC 'features' and I think it would be good if everyone could take a look at it.

Unfortunatly the only address I have is:
http://www.crl.com/~xhounds/smac/index.html
but it doesn't seem to work anymore

I think when Bing changed e-mail provider his site went down too.
Does anybody know if he moved the site? and where?
It would be a shame to have lost all that work...

[buster]

Bingmanns site can be found here: http://www.xhounds.com

[JAMiAM]

Bingmann's SMAC repository was moved to the following address:
http://smac.xhounds.com/

A must read for all SMAC players.

[Googlie]

Status report:

Committee is finalizing some discussion around the more obscure (some think game-imbalancing) techniques employed by some highly imaginative players, while still trying to formulate a common set of minimalistic rules.

Last discussion was around polling all 18 players to get concensus on these.

Stay tuned........

G.

[Googlie]

Time to Vote on the Playing Conditions outstanding

Go to:


http://clik.to/sparta

last page (Forum Wars), and take the poll

Thanks

G.

[JAMiAM]

Googlie,

IMNSHO, the running vote tallies should have been viewable. Regardless, here are mine...(54115121).

[Solver]

Feel this will all fall apart.

[big_canuk]

G:

Question 4 is unclear. Option 1 is clear. Option 2, I'm not quite sure of but seems to be a compromise to allow design workshop upgrading only at the beginning of the turn, to allow sneak attacks, but to disallow movement, sneak attack, and then upgrading to be able to move again or attack without drop penalties, etc.

Option 3 is unclear or misworded. I'm sure it is meant to be the standard Apolyton rules, where in the field upgrades *are* allowed at any time, but design workshop upgrades are only allowed at end of turn, after all movement.

I didn't vote this one in the survey, cause I was confused. If above is intent, then I would vote for 3, followed by 2, followed by 1.

bc

[JAMiAM]

Solver,

But...but...we're so close...

[Googlie]

Poll Stations close at midnight, PST on June 16th.

Clear majority opinion will be acted on; CMN will use best judgement in selecting an option where there is no clear majority opinion.

G.

[Googlie]

Forum Wars Game Set-up - Final Conditions

Platform:

Will generally be SMAX, v 2.0, unless a particular team has a player(s) who only have SMAC (or if by unanimous agreement of all six players in a particular game) in which case it will be SMAC v 4.0

Structure:

Nine games with six players in each game (in sets of 2, representing the three forums), arranged in 3 series of 3 games each:

(where A=ACOL, C=CGN and P='Poly)

Series I
A1 vs C1 vs P1
A2 vs C2 vs P2
A3 vs C3 vs P3

Series II
A1 vs C2 vs P3
A2 vs C3 vs P1
A3 vs C1 vs P2

Series III
A1 vs C3 vs P2
A2 vs C1 vs P3
A3 vs C2 vs P1

(Note that the same players do not need to form the A1, etc, team for all three series. That will give players the opportunity of participating in just 1 match, or of playing with different partners in subsequent matches)

Settings:

Planet size 60 x 120 (between Large and Huge)
Ocean Coverage 50% to 70% water
Erosive Forces Average
Native LifeForms Average
Cloud Cover Average
Difficulty Level Transcend

Scenario set-up:

No restrictions on seed pod contents
Full 400 year term (from 2100 to 2500) as per Transcend norm
(All nine maps would be different (so that one team cannot coach another in another game as to what they have found in the map)

Factions:

Any faction can be chosen except the Aliens. Team members must choose two different factions. The same faction can be represented in different teams.

Game Set-up Rules:

Higher Goal Allow Victory by Transcendence - OK
Total War Allow Victory by Conquest - OK
Peace in Our Time Allow Diplomatic Victory - OK
Mine, All Mine Allow Economic Victory - OK
One for All Allow Cooperative Victory - OK
Do or Die Don't restart eliminated players - Yes
Look First Flexible starting locations - OK
Tech Stagnation Slower rate of research discoveries - NO
Spoils of War Steal tech when conquer base - NO
Blind Research Cannot set precise research goals - NO
Intense Rivalry [AI] Opponents more aggressive n/a
No Unity Survey - World Map not visible - OK
No Unity Scattering Supply Pods only at landing sites - NO (i.e. have pod scattering)
Bell Curve - No Random Events - OK
Time Warp Accelerated Start - NO
Iron Man Save/Restore restricted to exit - NO
Randomize Personalities n/a
Randomize Social agendas n/a

Alternate Acceleration:

Extra Units: 1 extra Colony Pod and scout for each faction
At Transcend there would normally be 2 CPs and 1 scout. (Sparta 2 CPs and 1 Unity Rover) - this change will give 3 pods and 2 scouts (3 pods, a rover and a scout for Sparta).

Rules (such as they are):

• Communications - none till contact, obtain commlink, or build EG (team mates can communicate from the beginning)
• Total freedom in Design Workshop (upgrades anytime, during turn or• on-field)
• Retro-engineering - OK, except for using the probe rover chassis before• discovering Doc. Mobility
• SE switches "quickies" forbidden - (obviously you can experiment to see• what effect various SE choices have, but cannot change, play moves, then change back in the same turn)
• Council notification - immediate broadcast to all players (Post in the• thread and e-mail to all immediately by player who has called elections, citing candidates and votes. After each player's turn, post in the thread the running totals)
• Stockpiling in Qs anytime - OK•
• Crawlers Upgrade anytime - OK (see Design Workshop, earlier)•
• Probe actions: Must choose vendetta option when probing other players, rebuke when probing pactmates (OK• to probe teammate at any time)
• Demanding withdrawal through the menus rather than by negotiation is prohibited
• Bribing (or accepting bribes) for votes through the diplomatic channel box by clicking on the faction leader's picture is prohibited (must be conducted by diplo message or e-mail)
• Multiple drops - cannot use the right click mouse feature to extend range of drop units beyond the 8 tiles (pre Space Elevator)
• Base growth through Colony Pods - can be used to increase a base size up to the applicable pre-facility limit, but cannot be used to breach that limit without the facility being built.
• Psi units cannot be assigned multiple waypoint patrol routes (to avoid instant demon boil bug)
• Cannot accept pending treaties/pacts after declaring vendetta in the same turn
• Cannot change an infiltrated faction's workers to specialists, for example by using the F4 screen (or the bases icon of the F2 screen)
• SE switches "quickies" forbidden - (obviously you can experiment to see what effect various SE choices have, but cannot change, play moves, then change back in the same turn)

Matches:

Match #1
ACOL: Fistandantilus & SMAniaC
Poly: Keygen & Stuntman19
CGN: Scipio & Provost

Match #2
ACOL: MoSe & JAMiAM
Poly: Misotu & big_canuk
CGN: mark13 & Buster

Match #3
ACOL: Hobbes & JSchwab
Poly: Dilithium Dad & Flo
CGN: Blarney & Gusto

Important Notice

Will teams who have submitted two identical faction choices now send me your revised choices with two different factions.

Turn Posting Suggestion

In the interests of generating site traffic (to keep the sponsors happy), I suggest that the turn threads be spread among the 3 forums, with games # 1,4 and 7 being posted on ACOL, #s 2,5 and 8 on Apolyton, and #s 3,6 and 9 on The Civilization Gaming Network

Googlie

[Googlie]

Note: Match # 3 will be on the SMAC v 4.0 platform

Dilithium Dad is a SMAC only player

G.

[Googlie]

Keygen & Stuntman19:

I still need your faction choices (and if one is the UoP, what free tech you want)

G.

[Blarney]

Just a note on your board to say that I am also a SMAC only player right now, works out well for this game. But any of the other matchups which include me will have to be SMAC as well. I have the Linux version on the way which will be SMAX, but who knows when.

Also, CGN is now officially down, for at least a couple weeks. So the game log will have to be set up elsewhere.

Can't wait to find out what kind of opposition we have.

This is the first time I've ever used smilies, hope I did it right.

[Deimos]

Originally posted by Blarney
Also, CGN is now officially down, for at least a couple weeks. So the game log will have to be set up elsewhere.

Weeks?!? What's up with CGN?

[Blarney]

The website provider closed its doors, but did give a couple weeks grace which is now used up. A posting estimated at most a couple of weeks to get civgaming.net running again somewhere else.

[mark13]

Yup, CGN's in limbo, unfortunately. The estimate I was given was a few weeks, rather than a couple - hopefully they can get something sorted before then, anyway. I would urge all posters to post here in the meantime - it's not such a bad place really. Honest.

In any case, looking forward to starting this series - with a bit of luck, my schedule will clear itself up a bit, so I can devote some time to it.