New FFH2 PBEM?

[Bobchillingworth]

Speaking of which, IIRC, Bob was planning on sending the WBSave to me so I could launch it (because I still have a old ffh2 version set up. So if you could agree on a consistent modname for everyone to rename it to, that would be nice.

No worries about this- I found my old FFH install buried in my downloads folder.

But yes, everyone please just use regular FFH w/ unofficial patch "p".

[Tasunke]

ok, ill try to make sure I have the 'p' patch ... but tbh I can just make the change manually I think

anyone have the link to the actual patch just so I know I'm not altering the game? xD ... as far as I know its just a switch between Pyre Zombie and Sons of Asena

[Tasunke]

Ellimist, I want message diplomacy, not AI diplomacy ... I guess there was some sort of confusion ^_^ ....

but yea, I prefer Diplomacy

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

I kind of like the idea of Full Diplomacy WITHOUT official NAP aggreements, such as (northstar?) said. I hadn't thought of it, but assuming NAPs are binding, and this being an FFA, having less binding aggreements, or just mutual interest exchange of information, seems like a better alternative. I mean, we can have 'NAPs', and we can have promises,

IDK, im of mixed feelings about this. On the one hand its fun to have binding agreements and on the other hand its fun to just have a conversation about the game/ exchange of information. ((and those binding aggreements can sometimes be less fun, especially if a new player doesn't know the full ramifications of X number of 'peace' turns)

---> But I don't agree that we should have Tech Trade ... we really shouldn't (imho) Even in the full diplo games I've played ... Tech Trade isn't 'quite' as bad as unit gifting/ city gifting ... but its close ... (sometimes)

[Kragroth]

Tasunke. Please just install ffh 2 apply patch o then replace the file for patch p. That method is guaranteed to work.

[Tasunke]

I 'av patch o ... its just patch p (which iirc ONLY switches the explosion of Doviello axes with the explosion of Pyre Zombies) that I may or may not need.

[Bobchillingworth]

Map is done (but some fine-tuning is expected).


While you all wait (and to give you an idea of what balancing a FFH map can be like), here are some pictures from one* of the many failed candidates the map generator spat out-





The Balseraphs and Amurities were a little cramped. The former couldn't actually settle in place, while the latter had a rather extreme food deficit.





The Calabim started in the middle of the ocean (!). Also pictured: The Great Wall of Tasunke. The entire north was partitioned off, save for a couple 1-tile choke points at opposite ends of the mountain barrier.





The Clan's start may have even been worse than the Amurite's.





The mountains claim another victim.





* Screenshots are in no way meant to be taken as indicative of the script, dimensions, landforms, climate / geographical settings or civ spacing of the completely separate map I actually decided to go with.

[Kragroth]

Entertaining. Thanks for the screens of the failed mapscript.

[Tasunke]

If you change around people's starting positions, remember to delete the map visibility from their previous start location.

[Saruman the Foolish]

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.

[Qgqqqqq]

(NAPs are almost never enforced on this board.)