| Game: Rabid Weasels in a Box |
Fri, 14 March 2003 08:28  |
|
|
|
Well, here goes...
-f races only. Non-playing host will verify.
All PRTs eligible. AR qualifies as a -f race.
[-f defined for game terms as 5/25/5 factory settings, or AR PRT]
JRC3/JRC4 on Autohost
Standard cheat disclaimer. Chaff allowed, split fleet allowed (be reasonable please folks). All other cheats/abuses are not allowed. [see Stars! FAQ for a sample list]
Prefer intermediate skill level players. Hopefully, those willing to experiment with non-CA -f races as well. 
Generation Schedule: Tue-Sat 3AM GMT (M-F 10PM US EST)
# of players: As many as want to cram in... i.e. 15 plus host observer race)
====
Victory Conditions
Highest score at 2500, or all resistence collapsing before that point.
Alliances, tech trading, etc. allowed, but only *one* race will be declared the winner.
====
Galaxy:
Medium, normal, distant starting positions, ACC BBS start,
public scores *off*
Note: I like medium sparse, but given -f need for real estate normal will be used. I'll consider dense if the number of players gets large.
Note2: Odds are that I won't be able to commit full time to play - in which case I will stick an observer race in a central location to watch things.
Passworded race files to following address:
overkw@attbi.com
Please include your password with the file so that race restrictions can be checked. Races that I cannot check will not be accepted.
If interested, send a race file in. I do not reserve slots in a game based upon a message indicating interest. Too much previous experience with people not following up.
- Kurt
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Game: Rabid Weasels in a Box |
Mon, 31 March 2003 07:17  |
|
|
|
I'm generating the race files tonight (it's 7am EST, so that's about 12 hours from now).
Looks like 9 races plus the observer unless there is a last minute entry.
- Kurt
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Game: Rabid Weasels in a Box |
Mon, 31 March 2003 07:42 |
|
|
|
| Hetzer wrote on Sat, 29 March 2003 12:15 |
I was replying to someone's post about alliances and thought that it might be a good thing to bring up here.
I once encountered a post where someone postulated that there should be 2 kinds of PBEM games negotiated in advance.
Type 1: breaking treaties is punishable by having to listen to people rant and rave.
Type 2: we're all old (and evil) gamers here and we understand that treaties are useful until they're not anymore
Anybody have any thoughts on how we should approach this game?
|
I'm replying to this here - but I've also followed the threads on this in the other forum(s).
My take on the issue:
1. Treaty conditions should be kept. Therefore, write *good* treaties. Exit clauses, termination dates, etc. Also realize that a treaty that is not advantageous to both sides is not a good treaty.
2. Realpolitik of "backstabbing". If it's not a game-winning move, then it's not a good backstab. [Paraphrasing an excellent Jason Cawley article.]
3. There was a comment in the other end-game thread that "only one winner" does not solve the alliance issue problem. That's true. But I also think that the other proposed solutions (all enemies, limited friends, etc.) are just as flawed or limiting. It's quite easy to have a situation where the limitations of these rules (or just about any other set of 'simple' alliance limitations) are just as destructive to play.
I can not stop a player from eventually (or even from the start) deciding that "2nd place is good enough" and playing accordingly.
I can not force a player to join an alliance of lesser powers in an attempt to rein in what looks like a run-away winner. Or to put aside a war against another lesser power.
I can not force a player to break a bad treaty. Or to rewrite a treaty until it's a good one. And even then, I can not force them to use an escape clause and fight what will be a former ally.
Given these limitations I've opted to simply set a limitation that *one* race will be recognized as the dominant "winner" of 'Rabid Weasels...' The players will decide at how this is arrived at. Death on the battlefield, or rolling over and accepting the dominance of the alpha weasel...
I guess my only piece of advice is for the players to develop and keep up good intell on the other races. No public scores as a crutch. You will have to work to keep tabs on how big that neighboring empire is, and where is that mass of BBs you saw two turns ago? 
As host (or my version of it) I am trying to facilitate a game that will be enjoyed (or at least educational) to all the players. This basically involves (in rough order of priority):
1. Making sure the game turns are generated cleanly and on time. (with much of this work now done by AH <Thanks Ron!>)
2. Resolve and communicate problems with #1 as quickly as possible.
3. Attempt to quickly find replacement players if there is a vacancy. [I've also temporarily run races -- but I really don't like to do that since it's bad for maintaining neutrality.]
4. Act as an neutral party/judge to resolve disputes - if asked to do so by both parties.
5. Act as a advisor to answer technical questions and discuss general issues. This carries out from the beginner games I've hosted. I will act as a sounding board for ideas/questions. I won't discuss/advise on tactical issues. That's something to take to the forum(s) or IRC. 
And what do I get out of this?
1. I generally get a look at a variety of race and ship designs.
2. It's been a good way to meet other players. Who I do seem to run into in other games at a later point.
- Kurt
Time flies like an arrow.
Fruit flies like a banana.
- Groucho MarxReport message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
) 1 Vote
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
sides, may allow me to be a little trekky 
Re: Game: Rabid Weasels in a Box