PBEM 24 Organizing/Tech Thread

[SevenSpirits]

Well two things here. Firstly, given that we were split down the middle on even including barbs its a pretty big leap from that to barb subs - not to mention I believe the request was for a tactical inland sea and I fail to see the tactics involved in "stay away from the inland sea for the first 150 turns unless you want to see your ships sunk."

I agree with you there (and I advised Bob that I didn't think this was what you wanted, before the game) - this isn't an inland sea map in any real sense.

Edit: Maybe it's just the set of games I've been in, but I find maps often aren't what you want or expect. And I did lobby to end the game over it once (partially... pbem11 was just too slow in every way). But typically you should just suck it up and adapt to the situation.

[Twinkletoes89]

Just to be clear, I have no issue with the rest of the map design - I think it is a very good map but submarines is just a 'quirk' much too far, especially when we weren't made aware of (even vaguely) some 'dangerous things lurking in the sea'.

The fact that 2 different submarines entered my borders in consecutive turns to pillage all my seafood means that they are likely to never be improved long-term in the game, which is unfair. Had I known that the sea was at least 'perilous' then I would have made some significantly different decisions in this game.

I have no objection to a game where there is some barbarian quirks, where there's a barb city nearby or in the best land which you cannot take down is fair dos, it makes things different and forces us to make adjustments to our normal play. Having advanced units which can both attack and pillage when it is impossible for them to be countered or even seen for a very long time is just too crazy in my eyes, and has the potential to make things quite farcical.

[Commodore]

PM sent to T-Hawk to see if he can hack the game for sanity restoration. If he can, I'd say to give back your nets too, TT.

[mackoti]

Totaly agree.

[Bobchillingworth]

There are four barbarian subs, all in the Inland Sea. There are no other pre-placed units of any kind.


The subs are an intentional element of the map design. Their purpose is to emphasize the "tactical" nature of the rest of the map's terrain, by preventing players from simply using boats to readily circumvent the numerous choke points and other features I placed. You can still use the "outer sea" to that effect, but because it's much more narrow it's also significantly more difficult to employ the Sirian Doctrine. The subs do not restrict exploration or settling at all- I made sure that all land masses are reachable, even if the subs detect your ships. The only thing they block are a few seafood resources. If I could have given them an AI which allowed them full freedom of movement in the inland sea but barred them from pillaging I would have, but as far as I know, no such option exists. So I made sure to limit the amount of food in the inner sea, and to give alternative land-based food resources at most inland-coastal sites. I did think about giving players some vague warning before the game began, but I also didn't want to unduly influence player behavior. I could have said directly that the inland sea wasn't freely navigable due to a barbarian presence, but that would have likely inspired some protests, and I couldn't have defended the purpose without spoiling other aspects of the map design.


I obviously don't have any say in what you do with the map now, nor should I. But the subs are a part of the map concept, and you're setting a poor precedent by editing them out 70 turns after the game began, just because a couple seafood resources can't be worked. Why not go delete some of that obnoxious jungle I added while you're at it, and change all those calendar resources to more convenient grains? Or perhaps you should have T-hawk shift strategic resources around to better fit your dotmaps; after all, you'd no doubt settle some sites differently if you knew in advance where your oil, coal, etc. are located. Editing maps after the fact should only be done in situations where some factor has inadvertently rendered a game unplayable, which simply isn't the case here.


Edit: Seven also confirmed in the lurker thread that, as I had intended, the subs only target nets if they start their turns on top of them, and that they do not deliberately target water tile improvements.


What makes the map a farce is if players edit out the parts they feel are objectionable.


That's my explanation / two-cents, anyway.

[Catwalk]

I hope I won't offend anyone by butting in, just wanted to offer a newbie's perspective. It's frustrating to be punished by something you have no way of anticipating. I don't think the subs are a bad element of the map, but I do think that a warning would have been in order. Moreover, I personally get very frustrated when luck plays a large role. In this case, it seems like you can survive for a long time with your nets intact or you can lose them in short order. Resource placement is part of what can be anticipated and planned for, same with the presence of barbarian cities. The subs could only be planned for to the extent that you got nets destroyed. The presence of seafood was probably a factor in settlement plans (hope I didn't spoil anything by saying so), not knowing that those seafood tiles risked being un-nettable could only be planned for long after it was too late. I do hope you all decide to continue this game, as I'm having fun lurking it.

[mackoti]

Well i dont to transform this in a debate, but i think that all we agree(me, gaspar, comm, TT) that subs must to desapear so if someone can do that for us please stand up.

Gaspar , TT,Comm- Say if you agree with that..

[Commodore]

Oh, I'll agree with that. The jungles, resources, etc are all fairly normal, and as Catwalk says, predictable part of the game. Subs are random and unpredictable, not to mention unfair in their randomness. TT got his nets attacked randomly, but mine have not been, just because I've netted seafood in other places. I'd rather not have a win handed to me because no barbarian submarines decide to visit my nets while they wander towards my rivals.

[yuris125]

As a dedlurker, I have half a vote at most, but I totally agree with Commodore's post. You plan your game around what you can see, you plan your cities to use the seafood, there is nothing to indicate this seafood is unusable. In my opinion, if they were visible units, e.g. destroyers, it would've been fine. If there was a sign next to each player saying "Danger! Do not enter the inner sea", it would've been ok. But invisible units which cannot be countered, and there's no way to know about them until you found cities and have critical resources pillaged, are gamebreaking

[oledavy]

For what its worth, I would just like to weigh in and stick up for BCW's view. I don't like the precedent set by changing design features of a map to suit the players in an ex post facto fashion.