Teams that are Allies..... - Page 4

Aeson · October 3, 2003, 17:09

Quote:

Originally posted by Arrian

I'm going to have to second this comment.

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither

Can you elaborate? I am not at all familiar with the first item you mentioned, and have only heard of the second in passing.

The mobilization bug allows for infinite shield production in a city during the city production step. All that (is, or was) needed is to be mobilized, and to break into the production phase through a tech, unit, or improvement completion popup. Then, by switching laborers around, the 'mobilized' shields keep adding up in the city production queuq. So if you had 8 shields per turn, and then switched a laborer back and forth between 2 shield tiles (1 regular, 1 from mobilization) 12 times, you'd then have 20 shields per turn ready to go for the next turn.

So building a unit every turn in your capitol (or first city in the build queue) would allow for every other city to produce as many shields as is necessary to complete whatever they are working on each turn.

I think it was patched out in 1.27f, possibly 1.21f.

----------

There is another related problem due to the breakup of the food and production/commerce phases. By switching a high food tile to a high production/commerce during the production phase, the result is you get the high food (calculated before the production phase), and the high production/commerce (calculated after).

The obvious solution to both (if the mobilization bug still exists) these problems is to disallow any laborer re-assignments during the production phase.

----------

The FP/OCN problem is one recently discovered by Qitai over at CivFanatics. OCN rank was assumed to include cities closer to the Palace and/or FP, but it turns out it's figured just from the Palace, while cities 'around the FP' (closer to the FP than the Palace) are figured by their distance from the FP, but only ranked against cities 'around the Palace'. So if you were to have 2 rings of cities around the FP closer/equal to the distance of the 1st ring of cities around the Palace, all those cities around the FP would get an OCN of 1, even the ones in the 2nd ring. So cities in the first ring wouldn't count against the OCN rank of cities in the second ring in that case.

Taken to an extreme, all (or almost all) the player's cities can get the OCN of 1, as long as the Palace is way off in the middle of nowhere. So if all your cities are within 20 tiles of your FP, then just put your Palace 21 tiles from your next nearest city, and all your cities will have an OCN of 1. That just leaves distance corruption to deal with, and that is negligible.

In practice, it's not always viable (protection of the Palace city, Leader or Palace jump capacity for moving the Palace to the proper location), but the principle should always be capable of combating corruption in a manner that is far more effective than the means available through normal channels (commercial, courthouse/marketplace, wlt*d).

To some extent, this affects every game where the FP is built. Taken advantage of properly though, it nullifies corruption almost completely.

BigFree · October 3, 2003, 17:20

Quote:

Originally posted by GhengisFarb
I don't know why you're attacking me, I wasn't even against it.

It is not an attack. It's just that I've been saying it so many times that another team will not play the turn yet you post saying you are opposed to something I am not even proposing.

Theseus · October 3, 2003, 17:22

WOW.

This is an interesting thread!!

Aggie, and H_E, I am very sorry, I didn't mean to offend... as has been pointed out, the nature of what we are doing allows, a creative methologies. I simply thought that what (I thought) you were doing was, hmmm, overly creative.

No insult intended, truly.

As to the disclosures in the rest of this thread:

Wittlich · October 3, 2003, 17:32

Well, for what it's worth I voted "No"... but I guess that's already water-under-the-bridge...

Aggie · October 3, 2003, 17:47

Quote:

Originally posted by BigFree

I can't help but to set you straight once again; "you" being GoW. The Cats that GS gave to us are not the ones you captured. I will not go into any more detail than that. You should assume that all your assumptions are only half right or half wrong, either way, you don't have the complete picture and prolly never will if GS and RP have any say in the matter.

I must straighten you out on this matter. I know those were different catapults. The ones in the exchange were probably the ones that appeared magically in the brief and illfated counterattack against ND. I simply meant that those catapults will be extra catapults for us to take, when we take pamploma, not that those were the ones we captured. But my offer of a peaceful resolution stands. Nobody can say that Aggie isn't generous in victory.
Aggie

BigFree · October 3, 2003, 18:10

Whatever. You make it sound like you knew after I told you. In your post you said "...it just gives us more catapults in the long term." If you had inserted a "will give" in there I would buy it. Also you said: "Though the transport of those catapults did have a significant impact (on) the war.." The Cats we got did not and have not yet played any signicant role in the war. Because you state this, it sounds like you are talking about GS Cats (In GS possesion) because they sure weren't RP's Cats that caused any signifant damage to ND nor GoW troops.

Aggie · October 3, 2003, 18:42

Come on Bigfree think about it;
Nd was attacked with a stack of catapults(+lots of other units)
Gow was attack at the same time by a stack of catapults
thus there had to be AT LEAST 2 catapult forces.
Thats all I meant. But if you want to enlighten me on the distribution of RP forces I'll be happy to be a good pupil.

I will say on the whole I am very relieved that this thread had turn out 100% better than I feared. Hopefully the flamefest I feared will not occur.
Aggie

Master Zen · October 3, 2003, 18:54

There has never been a flamefest in a PTWDG public thread.

Master Zen · October 3, 2003, 18:56

Quote:

Originally posted by BigFree

It is not an attack. It's just that I've been saying it so many times that another team will not play the turn yet you post saying you are opposed to something I am not even proposing.

You almost blinded me with that post though...

GhengisFarb™ · October 3, 2003, 18:57

Quote:

Originally posted by Master Zen
There has never been a flamefest in a PTWDG public thread.

Is this the Balderdash PBEM thread..........

Aidun · October 3, 2003, 19:51

I posted in this thread as second poster, didn't look at it for a day or two and now that I read what has been posted in the meanwhile, I become sick of reading this.

This is clearly not what BigFree intended to achieve with this thread!

For this occasion I will quote myself from my winning limerick poem of Beta's Peace Limerick Contest about the Estonian War:

Quote:

from Aidun's The Lesson of the Estonian War:
The future will tell us what is to come
Will it be war or cooperation?
Will we maintain with each other a good relation?
We can only play if we keep having fun
And the game will, by all of you, be won.

I did not write this last upside-down-limerick just to make an end to my poem, I had the intention to teach all of you who got themselves involved into flame wars and other quarrels a lesson. But this thread shows that I have failed.

You are all honest guys, I sincerely believe that and even if you tell me you are not, I won't believe you. It is no matter if we cheat or not, it simply does not happen and we needn't to accuse each other of cheating and we needn't to remember others about accidents of the past, there is no reason for that then to start another quarrel again.

Haven't you learned anything from the Estonian War? Why is GoW talking about 100% eliminating RP? Why are you, the PTW DG players scared of others cheating in this game?

Jealousy and fear. Jealousy for what? For luck, joy, fun, the things that cannot be bought, nor captured by war, only destroyed. There is no other way by which you can enrage me more than by just having the goal to or to take away anotherones fun on Apolyton.

Fear for what? For loosing this game? No need for. I cheated sometimes in games I played with friends in the past. I was a young boy and played (I don't know anymore which game it was but for instance: ) chess. When my friend was away for a moment I moved a piece and didn't notice him. After this cheating it didn't take long before I won, but it didn't feel like a victory. The same way it doesn't feel like a victory, using cheatcodes in computergames. Just the experience to win according to the rules makes you feel the champion of the world.

Aidun

GhengisFarb™ · October 3, 2003, 19:55

GoW is willing to talk peace, Roleplay has stated "there will be no peace."

Aidun · October 3, 2003, 20:09

Now, to go back to the original issue adressed by BigFree in this thread: "Can one team give another access to their turn?"

I would like to remind those of you that voted NO, that there is a certain country in the world that is quite powerful. This country is, or so say analists, still the most powerful country in the world. They even say it is the world's only superpower that remained after the Cold War and for those who do not yet know what country I'm talking about I give them the hint that thgey probably live in it because more than 50% of this forum's members are citizens of that particular country: the USA.

As all Americans are supposed to know this country is a federal republic, federal because it is a federation of a lot of sovereign states. These states have, for instance, agreed to conduct one defensive and foreign policy and thus be a lot stronger than stupid little countries that don't do so and only fight for a slice of power, such like European countries. T answer your question: it worked, the US became the most powerful country.

Why are teams in this game, sovereign states in my view, not allowed to do just the same as the states of the US did? Why shouldn't they not become a federation? If you allow them to become a federation, how do you think that is possible if the members of one state cannot actually see what potential the other state has in ways of production, military power, technology, trade, culture, etc?

Aidun

GhengisFarb™ · October 3, 2003, 20:18

Quote:

Originally posted by Aidun
Why are teams in this game, sovereign states in my view, not allowed to do just the same as the states of the US did? Why shouldn't they not become a federation?

I don't know. Maybe cuz you don't speak the same language and you haven't fought the Redcoats together?

I never really saw a problem with it personally.

Aidun · October 3, 2003, 20:20

Quote:

Originally posted by GhengisFarb
GoW is willing to talk peace, Roleplay has stated "there will be no peace."

Ghengis, I meant that to you as well.

If you want me to look for GoW statements about their goal in the war, that takes a lot of time because many statements were made before GoW asked for peace. Your demand for peace is but your current attitude. I don't have but the time nor will to look op all official and unofficial GoW statements, I can spend my time in a better way.

Don't try to drag me into a flame war, I think every one knows that the message was clear enough!

Aidun

Master Zen · October 3, 2003, 22:20

Quote:

Originally posted by GhengisFarb

Is this the Balderdash PBEM thread..........

no, it's just another case for the long lost Truth-O-Meter™

Arnelos · October 4, 2003, 00:31

Can RP members please stop telling GoW about our force composition?

Thank You

Arnelos · October 4, 2003, 00:34

For the record, as the official Ambassador of the Crown for Spain, there will be no considering of peace offerings until such time as Spain is once again in full possession of all territories lost to Neu Demogyptica and the Glory of War. When we either have regained those territories through war or you have agreed to give them back to settle the war, we can talk. Until then, any and all offers of peace are merely wastes of time.

Thank You.

- Duque Fransico Clemente
Chief Ambassador of the Crown of Spain

notyoueither · October 4, 2003, 00:35

Thanks, Aeson. Wow, those are some bugs.

Aidun, fight the good fight.

vondrack · October 4, 2003, 03:29

Aidun, it used to be much worse...

I, personally, find this thread an improvement over similar threads in the past. Still a lot to improve, but we are getting somewhere... the ratio of interesting info to useless flames (or whatever you'd call it) is way better this time.

And one last time re: the original question... it has never been forbidden to give one's save to another team. So, I guess, technically, it could be done without breaking any rules (as there are almost no rules in effect for this game). But most people would not like it (including even some GS and RP members), whatever their reason would be. IMHO, it is the most you can find out by this poll, BF.

The result cannot prevent you/RP/GS from doing that. It is not against the (non-existent) rules. But others will not like it. That's all.

GhengisFarb™ · October 4, 2003, 08:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Aidun

Ghengis, I meant that to you as well.

Then maybe you should read the thread because several members of GoW have stated a willingness to talk peace.

Yes we originally stated we wanted RP wiped out, but that was before GS switched sides. Factors change, attitudes alter, and battle plans have to be adjusted. Such is the way of war and life.

Heck, when I was 4 years old I thought all girls had cooties. That attitude has changed quite drastically over time...............

Aidun · October 4, 2003, 09:21

Vondrack, I would not like to see GS and RP exchange saves, but I think it should be an option because it is possible in the real world too as I showed in the example of the US.

The thing is with most of these issues, for which I think there should be the freedom to use these possibilities, that diplomatically it is almost impossible: how are you going to explain another team that you don't intend to really unite teams and that such a move is but temporary. Every team that decides to have such a close alliance that the sovereignity of at least on of the teams is abolished has to be very sure of such a move, as there is no way back to the original independent position. RP does not want to loose its independent position.

In this game I am a Spaniard and I feel like a Spaniard. In our team there is a kind of nationalism due to the roleplay that makes you feel to belong to the RP team and makes you support the nation without a question. This means I can never be a real Egyptian, even when I would join GS, my ingame-heart will always remain in Pamplona.

I hope Spain will remain independent and we will closely work together with GS during this war and maybe long after it, I don't know, but not too closely.

Praise the King! Hurray! Hurray! Hurray!
[All RP members bow for Togas and promise him their eternal loyalty]

Soldier Aidun Cian of the Royal Spanish Army

GhengisFarb™ · October 4, 2003, 09:37

But Roleplay and GS do not go back to back so even if you shared your passwords with each other, it would be impossible for the other team to spy on you without your knowledge as no one would be sending them the save. There are other team "cushions" between your teams.

Unless Lego, Vox, ND, or GoW was eliminated before you. And I don't think anyone sees that happening........

Aidun · October 4, 2003, 09:41

Quote:

Originally posted by GhengisFarb
Unless Lego, Vox, ND, or GoW was eliminated before you. And I don't think anyone sees that happening........

Wait and see, Ghengis, wait and see.

Aidun

OliverFA · October 4, 2003, 20:17

Quote:

Originally posted by GhengisFarb
GoW is willing to talk peace, Roleplay has stated "there will be no peace."

Give us back all our cities and then we can talk about peace...

GhengisFarb™ · October 4, 2003, 20:35

That's not peace, that's surrender. I said I for one would be willing to talk peace, I never said we would surrender to a weaker foe.

BigFree · October 5, 2003, 06:02

Quote:

Originally posted by GhengisFarb
That's not peace, that's surrender. I said I for one would be willing to talk peace, I never said we would surrender to a weaker foe.

Well then, I guess we both have our answers.

OPD · October 5, 2003, 06:22

Quote:

Originally posted by GhengisFarb
That's not peace, that's surrender. I said I for one would be willing to talk peace, I never said we would surrender to a weaker foe.

How about this for a peace deal,
we split bob evenly,
with RP getting back all their previously owned land and territory to the east of ND, for arguments sake lets say half of ND's current land, 50 - 50 is fairest.

GoW gets divided equally, you get to keep the western half and GS get the eastern half, and Leo's city, but other than that it's completely fair and down the middle.

The key phrase here is "split bob evenly" that is exactly what this would do.

Also GoW must make one of the cities on mini bob their new capital, and ND must make the other one their new capital.

And disband all millitary too. And give us all your workers.

Now thats what you call a fair deal.

GhengisFarb™ · October 5, 2003, 09:02

Quote:

Originally posted by BigFree

Well then, I guess we both have our answers.

(In character)
I just want you to feel you are doing well. I hate for people to die embarrassed.

Hot_Enamel · October 5, 2003, 10:15

Quote:

Originally posted by OPD

How about this for a peace deal,
we split bob evenly,
with RP getting back all their previously owned land and territory to the east of ND, for arguments sake lets say half of ND's current land, 50 - 50 is fairest.

GoW gets divided equally, you get to keep the western half and GS get the eastern half, and Leo's city, but other than that it's completely fair and down the middle.

The key phrase here is "split bob evenly" that is exactly what this would do.

Also GoW must make one of the cities on mini bob their new capital, and ND must make the other one their new capital.

And disband all millitary too. And give us all your workers.

Now thats what you call a fair deal.

Almost sounds like the original land split from Roleplay way back when..

RP: We will have this half, and you other three can have the rest of the continent.