PBEM - Rules/Suggestions

[unmerged(6618)]

COnsidering a bunch of us have started playing PBEMs I was wondering on rule tweaks etc. What others experiences have been.

One we have come up with (Ulver in the Ulver/Evenflow/Waldzwerg/Ludovico game) is that turn order should be randomized every run of turns... Otherwise peace agreements kill conflicts with the player who just went last etc.

Any more?

 

[unmerged(8022)]

What is PBEM

 

[Storey]

Originally posted by J. Banér
What is PBEM

Play by email.

Joe

 

[ulver]

We might give serious consideration to letting players design their own AI or permit player to change AI. Seems fair that they should have some influence on how the computer plays their country in their absence.

 

[ulver]

Editing AI files is quite easy http://home.broadpark.no/~havmoe/EU/scenario_ai.htm

 

[unmerged(6618)]

Yes, I think this one is a good suggestion. It opens up the possibility of the AI being able to play more without ruining the player's long term strategy (thus a little more flexibility with # of players and turn lengths). Not to mention being able to pick more countries without being severely handicapped...

 

[unmerged(6618)]

Waldzwerg brought up an interest suggestion in the other thread:

Another idea to improve the gameplay:
Because of the nature of PBEM there is a limit in the diplomatic possibilities regarding the interaction of two players. Whenever we are conductiong negotations we are facing the ai with all its limits.
Maybe we can enhance this by creating of a system of treaties between two players, which would be formally announced on the aar board.
The content of these treaties could include the exchange of provinces, money, perhaps even military personnel.
All what the treaty parties have to do is announcing the clauses of the agreement (both parties have to formally agree the proposals of course) on the board and ask a third party to act as an "honest broker" and finalize and supervise the transaction (read: edit the savegame).
Should be fairly easy to implement, and possibly add a new flavour to the negotiations.

Good Idea? or Bullshit?

 

[ulver]

The whole purpose of the Bad Boy system is to discourage players from being
overly aggressive and make 'world conquest´ a losing proposition. It
represents the effect of other nations allying against a newcomer upsetting
the balance of power in Europe. Once the threat has been dealt with the
effect should go away. It seems silly the present very small harmless France
is being penalised because he want on a rampage generations ago and was
defeated. The BB effect is meant to deal with current threats to balance of
power not historical grievances.

In order to have a more enjoyable game I'm proposing a new house rule: That
any nation that realises all possible vassals should have its BB value
reduced to 0. I honestly don't think such a rule is open to abuse, any
nations releasing all possible vassals are going to become very small
compared to their historical counterparts. Yes I do realise this would mean
that a player would have a constant BB of 0 if he has no vassals to release
but again, such a nation is clearly not going on a rampage.