Civ 6 PBEM 2 Organizing Thread

[oledavy]

I have altered the speed to standard in the settings. I was under the impression that PBEM1 was on quick, and predisposed to it from Civ4 PBEM days. However, it looks like from their game that standard is the new quick, so I'm in favor of keeping it then. 

@teh, thank you for the clarification. 

As for picking, I was going to ascribe each civ a random number, then get a random number generator to give me sets of 3. 

If you guys would rather, a lurker can do this, and I will not be offended at all. We can also in theory do this relatively soon if people want to be able to start considering strategies, etc.

[Woden]

If you guys would rather, a lurker can do this, and I will not be offended at all. We can also in theory do this relatively soon if people want to be able to start considering strategies, etc.

I am fine with you doing it and prefer doing it sooner rather than later for time to test and chose.

[Singaboy]

I am fine too, with you doing it. Letting us know which three choices we have sooner rather than later would be good. There are a fair amount of nations I have not played and would like to know more before deciding.

My playtime would usually fall in GMT 10am - 3pm.

As for city ceding. I fear in future raze and replace would be more widely spread. I am not sure which rule would be better.

Thanks for standard speed, I usually play epic as unit movement and warfare gets more time. In this setting, standard seems to be a good compromise.

[Alhambram]

If you guys would rather, a lurker can do this, and I will not be offended at all. We can also in theory do this relatively soon if people want to be able to start considering strategies, etc.

I am fine with you doing it and prefer doing it sooner rather than later for time to test and chose.

Same here, i don't mind.


About Sulla's rule, i mulled around a bit. I think that i take same stance as RefSteel, it don't really change a much compared with situation before Sulla's rule.

I thought and thought about issue about city occupation rules that Sulla brought up and i got an idea. Although i am not sure whether it might work. how do this rule sound:

If attacker captured a city and the defender don't manage to capture it back in more than five turns. After more than five turns when the defender don't manage to recapture the city, when a peace treaty is offered from attacker, the defender MUST accept it and cede the captured city.

I want to add if the defender manages to recapture the city, the turn timer for the five turns is reset. If the attacker manages to recapture the city, he again need to hold it for more than five turns for forced cessation. So for example in PBEM1 teh keeps resetting the turn timer for the moment that Yuris could demand cessation of Frankfurt by recapturing it continuously, so Frankfurt was never in danger of forced cessation. 

Also there is a issue when the attacker managed to capture multiple cities. Just assume here that the attacker manages to capture two cities and the defender manages to recapture one of them within 5 turns timer and the attacker re recapture it again. Then when the five turn timer for the city that the defender didn't recapture expires. Then he is eligible to offer the peace treaty to demand cessation of that city, but what about the city that he managed to re recapture but didn't keep it for more than five turns, what to do? My answer: the attacker don't have right to demand cessation of any city that isn't been in his possession for more than five turns if he demands cessation of multiple cities.

Well, what do you think of proposed idea? Maybe is five turns too short or not. Feel free to criticize the idea or make some adjustments and improvements.
Also if others don't want this idea implemented already in this PBEM, it is okay too.

[Woden]

If attacker captured a city and the defender don't manage to capture it back in more than five turns. After more than five turns when the defender don't manage to recapture the city, when a peace treaty is offered from attacker, the defender MUST accept it and cede the captured city.

I would add "if peace is desired" to "..., when a peace treaty is offered from attacker, the defender MUST accept it if peace is desired and cede the captured city."

Otherwise, I could see it used as a forced peace treaty in general and not just a forced cessation of a city when a peace treaty is accepted. For example, I take a city and hold it for 5 turns and then force a peace treaty before you can collect the forces to re-capture it. Maybe I am being too technical in the language but I don't want a game ending argument over misreadings of the rule. Does that make sense?

[RefSteel]

I'm not playing, so I don't get a vote, but I think that rule - or any rule that requires a player to accept peace - goes too far. Imagine a case where a minor city is conquered in a remote location, while the defender has much greater force along the main border, out of position to reclaim the minor city. Now suppose that five turns later, the "defender" has placed a key city under siege and redlined its defenses. Just before the conquest is consummated though, the "attacker" gets to send an irrefusable peace treaty!

Proposing an alternative: If the game (like Civ4) doesn't allow compensation to go both ways in a peace deal (so there's no way to offer an incentive for city cessation apart from "I'll stop attacking you") maybe you could allow a virtual deal of that nature; for example: E-mail diplo is allowed only when sending a peace deal requesting city cessation, and only in the form: "If you agree to my peace deal and send back a request for a [resources + gold amounts] trade, I will accept," and require that such messages be honored as though they were in-game deals.

[Woden]

@RefSteel
I am 95% sure that peace treaties are a 2-way street in Civ 6.

I thought of an easier way of saying it:

"A city must be ceded in a peace treaty if it has been held for 5 consecutive turns at the time of peace"

Simple and straight forward if we want to accept it. I fine either way.

[oledavy]

I rolled the Civ Choices

OleDavey: Greece (Gorgo), Kongo, Rome

Woden: Arabs, China, France

Alhambram: India, Norway, Russia

Singaboy: Aztecs, Egypt, Germany

TheArchduke: Japan, Greece (Pericles), Spain

For the record, and in the interest of full transparency, I rolled 3 sets before this one, each one ended up with at least one player getting all three civs from tiers 4/5 (according to this tier ranking)

To circumvent this on the 4th roll, I created 6 groups, and immediately eliminated one (USA, England, Brazil) that had the same issue. The remaining groups all had better spreads, and that is what you see above.

[Singaboy]

Thanks for rolling this. Happens I end up with 2/3 of the PBEM1 Civs. Hmm, I surely like Germany, but will have to have a closer look at Egypt (and Aztecs)

[Dreylin]

Time to ask for a sub-forum so everyone can get their spoiler threads going....