Another PBEM

[Anthropoid]

False alarm on my lack of access to internet. I'm back home and it is now working just fine. Must have been work in the area this morning.

[Matto]

To all, I will be away from today evening to Monday evening, so excuse delay ...

[Kingmaker]

HiHi

T89 sent out.

All the Best
Peter

[Mus]

Brits T89 is done but my comcast.net page seems to be going a little nuts. I hope to be able to email it soon.

[Kingmaker]

HiHi

Mat runs away with a Speedo 1st Class, Bar with Green bits round the edges De lux at 8 min for his return file, I think thats 2 at 8 min now, so who will be the first to break the 8 min barrier? Sweden also in so 5 to go.

All the Best
Peter

[Kingmaker]

HiHi

Russia in so 4 to go.

All the Best
Peter

[terje439]

replied.

[Kingmaker]

HiHi

Austria in so 3 to go.

All the Best
Peter

[lenin]

Excuse my tardy reply. Out late, drunk and got to get up to work in a couple of hours (colleagues leaving do). I'll send my turn shortly after 18.00 UK time tomorrow.

[Kingmaker]

HiHi

England & france in so 1 to go.

Sorry Mat will have to strip off the 'De lux' bit for 8 min, I looked at the time stamp on the wrong email [8|]

All the Best
Peter

[lenin]

Possible minor buglet, or maybe I misread the rules.

Declared war on Thorn last turn. I violated their neutrality last turn, moving my force to the capital (they only have one province). I'd have thought I would assault them this turn, but no combat occured.

Have I disregarded some rule? Thorn is hardly crucial to my defence, so if so, Its ok. I Will move out and back this turn to check it's ok.

P.S Missed the usual mistake by having 70k plus to assault.

[Mus]

If you fail your siege check nothing shows up in the combat report. Would be nice if it still showed you the number of points on both sides and the results of the roll and then said "siege check failed" or something in the report.

[lenin]

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

ORIGINAL: Mus

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

I think, but not sure, WCS is three guys, and their beta team is all "volunteer." Putting that and this fantastic game into perspective with heinous works of nightmare like Empire Total Frustration, which I'll guess has a team of 15 or 20 PAID guys on it, plus probably also a large volunteer beta community? . . . well, hard for me to be critical if not simultaneously supportive [:D]

I realize all that. Perhaps they should have some of us as mp beta testers as well. Humans playing other humans is the best way to uncover unbalanced game mechanics.

[;)]

I'm in total agreement with you on that one Mus; in fact, I kinda think that that is what we are doing [:)] Still fun though!!

Related to this: can I bring up the Insurrection thing again?

I realize my initial response was undecided, and when I saw that Matto was pretty much opposed to it, my initial response was to be against such a house rule. But a couple things have changed in the week or so since the topic was first brought up.

First, there was that thread in which the game designer(s) (most notably Ericbabe) engaged with us in a dialogue about "how to fix it" in a future patch.

Second, I have seen how it works. This is not to say that I didn't 'trust' you guys who were speaking up about it, just that: until you SEE something yourself, it is hard to be as decisive about it.

I read in one of the other threads someone said something like "lets just play it as designed," which is a perfectly reasonable sentiment, provided that the game designer had the foresight to design it in a balanced way, and that the game designer still maintains with all available information that it remains "_the_ design."

Point one above shows that this is not the case. Ericbabe has acknowledged that there is an imbalance in how it works, at least in MP play, and indeed, from my perspective also in SP play. It is just simply too quick and easy to rip away large tracts of territory from other nations. Certainly insurrection should remain in the game, and should continue to be a viable strategy (provided a player focuses sufficiently on that strategy to magnify starting potentials) but I believe that at present, most of the problems are occuring with more-or-less the starting compliment of diplomats.

We've already had a vote and at least one (two?) players have stated that they are opposed to such a house rule, but I still think a bit more dialogue may be warranted. A couple additional ideas:

A) the real problem with the insurrections is that it is too easy to tear away whole nations, so one option would be if players must give a two-month advance warning BEFORE they move a diplomat into place to cause an insurrection. Given that the pro-insurrection fellows have disagreed to impose a house-rule it seems very unlikely that they will agree to this one, so one witih option (B)

B) if we rationalize what is happening with the game mechanics at present in terms of game role-play . . . this kind of massive shifting of whole nations one-way then the other is a bit of an exaggeration relative to real history, i.e., it is not very realistic. Granted it could have happened, but it likely didn't for two reasons: resources were not allocated that way, and also perhaps the international relations impact for the instigator nation might well have been very large. International relations at this time was after all, largely about "playing by the rules" even if those rules were "written" by the more powerful and imposed on the less.

So, an idea along these lines would be that, any time someone instigates a successful insurection in a posession of another player, the "victim" post here in this thread with the details of what happened, where, when, who, why, etc.

At that point, I would suggest that it become a topic of international discussion, and possibly a matter for cooperative punitive measures (e.g., breaking of trade, alliances, or even DoWs).

There seems to be a majority of us (at least 6 out of 8 isn't it?) who agree that the insurrection function in the game is imbalanced, and that some house-rules to at least moderate their use are warranted. While it would not be fair to impose new house-rules in mid-game and expect those in the minority to go along with them, it is nonetheless, TOTALLY fair for those of us in the majority to gangup on the "transgressors" [:D]

I don't think we need to be specific as a quorum about the details of what "ganging up on a transgressor" would comprise. We can cross those bridges when we come to them and decide as a group on a case-by-case basis. But I do think that we should see if we are in agreement on this general plan: Whenever anyone uses insurrection, there will be a public discusion, if not also private PMs and emails, and the possibility of cooperateively executed punitive measures against the insurrector may well be an outcome of such discussions.

If you are in agreement with Plan (B) please respond in this thread by saying "Yes to Plan B."

[lenin]

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

ORIGINAL: Mus

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

I think, but not sure, WCS is three guys, and their beta team is all "volunteer." Putting that and this fantastic game into perspective with heinous works of nightmare like Empire Total Frustration, which I'll guess has a team of 15 or 20 PAID guys on it, plus probably also a large volunteer beta community? . . . well, hard for me to be critical if not simultaneously supportive [:D]

I realize all that. Perhaps they should have some of us as mp beta testers as well. Humans playing other humans is the best way to uncover unbalanced game mechanics.

[;)]

I'm in total agreement with you on that one Mus; in fact, I kinda think that that is what we are doing [:)] Still fun though!!

Related to this: can I bring up the Insurrection thing again?

I realize my initial response was undecided, and when I saw that Matto was pretty much opposed to it, my initial response was to be against such a house rule. But a couple things have changed in the week or so since the topic was first brought up.

First, there was that thread in which the game designer(s) (most notably Ericbabe) engaged with us in a dialogue about "how to fix it" in a future patch.

Second, I have seen how it works. This is not to say that I didn't 'trust' you guys who were speaking up about it, just that: until you SEE something yourself, it is hard to be as decisive about it.

I read in one of the other threads someone said something like "lets just play it as designed," which is a perfectly reasonable sentiment, provided that the game designer had the foresight to design it in a balanced way, and that the game designer still maintains with all available information that it remains "_the_ design."

Point one above shows that this is not the case. Ericbabe has acknowledged that there is an imbalance in how it works, at least in MP play, and indeed, from my perspective also in SP play. It is just simply too quick and easy to rip away large tracts of territory from other nations. Certainly insurrection should remain in the game, and should continue to be a viable strategy (provided a player focuses sufficiently on that strategy to magnify starting potentials) but I believe that at present, most of the problems are occuring with more-or-less the starting compliment of diplomats.

We've already had a vote and at least one (two?) players have stated that they are opposed to such a house rule, but I still think a bit more dialogue may be warranted. A couple additional ideas:

A) the real problem with the insurrections is that it is too easy to tear away whole nations, so one option would be if players must give a two-month advance warning BEFORE they move a diplomat into place to cause an insurrection. Given that the pro-insurrection fellows have disagreed to impose a house-rule it seems very unlikely that they will agree to this one, so one witih option (B)

B) if we rationalize what is happening with the game mechanics at present in terms of game role-play . . . this kind of massive shifting of whole nations one-way then the other is a bit of an exaggeration relative to real history, i.e., it is not very realistic. Granted it could have happened, but it likely didn't for two reasons: resources were not allocated that way, and also perhaps the international relations impact for the instigator nation might well have been very large. International relations at this time was after all, largely about "playing by the rules" even if those rules were "written" by the more powerful and imposed on the less.

So, an idea along these lines would be that, any time someone instigates a successful insurection in a posession of another player, the "victim" post here in this thread with the details of what happened, where, when, who, why, etc.

At that point, I would suggest that it become a topic of international discussion, and possibly a matter for cooperative punitive measures (e.g., breaking of trade, alliances, or even DoWs).

There seems to be a majority of us (at least 6 out of 8 isn't it?) who agree that the insurrection function in the game is imbalanced, and that some house-rules to at least moderate their use are warranted. While it would not be fair to impose new house-rules in mid-game and expect those in the minority to go along with them, it is nonetheless, TOTALLY fair for those of us in the majority to gangup on the "transgressors" [:D]

I don't think we need to be specific as a quorum about the details of what "ganging up on a transgressor" would comprise. We can cross those bridges when we come to them and decide as a group on a case-by-case basis. But I do think that we should see if we are in agreement on this general plan: Whenever anyone uses insurrection, there will be a public discusion, if not also private PMs and emails, and the possibility of cooperateively executed punitive measures against the insurrector may well be an outcome of such discussions.

If you are in agreement with Plan (B) please respond in this thread by saying "Yes to Plan B."

OOPs, double post.

I'd be more impressed by that statement if you weren't allied to the primary offenders in that regard and not poised militarily to do their bidding in advantage of that fact...

Prussian turn in.

Just remember, if we go to war, that your country is made up of republics too........

[Kingmaker]

HiHi

T90 sent out.

All the Best
Peter

[Kingmaker]

HiHi

Sweden recieves a Speedo award for this turn and with Prussia also in thats 5 to go.

All the Best
Peter

[terje439]

replied

[Mus]

Brits in.

[Anthropoid]

Hey guys, I might be one of the ones holding up turn 90. I had something strange happen when I opened it, and I've asked around but got not answer yet. If I still don't get an answer by later today, I'll just go ahead and play it and send it.

[Anthropoid]

Awright, Russian turn 90 done and sent to Kingmaker.