Need a new player!
Moderator: Sukayo
-
- Assault Legionnaire
- Posts: 78
- Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2004 1:01 am
- Location: CA
- tot_kto_v_bredu
- Assault Legionnaire
- Posts: 75
- Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 2:01 am
- Location: Baku, Azerbaijan
- tot_kto_v_bredu
- Assault Legionnaire
- Posts: 75
- Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 2:01 am
- Location: Baku, Azerbaijan
I think the naming doesn't matter as long as they are "reasonablely" in sequence. I think correcting a turn is more confusing then just leaving the missed number out. Then we always play the highest turn and we know it the latest. This avoids the possiblity of having two turns with the same handle. so basicly if someone messes up and goes 11,12,15. we should just keep going as 16. If you look at the scoreboard the game thinks it turn 23. So we have made a mistake somewhere along the line already and didn't notice.
The latest turn in the pipe is named 21, and i have just sent it to Li-Halan. the next turn i should get is Turn21Almalik. And i will be sending out turn22. In Thoery Li-Halan will have two (?) copies of turn 21. they are different turns, and Li-Halan should play the lastest one.
The latest turn in the pipe is named 21, and i have just sent it to Li-Halan. the next turn i should get is Turn21Almalik. And i will be sending out turn22. In Thoery Li-Halan will have two (?) copies of turn 21. they are different turns, and Li-Halan should play the lastest one.
- tot_kto_v_bredu
- Assault Legionnaire
- Posts: 75
- Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 2:01 am
- Location: Baku, Azerbaijan
- tot_kto_v_bredu
- Assault Legionnaire
- Posts: 75
- Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 2:01 am
- Location: Baku, Azerbaijan
- tot_kto_v_bredu
- Assault Legionnaire
- Posts: 75
- Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 2:01 am
- Location: Baku, Azerbaijan
Guys,
What policy do we have about landing on other player's planet if we not at war with that player?
I suggest this to be treated as open war declaration unless otherwise agreed between those two players (i can think of only one exception = purchase/selling something from/to agora.)
What policy do we have about landing on other player's planet if we not at war with that player?
I suggest this to be treated as open war declaration unless otherwise agreed between those two players (i can think of only one exception = purchase/selling something from/to agora.)
Desperately looking for Brother Battle pendant.
Garison, I guess I'm just kind of OCDish with keeping a proper history of my turns, so I can look back and re-load them years from now and reminisce. I'd rather just get back on track than have to rename 100+ turns. So in the year 4975, my turn was labeled turn 21, but the game begins in the year 4956, so it's the 20th turn I've played. I think labeling by years makes more sense, since intuitively it's easier to remember I just played 4975 than turn 20.
I would say we shouldn't have any sweeping game "policies" and judge it on a case by case basis, hence the role of diplomacy. If someone lands on my planet to start taking cities, I will probably eliminate those units and demand reparations or some other compensation, and go to war if they refuse, but if someone lands on my planet with just a spy, I may demand maps in return and the removal of the spy.
I would say we shouldn't have any sweeping game "policies" and judge it on a case by case basis, hence the role of diplomacy. If someone lands on my planet to start taking cities, I will probably eliminate those units and demand reparations or some other compensation, and go to war if they refuse, but if someone lands on my planet with just a spy, I may demand maps in return and the removal of the spy.
Another thing - it seems Nick attacked the Imperial Eye, which is against house rules:
2. No attacks on the Imperial Eye, until 2 turns after a player has been given command of the Imperial Eye. This will give the Eye transports enough time to move away. Without this rule, the Eye will be seriously crippled, since almost all of their landers will be taken out by players.
What should we do? Should we scrap the rule? Out of fairness, I certainly intend to attack the Imperial Eye now, unless we come to some resolution or replay turns.
2. No attacks on the Imperial Eye, until 2 turns after a player has been given command of the Imperial Eye. This will give the Eye transports enough time to move away. Without this rule, the Eye will be seriously crippled, since almost all of their landers will be taken out by players.
What should we do? Should we scrap the rule? Out of fairness, I certainly intend to attack the Imperial Eye now, unless we come to some resolution or replay turns.
- tot_kto_v_bredu
- Assault Legionnaire
- Posts: 75
- Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 2:01 am
- Location: Baku, Azerbaijan
How did you know he attacked the eye?
I would suggest that either we stick to the rule and Nick would have leave the fort, wait till Eye unit lands on his planet retaking that fort, give some sort of contribution (money, assault lander in the fort, etc) and after 2 turns attack that fort again.
OR we can attack Eye immediately and Nick pays contribution to all of us.
I totally support the year naming, I was voting for it from beginning.
I would suggest that either we stick to the rule and Nick would have leave the fort, wait till Eye unit lands on his planet retaking that fort, give some sort of contribution (money, assault lander in the fort, etc) and after 2 turns attack that fort again.
OR we can attack Eye immediately and Nick pays contribution to all of us.
I totally support the year naming, I was voting for it from beginning.
Desperately looking for Brother Battle pendant.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests