PBEM 24 Organizing/Tech Thread

[Gaspar]

I wrote my email in the post, you fail reading comprehension

I'm sure I can restore the crab nets or at least spawn work boats. Are players unanimous in doing so?

I don't believe there were any objections to TT getting his nets back. Seems only fair if we're removing the issue.

[mackoti]

As i already said please do so. Ty alot T-hawk, you saved our game.

[Commodore]

Yep, I'll make it unanimous.

[SevenSpirits]

I agree people have the right to do whatever they want with their game. I won't argue with that. I do want to point out that I don't think your justifications are valid. But, justifications aren't necessary of course.

This also puts me in the situation of ultimately deciding whether the subs should be removed, though it's pretty clear if the players are unanimous. I can understand the lurker arguments of play the mapmaker's vision and deal with a curveball factor. The situation differs from PBEM6 in that the PBEM6 map used a visible obstacle to create strategic planning options, while this map removes options since planning ahead was impossible and the only right answer to the hidden gotcha is to just avoid the inland sea entirely.

PBEM6 also had preplaced barb cities on the mainland, and due to the geography these cities sent their massive garrisons in certain directions (e.g. towards Athlete) and not others. The barbs left me completely alone until I settled a certain city, at which point about 20 barb units started marching towards it and caused me quite a few problems. Planning ahead for this was impossible, too. And the right solution was to settle in certain locations and not in others.

Not only was this unpredictable by the players and completely uneven for them, but the mapmaker didn't even intend it to happen. Yet no one ragequit or wanted to edit out the unfair barb stacks.

Compare to this game where the issue affects all players equally (well, did, until TT saddled his replacement with the only damage from it, by warning everyone else about it). And contrary to what you said, the inner sea is not completely unusable, it's just harder to use. The chance of an improvement being pillaged is actually really tiny unless you move a unit onto it to lure the subs there, which is what I guess happened to TT. Just putting rice/pigs in early-expansion cities near jungle tiles is a bigger concern in terms of randomness affecting the game, than these subs pillaging.

[Twinkletoes89]

And contrary to what you said, the inner sea is not completely unusable, it's just harder to use. The chance of an improvement being pillaged is actually really tiny unless you move a unit onto it to lure the subs there, which is what I guess happened to TT. Just putting rice/pigs in early-expansion cities near jungle tiles is a bigger concern in terms of randomness affecting the game, than these subs pillaging.

Most of your post I have no issue with Seven, but here I will have to disagree with you.

Subs which enter borders will make the inland sea unusable - who would ever use it with the chances of being hit and the inability to even see where the subs are? There is no guarantees safe haven from them.

Also, you are wrong in assuming that a unit was on the second tile which was pillaged. The first one, my workboat was sunk within my own borders. The second, a completely different sub (it had a different name) entered my borders and pillaged the other improved crab which had no unit on it at all. Therefore I would say that the odds of it happening again are much higher than you seem to think.

Your comparison with PBEM 6 is a pretty poor one in my opinion. Whilst there were placed barbarians, the city and every unit was visible, defeatable and they could be got rid of with the taking of the city.

These subs are invisible, impossible to defeat (unless hugely, hugely lucky) and ergo could not be got rid of for the vast majority of the game. Pretty big differences to be honest.

Also - the save has been sent to T-Hawk now - fingers crossed this can get back on track.

[SevenSpirits]

Telling you guys the exact odds would be a spoiler. It's in the lurker thread though; you can read it after the game. Similarly I can't support my argument that the inner sea is usable even with subs, or that the subs are part of the map design, because it could spoil something. I'm not trying to be obtuse.

Anyway, have fun!

[T-hawk]

TT sent me the save, but neglected his civ password which I also need. Pitboss kick-and-takeover could get me control of the civ without it, but not in the way I need, since the AI ends its turn and the next player becomes active.

[T-hawk]

I have the patch working. Used the Pitboss kick-and-takeover method to get around TT's civ password in order to test it. I also spawned a submarine belonging to TT in order to see the barb sub then verify that it was gone. Now I just need TT's civ password in order to do it for real without kicking him into AI for a turn.

Code:

for(int i = 0; i < GC.getMap().numPlots(); ++i)
{
    CvPlot* plot = GC.getMap().plotByIndex(i);
    if (plot->getNumUnits() > 0)
    {
        CvUnit* unit = plot->getUnitByIndex(0);
        if (unit->isBarbarian() && unit->isRenderBelowWater())
        {
            unit->kill(false, NO_PLAYER);
        }
    }
}

//create work boats to replace nets
GET_PLAYER(pUnit->getOwnerINLINE()).initUnit((UnitTypes)89, 40, 15, UNITAI_UNKNOWN);
GET_PLAYER(pUnit->getOwnerINLINE()).initUnit((UnitTypes)89, 40, 15, UNITAI_UNKNOWN);
//create a submarine to verify that barb subs are gone
//GET_PLAYER(pUnit->getOwnerINLINE()).initUnit((UnitTypes)105, 40, 15, UNITAI_UNKNOWN);

[mackoti]

TT sent pass to T-hawk

[Twinkletoes89]

Sorry - was my birthday weekend so my mind was rather astray.

Password has been sent