PBEM variant - players wanted

[unmerged(7996)]

Originally posted by Storey
Something like editing out the time of troubles for Russia I would view as a mistake. Also if you have four people editing files I wonder what the odds are for someone to screw up.

I don't have a problem with the concept of random playing order. What I have a problem with is how its done.
Here's the problem: Player A is huge compared to everyone else so the other three decide to cut him down to size. So the turn sequence is like this ABCD. I'm D so I get to set up the next turn and I choose CDBA. A will not have a chance to play for 30 years and his empire will have suffered heavy damage by then. Is there a way around this problem? Do we trust anyone to roll some dice and tell us who plays next?

I strongly agree with not editing out events. I thought boehm was suggesting that we force the AI to choose cetain options...not remove the event all together. This would allow you to play nations like Aragon, Burgundy, or Hungary and force the AI to decide that your nation lives on. I originally wanted to play Aragon (iberian, italian empire) in this last game...but...stayed away from it because I couldn't guarantee the AI Aragon wouldn't allow itself to be annexed by Castile.

I am concerned with the too many fingers in the pie screw up option. If we limit the number of edited events, it may be better after round 1 (countries are selected) for each of us to e-mail our requested country event edits(instead of editing the game file) to the most gamefile savvy of us(....ahem...cough...boehm...cough...)...and have that person change all the files at once.

On random turns: I think you're right about people choosing the turn order not being such a good idea. If there is a fair way to make turns completely random, I'm all for it. I think the "trust" factor in having someone roll dice might make for bad blood. What if you roll the dice and get really lucky on the turn order at a critical juncture...and...your roll allows you to snuff out another player...will he suspect foul play?

Hmmmmm...just thinking out loud here...Maybe we could have an arbitrary die roller? For instance, maybe someone from another PBEM game could roll for us and one of us could roll for them? That way there is no vested interest in the outcome. What do you think?

 

[Storey]

Originally posted by Backpack


1) I strongly agree with not editing out events. I thought boehm was suggesting that we force the AI to choose cetain options...not remove the event all together.

2) for each of us to e-mail our requested country event edits(instead of editing the game file) to the most gamefile savvy of us(....ahem...cough...boehm...cough...)...and have that person change all the files at once.

3) Hmmmmm...just thinking out loud here...Maybe we could have an arbitrary die roller? For instance, maybe someone from another PBEM game could roll for us and one of us could roll for them? That way there is no vested interest in the outcome. What do you think?

1) Okay I understand now. I don't have a problem with it but when I chose Castile I knew that there was a possibility that they would not decide to become Spain, which wasn't a problem for me. But your right about Aragon. I wouldn't have a problem if someone wanted to make sure that Hungary wasn't inherited by Austria as will happen in most games.

2) I have no problem with that.

3) This sounds like a good idea if we decide to do this in the next game.

 

[Raul The Runt]

These discussions are terrific, folks. I only wish I had more time to participate in them.

- AI Editing -
I have grown to like the idea of some AI editing. I suggest we come up with some groundrules, then go from there. Alternatively, someone could come up with a "PBEM.ai" that all player countries use. I don't know if that will actually work out, but it would certainly be fair.

- Event Editing -
As for Event edits, I think that is openning up a can of worms. Personally, I like the risk that my country will make choices differently than me.

- Random Turns -
On game turns, I really don't see the problem with leaving it static. I understand the stratetic ramifications, but to me, that is part of the games. For example, in my current game as Sweden, I follow France. France can pick at me with little worry of retribution because they can create a peace right before the end of the turn. I'm open to randomized turns, but only if there is a simple and fair way to manage it. I already get confused about whose turn it is.

- Minors only -
This could be fun. 2-3 province minors might be too limiting, but limiting is to less than 6 should probably do it.

- Turn duration -
I think we should play around with this. Perhaps even using it as a game balancer. Five years is enough to start and conclude a war, but is not enough to take and pay a loan, or start/finish a war on someone who just made peace with you. I would like to try one game with a 10 year turn, and one game with a 2 year turn. Both would change the flavor of the games significantly.

I just love all of the different options we have. So many options, so little time.

RTR

 

[unmerged(7996)]

Feedback...

Originally posted by Raul The Runt
These discussions are terrific, folks. I only wish I had more time to participate in them.

1. - AI Editing -
I have grown to like the idea of some AI editing. I suggest we come up with some groundrules, then go from there. Alternatively, someone could come up with a "PBEM.ai" that all player countries use. I don't know if that will actually work out, but it would certainly be fair.

2. - Event Editing -
As for Event edits, I think that is openning up a can of worms. Personally, I like the risk that my country will make choices differently than me.

3. - Random Turns -
On game turns, I really don't see the problem with leaving it static. I understand the stratetic ramifications, but to me, that is part of the games. For example, in my current game as Sweden, I follow France. France can pick at me with little worry of retribution because they can create a peace right before the end of the turn. I'm open to randomized turns, but only if there is a simple and fair way to manage it. I already get confused about whose turn it is.

4. - Minors only -
This could be fun. 2-3 province minors might be too limiting, but limiting is to less than 6 should probably do it.

5. - Turn duration -
I think we should play around with this. Perhaps even using it as a game balancer. Five years is enough to start and conclude a war, but is not enough to take and pay a loan, or start/finish a war on someone who just made peace with you. I would like to try one game with a 10 year turn, and one game with a 2 year turn. Both would change the flavor of the games significantly.

I just love all of the different options we have. So many options, so little time.

RTR

Feedback:

1. I think we all have agreed to AI editing. It would have to be individualized since we each have different goals for our AI's. Boehm seems to like his agressive...but...me...I'd set the sucker to 0%..that way he'd only fight defensive wars. BB is going to be a much larger issue if we start with little nations.


2. I can go either way here. I like event edits for the sole purpose that it would enlarge the field of playable nations. Maybe we could allow 1 event choice edit?

3 & 5. Random turns would complicate game handoffs, etc...BUT...I really don't like static turns with the 5 year duration since it handicaps a player unfairly...most recent example...Sweden never being able to retaliate against France without paying a high stab and BB penalty. Boehm could DoW you each round and then make peace before handing the game off...and...you would never be able to do the same thing back to him.
-I vote yes for static or random 10 year turns. Gives you the opportunity to punch back (in addition to taking out and paying back loans).
-My vote on 2 year turns is thumbs down (for static or random turns). You will never control peace resolutions or loan paybacks that way. The AI would wind up negotiating peace for you causing things like Venice owning Daghestan (no shared culture, no land connection, different religion). In 1499 I found Venice in this condition.
-On using 5 year turns again: Random - yes. Static - no.

Also, I am open to other turn lengths...maybe 6 or 7 years. Here is a current problem I have with the 5 year turns. I have been wanting to take Constantinople for some time now...but...have held off because I don't want the OE to take it, move their capitol there, and change the culture and religion. I was hoping the OE would take Morea allowing me to annex Constantinople...but...NO....that happens in every other game..but..not this one. If I DoW Byzantium and take Morea, I know that I will return to find the OE owning Constantinople. The other option is to break the truce with Byz after taking Morea.....blah, blah, blah, blah. A longer turn would allow me to take Morea and then DoW Byz ensuring the AI would annex her before the OE....phew!...what a long rambling post this is turning into. You guys have any suggestions for grabbing Constantinople in our current game?

4. Ummmm...less than 6 allows you to choose Austria. Maybe we could reach some other definition of a minor....I mean if you wanted to take the Golden Horde...despite starting with a lot of provinces...I'd say go for it, knock yourself out, you'll be minor soon enough.

 

[unmerged(7996)]

How many players should be allowed in our next PBEM? 4 again...or...5?

 

[unmerged(6618)]

On random turns: we had each player who comes last has set the turns randomly with a die (i pick out of a hat myself). No bad blood has arisen. Perhaps we could do it for eachother, if anyone wished. We coiuld do it in 5 round blocks or something, to make it easier.

Of course, one could always work out an arbitrary rotation...

ABCD
CBAD
CDAB
ADCB
and repeat... then just post what this turns out to be for each round.

ON ais. We named them PBEMturkey.ai etc. Then we just saved the games on day one, and then go to the savegame and add this in. That way, it wont affect other games at all, they will still use the default ai. remember that the "to fight" list is also the source of many wars... perhaps even moreso than the aggressiveness level, which I find does not do too much.

 

[Storey]

Originally posted by Raul The Runt


- Turn duration -
I think we should play around with this. Perhaps even using it as a game balancer. Five years is enough to start and conclude a war, but is not enough to take and pay a loan, or start/finish a war on someone who just made peace with you. I would like to try one game with a 10 year turn, and one game with a 2 year turn. Both would change the flavor of the games significantly.

RTR

One thing to point out with turn duration. When I did that AAR with swapping countries in EU I it was with a 10 year turn duration. However for the first two turns I played five-year turns. Too much goes on in the first ten to fifteen years to try the ten-year turn. After two complete rotations I switched to ten-year turns and it worked out just fine. I would suggest we try seven-year turns since this would mean only a twenty one-year period between turns.

Joe

 

[unmerged(7996)]

7 year turns sounds okay to me. RtR and boehm...thoughts?

Did you want to cap it at 4 players again...or...should we add a fifth? I really don't care on the number of players. Just throwing that out there in case someone wants to discuss that aspect of the game.

 

[Raul The Runt]

I had another thought. What if the number of years you had to play was related to your current victory points to reflect the difficulty in controlling a successful country. Something like

floor(3 + 4*(average player VP)/(your VP))) = # years.

In our current game this would give something like (totally from memory)
Venice: 3 + 4*(1000/600) = 9 years.
France: 3 + 4*(1000/2000) = 5 years.
Sweden: 3 + 4*(1000/400) = 13 years.
Spain: 3 + 4*(1000/1000) = 7 years.

By changing the relationship of the first and second numbers (3 and 4 respectively), we can change how much impact VP has on turn length. For example,

4 + 3*(average player VP)/(your VP)) = # years.
Venice: 9 years.
France: 5 years.
Sweden: 11 years.
Spain: 7 years.

2 + 5*(average player VP)/(your VP)) = # years.
Venice: 10 years.
France: 4 years.
Sweden: 14 years.
Spain: 7 years.

3 + 3*(average player VP)/(your VP)) = # years.
Venice: 8 years.
France: 4 years.
Sweden: 10 years.
Spain: 6 years.

I kinda like that last one.

 

[boehm]

Originally posted by Raul The Runt
I had another thought. What if the number of years you had to play was related to your current victory points to reflect the difficulty in controlling a successful country.
I kinda like that last one.

uhmmm personally I think this sounds a bit complicated!

how about simply saying that number 1 in VP gets 4 years, #2 gets 5yrs., #3 gets 6yrs. and #4 getts 7yrs. ...how does this sound? to me it just seems easier to say dont be number one than it is to do some complicated formula!

 

[boehm]

Originally posted by Backpack
7 year turns sounds okay to me. RtR and boehm...thoughts?

Did you want to cap it at 4 players again...or...should we add a fifth? I really don't care on the number of players. Just throwing that out there in case someone wants to discuss that aspect of the game.

7year turns sounds fine too...I think 5 players would be better!! this way its more difficult for one player to dominate and also it would have less of a tendency to work itself into a 2 vs 2 game...

 

[boehm]

Originally posted by Ludovico
On random turns: we had each player who comes last has set the turns randomly with a die (i pick out of a hat myself). No bad blood has arisen. Perhaps we could do it for eachother, if anyone wished. We coiuld do it in 5 round blocks or something, to make it easier.

Of course, one could always work out an arbitrary rotation...

ABCD
CBAD
CDAB
ADCB
and repeat... then just post what this turns out to be for each round.

since the turns will never be truly random...as it will in effect only be the last player in a round who would not know the sequence of the following turns...I think it would make it all a lot easier to go with an arbitrary rotation of some kind...

 

[unmerged(7996)]

On RtR's turn length formula: Dude, I need directions to understand those directions! I think a set turn length would be easier.

On boehm's 5 player proposal: You're right, 5 players would make for more dynamic gameplay. Any suggestions for who should be added to our group? I assume you guys all want to play again...and...uhhhh...you don't want to ban me...do you?

On Storey's 7 year turn proposal and concern about early actions: That is a good point about the first few rounds being so critical. If we add a 5th player, you don't get too much hands-on action during that critical timeframe.

*******How about...we play 5 players...and...the first 2 rounds are done with 4 year turns. Following rounds switch to 7 year turns. Can I get a second on this motion?*******

Okay, another potential discussion topic...the AAR. How do you guys feel about it? Is it worthwhile? Are you enjoying it? I heard a rumor that RtR has developed a rare disease known as AARophobia. Seriously though, is it too much of a burden/impact with your jobs, classes, other AAR projects, etc.? Should we downgrade it from a fullblown story to just being a place where we can post updates on what happened during our turn (i.e. cut and paste from turn update e-mails)...and...a place to discuss above board diplomacy back and forth (i.e. smack)?

 

[Raul The Runt]

Hey, throw in a cosine or log function, and I'll be happy

 

[unmerged(7996)]

Originally posted by Raul The Runt
Hey, throw in a cosine or log function, and I'll be happy

If you could make one of those funky integral signs pop up...I might have a flash back and go into cardiac arrest right here. I still laugh at myself for wasting away 4 semesters in calc and diffEQ only to discover that civil engineers mostly use empirical formulas.

 

[unmerged(7996)]

Originally posted by boehm


since the turns will never be truly random...as it will in effect only be the last player in a round who would not know the sequence of the following turns...I think it would make it all a lot easier to go with an arbitrary rotation of some kind...

Agreed. Is
ABCDE
CBAED
EBDAC
BEADC
DAECB
ABCDE okay with everyone?

 

[unmerged(7996)]

Event 4568: Impatient citizens demand progress....

RtR,

What is going on with Sweden...let me guess...your computer is frozen...oh boy....that one was bad....even for me. Anyway, how is your turn coming along?

 

[Storey]

Originally posted by boehm


uhmmm personally I think this sounds a bit complicated!

how about simply saying that number 1 in VP gets 4 years, #2 gets 5yrs., #3 gets 6yrs. and #4 getts 7yrs. ...how does this sound? to me it just seems easier to say dont be number one than it is to do some complicated formula!

I think the length should be set and the same for everyone. Most of the time the AI is controlling things so I don't see the need to penalize someone who is winning. Besides lets keep it simple.

Joe

 

[Storey]

Originally posted by Backpack



Agreed. Is
ABCDE
CBAED
EBDAC
BEADC
DAECB
ABCDE okay with everyone?

Seems okay to me.

Joe

 

[Storey]

Spain has just finished its turn and I'm sending the game on to Backpack. Read what happened in the AAR. If the AAR is getting to be too much for anyone just limit it to a brief discription of what happened. It's no big deal if you don't write up what happened. I do it because I enjoy it.

Joe