New FFH2 PBEM?

[Tasunke]

Yea, I could agree to limited unit gifting (only when both sides are at war with same party), or like when the gifting party is not involved in the war on either side ... especially if its for a gold sum or something like that.

However its a moot point I think as unit gifting isn't allowed in base FFH2 (I believe)

As far as city gifting ... yea I agree only newly captured cities that are less than 50% of the capturer's culture should be allowed to be gifted imho. But it certainly makes having 'war allies' easier if you can discuss who gets which cities, regardless of which turn the city is actually captured on.

--------------------------------

I agree that NAPs can be fun to play with, but I'm not certain that I like the RB culture of what a NAP is, therefore I am reluctant to have this particular game's diplo include them

[Kragroth]

People can negotiate whatever they want diplomatically. It cannot be enforced outside of game mechanics.

[Northstar1989]

Okay, since we haven't come to a consensus yet on diplomacy, I went through the thread and compiled the diplo preferences that everyone posted.

Tasunke:
Diplomacy: AI

Saruman:
Diplomacy: Players can make whatever agreements they so choose, no mass gifting cities or any silliness like that though.

Ellimist:
May only send messages on your own turn. Otherwise unrestricted.

Kragoth:
Diplomacy: Full

Northstar:
Limited Diplo- full messaging but no NAP's, Alliances, or Vassalage (basically, you can ask/offer resources, and I'm inclined to allow TT if not abused)

Interpreting this a bit, I think Kragoth and Saruman and I are basically asking for the same thing. Northstar prefers no NAPs but otherwise agrees, and only Tasunke wants to ban messaging entirely. I don't think we're far from a broad consensus, but the current preferences are diverse enough that we should probably hash it out.

My stance on NAP's was actualyl a concession/compromise to meet people who were against Full Diplo halfway (who didn't end up joining the game anyways). In truth, I'm very much in favor of FULL diplomacy... (although since I'll be roleplaying a cackling madman, negotiations should be INTERESTING...)


I don't want any agreements for be BINDING, though. In my opinion, not knowing whether the other player will keep his side of the bargain is just part of the !FUN!


Regards,
Northstar

[Northstar1989]

Oh those silly vampires that love swimming...
I agree with Tasunke about diplomacy mostly. NAPs should be part of diplomacy but I don't think they should be binding/enforced. I feel that the threat of betrayal and the loss of Diplomatic trustworthiness as a cost of breaking agreements will give a more realistic feel to the game. I agree that banning tech trading will reward the shrewder players. However, I disagree somewhat to Tasunke's mention of it being almost as bad as unit/city gifting.

I feel we should honor the spirit of this rather than the letter. IE: gifting a few units to help an ally out in a war without getting directly involved seems reasonable to me - it certainly happens enough in real life (see US troops currently in Iraq). However, gifting the nucleus or majority of your army would never happen, and neither would gifting in advance of one's certain defeat. Likewise, I feel that two war allies could gift jointly taken cities to each other, but gifting a core city away is ridiculous, and especially so when it is just to keep it out of the hands of an enemy army. That simply doesn't happen.

Does that make sense? Do you guys disagree? I basically just want this to be a real exciting game where nations don't do things that would make no sense outside of a game context.
Do nations make NAPs? certainly! Do they break them? Sometimes but they better believe they'll be blackballed by everybody else. Do they send troops and advisers to meddle in other peoples wars? Yep. Does this sometimes damage their reputation/relation with the international community? Depends on who's fighting who. Do they suddenly declare a major city to be the property of Switzerland when the enemy is right outside? No, cause that's preposterous.

This basically describes my thoughts very well.

[Ellimist]

The only restriction I prefer is that we are only able to send messages when it is our turn. This has a few major benefits:

• It limits the pace of conversations to the turn pace, instead of the other way around. This means that turns don't get held up while people wait for replies.
• It also means that we can avoid spending hours and hours talking in circles with each other in chat.
• Ultimatums can exist, as well as "take it or leave it" offers.
• It helps to keep stuff in context and less personal.

[Ellimist]

No agreement is binding unless the game itself enforces it.

Also, FYI, FFH does not allow unit gifting at all.

[Saruman the Foolish]

No agreement is binding unless the game itself enforces it.

Also, FYI, FFH does not allow unit gifting at all.

Okay well that settles that. Good to know.i think messaging only during your turn makes total sense. I'm on board.

[Bobchillingworth]

Game is live, turn sent to Tasunke.



Make sure you guys double-check the settings. All settlers should have the starting settler promotion. Goblin forts should only have a single archer defending each, and there should only be one Brigit present. Please delete any extras that may have inadvertently appeared as a result of the editing process.


I did not hand-draw this map, so it's much less "constructed" than what I usually produce. I did make numerous edits. The script is pangea, the size is standard and coasts are "natural" (which in practical terms means that there are islands).



Enjoy!

[Tasunke]

Played and Sent to Saruman

Good luck everyone!

[Ellimist]

I can set up a tracker if everyone posts their emails.

(My gmail is ellimistbeyond)


EDIT:
Okay it's ffh.41.tracker and the password is tracker41