Civ 6 PBEM 2 Organizing Thread

[MJW (ya that one)]

CTON = Cannot talk or negotiate

[Woden]

Has someone mentioned game speed yet? I didn't see it. I play mostly on standard but am open to others.

[Alhambram]

Has someone mentioned game speed yet? I didn't see it. I play mostly on standard but am open to others.

I assume that game is going to be played on standard speed same as PBEM1, i don't mind it.

About CTON diplomacy, if that is same what is going on in PBEM1, then it is fine.

@Singaboy:

I think that turn order needed to be grouped for more efficient pace of turns. Which mean if i understood it rightly there are two groups:
American group: oledavy, Woden and Singaboy (according oledavy all three of this group also have same time frame)
European group: Alhambram and TheArchduke (in PBEM1 organizing thread TheArchduke mentioned that he lives in CET timezone, same as me)

So turn order would be first American group then European group or inverse order. Also possible is first TheArchduke, then American group and finally me, after me it is TheArchduke's turn again. Same rule can be applied when oledavy goes first for example then European group, and finally Woden and Singaboy, after their turn it is olevdavy's turn again.

What we need to avoid is this sort of turn order: oledavy, Alhambram, Woden, TheArchduke and Singaboy. This sort of turn order cripples the pace.

Now the question is: who gets the first turn? if i look at PBEM1 organizing thread, the host of program that track and pass turns gets first turn. Who is willing to volunteer for hosting spot? 
In PBEM1 Sulla noted that turn order don't really matter for gameplay: neither first player and last player have advantage. So i don't see reason to roll dice for it, just agree with each others.

[Singaboy]

Just for the record. I live in Singapore. First of us to see the sun. I would fit nicely between USA and Europe

[Alhambram]

Just for the record. I live in Singapore. First of us to see the sun. I would fit nicely between USA and Europe

 Dang, i confused GMT-7 with GMT+7, i am not the person with brightest mind on this forum.   I should have noticed looking at first five letters from your name. 

 In that case it falls somewhat in natural order: Singaboy ---> Alhambram/TheArchduke ---> oledavy/Woden then back to Singaboy.

[oledavy]

@Alhambram

I was under the impression PBEM1 was being played on quick speed? In any event, quick would probably be best for a PBEM. 

Regarding Sullla's proposed rule, I think it addresses an important issue. I do like that cities have to be ceded in Civ6 to be productive in theory, it more closely ties military action and diplomacy and adds another level to warring. However, I think it doesn't work well in MP at all, what incentive does a player ever have to cede a city? If the enemy cannot gain any ground beyond an initial city or two taken, you won't cede. If the opponent can overrun you, they have no motivation to take peace with ceded cities. It effectively only will work as a disincentive to warfare. 

In real life, a country's primary aim is to survive, but in a game like Civ6, the primary motivation is to win. If a player takes you down a peg by taking a couple cities, destroying your chance to win, you will never cede. 

Of course, the issue with Sullla's rule is that it incentivizes eternal wars to keep captured cities in a state of revolt. However, we do have war weariness as a disincentive to that. With this in mind, I think Sullla's house rule is the best solution.

If we want to keep city cession as an option, we need to have some level of diplomacy (which I would prefer we didn't), otherwise all warfare is going to devolve into razing and replacing cities. 

@Alhambram, @Archduke, what are your thoughts? I think at the moment things stand at me being in favor of Sullla's rule, and Woden and Singaboy oppose it. 

Good work on getting the turn order together. 

Just in case it needed to be clarified, my preferred play window is 22:00-04:00 GMT.

By CTON I meant the AI style diplomacy that is standard to most RB games these days, what's available to players in PBEM1. 

I'm going to update the first post with the settings/rules we've seem to be gravitating towards at the moment. They are not definitive yet, as I am inferring some from lack of debate on them. With that being said, if you notice a setting I've assumed that you dispute, please post about it.

[teh]

I was under the impression PBEM1 was being played on quick speed? In any event, quick would probably be best for a PBEM.

No, we're playing PBEM1 on standard speed.

[Alhambram]

@Alhambram

I was under the impression PBEM1 was being played on quick speed? In any event, quick would probably be best for a PBEM. 

If i select quick speed option when starting new game, i see 1/330 turns and when starting a game with standard speed 1/500 turns.
Looking at pictures from PBEM1, it says that they have 500 turns game time, so i assumed that they are playing with standard speed.
Maybe it felt going quick due fast turn pace and because Sulla managed to build up an decent army and stomp his opponents in short time.

Also i like to point out that movement points won't change if you change speed. I did some online multiplayer games which are played at online speed (fastest speed option you can choose).
In one of that games, i had an army with roman legions. My neighbor who was 15 tiles away did only have archers and some chariots and were several techs behind me, so i marched my army towards him.
When my army finally arrived, he already got techs to build horseman and crossbows thanks the game speed, while i was able to start training knights already.

it seems that compared with standard speed, tech and civic cost in online speed is cut by half.
And at quick speed, tech and civic cost is cut by 33% compared with standard speed.

So my assumption is that faster game speeds generally favors the defender and with fact that current Civilization 6 rules about city cessation and halved yields in occupied cities already disfavors an attacking stance, i think that it is better to let it stay at Standard speed.

About Sulla's rule, give me a more time to think about it.

EDIT: teh just said that speed in PBEM1 is standard.

[Woden]

Settings look good to me. As for order, I would suggest oledavy plays before me as my window for consistent play lags a little (2-5 am GMT). I probably will be able to play earlier but can't guarantee consistency.

As for Sullla's rule, I would say I am neutral, leaning towards implementing, if only to see how it works.  Both sides have good points and I would hate to see a raze and replace strategy become common place. I also thought it over and could see someone pull a weedy move by gifting a crappy out-of-reach city to the losing player to neutralize the captured cities and prevent the conqueror from pulling ahead.  

How are we going to get the three civs to chose from?

[RefSteel]

Of course, the issue with Sullla's rule is that it incentivizes eternal wars to keep captured cities in a state of revolt.

Yup.

However, we do have war weariness as a disincentive to that.

Nope.

I started writing a whole analysis of the different situations where peace would be offered and city ceding might or might not occur before I realized it all boiled down to one thing: Sullla's proposed rule doesn't do anything - except limit warring parties' options for peace.

An invader can accomplish the same thing as this rule by just refusing to accept a peace treaty that doesn't include the ceded cities. If the invader would rather have peace even without getting the cities ceded, for any reason, the rule would hurt both players; if that's not the case, all the rule really does is help the defender realize a turn or two sooner than otherwise that a peace deal without city ceding isn't going to go through.