PBEM 24 Thread for Gifted Lurkers

[Bobchillingworth]

This is true... and also sounds hideously micromanagey, time-consuming (both real and game), very failure prone when your attention inevitably lapses for the one turn that you're playing in a rush, and altogether un-fun. I've been in the same boat (har) as a scenario designer, having crafted a map that players found more frustrating than fun, Adventure 45 being the chief example. Ultimately you have to accept that for the players, their perception is reality. It's not a commentary on your skills as a designer. Even Michael Jordan missed plenty of shots.

Yeah, well-stated. I still don't think that the subs are really so terrible, but I did create the sort of map which I would like to play. I thought that players might get a kick out of the light puzzle elements inherent in the terrain. Well, at least the concept involved an abundance of "tactical" decisions!

[oledavy]

Back to the game, it seems as though Gaspar is trying to maneuver out of the dilemma he faces with Mackoti.

I'm surprised he isn't considering just outright breaking the NAP, enlisting Commodore's Keshiks and going after him in a 2v1. Being an honorable player is an admirable thing. However, in this case, I would probably break the NAP rather than play with a runaway farmers gambit next door. This situation is very reminiscent of PB4 when LP started to run away with the game.

[pindicator]

Yeah, well-stated. I still don't think that the subs are really so terrible, but I did create the sort of map which I would like to play. I thought that players might get a kick out of the light puzzle elements inherent in the terrain. Well, at least the concept involved an abundance of "tactical" decisions!

I think lost an opportunity by making a deal of it. He only lost some nets, right? If he keeps quiet about it maybe another civ loses galley & setter (maybe gaspar). That kind of knowledge seems worth a work boat to me.

But he may have had some big plans for the city and been emotionally invested in it. You can't put a price, hammer or commerce, on that kind of investment.

[Serdoa]

Yeah, no wonder you would do that, you played in PBEM17

Seriously: It depends. There are those who think that a NAP has to be honored above all else. If you agreed to one and then find out it was dumb, thats you making a wrong decision, live with it. And there are those who think winning is more important, so they break the NAP. What is the right choice everyone has to decide for himself - biggest issue being that if you break the NAP, people probably won't believe in your NAPs in further games (or agree to them but don't find themselves bound to it). Maybe a non-issue - I certainly can see that in the end people will agree to NAPs in further games and just will watch your soldier score more closely. After all, not agreeing to a NAP simply means that both sides do have to keep defenses - nothing more, even if it sometimes sounds like you will have to fight everyone in further games at first contact

[oledavy]

Yeah, no wonder you would do that, you played in PBEM17

Kyan must be rubbing off on me

[Catwalk]

Yeah, no wonder you would do that, you played in PBEM17

Seriously: It depends. There are those who think that a NAP has to be honored above all else. If you agreed to one and then find out it was dumb, thats you making a wrong decision, live with it. And there are those who think winning is more important, so they break the NAP. What is the right choice everyone has to decide for himself - biggest issue being that if you break the NAP, people probably won't believe in your NAPs in further games (or agree to them but don't find themselves bound to it). Maybe a non-issue - I certainly can see that in the end people will agree to NAPs in further games and just will watch your soldier score more closely. After all, not agreeing to a NAP simply means that both sides do have to keep defenses - nothing more, even if it sometimes sounds like you will have to fight everyone in further games at first contact

I'd say if you break a NAP, you put yourself at higher risk of having a NAP broken against you with reference to your past transgressions. I see that as the main cost of NAP breaking (going by experience from another online game with a large diplomatic aspect).

[Serdoa]

Yeah, probably. Though I don't think "You did it also in last game" makes it any better. Either you believe that NAPs should be uphold, then you should do so no matter whom you face or you don't believe it - but then you should not try to set yourself on a higher pedestal because "he broke the NAP first... in another game, with another opponent, which did not influence me at all".

I feel best would be to somehow find a possibility of not having any NAPs at all though - would also not let anyone play complete farmers gambit which gets ridicolous anyway. Thinking about it, maybe I should ask if we play PBEM27 with only AI-diplo.

[fluffyflyingpig]

The subs have a crazy move speed compared to the size of the sea. Their average location is going to drift away from there really fast. Even a sub right next to TT's clam has a <2% chance of moving to it and extremely high odds of moving away and reducing that chance.

How big is the sea exactly?

[SevenSpirits]

Roughly 36x9.

[Ichabod]

It's very boring to watch BTS' "metagame" nowadays. Mackoti won't attack TT because its obvious that Gaspar and Commodore will gain more just by expanding away in farmers-gambit-NAP-boosted style. That's why I liked PBEM 18 so much, CTON makes for a way more agressive game.