Imperialism1870 PBEM

[Eurisko]

Glad to see there is so much interest, more than I thought, we need still a German player though, so I think we shouldn't start until we have one.

Btw, what is the difference between .hot and .net files?
And how can I edit posts? I don't want to delete it by just traying things...

You can edit your posts by clicking the button with the scissors which says "Andern" on it.

The differences between .hot and .net are, if I am not mistaken, as follows:

Units instantly fortify in .net, but they take 1 turn to fortify in .hot.

Settlers/engineers work faster in .net.

The AI does not change production in .hot if you lose a city or the like (since there technically is no AI).

I think .hot would be more useful in this situation as one would not have to constantly use civdip for diplomacy and production fixing.

[Eurisko]

If you play .hot you do have to start your turn out of the last players view. So you have to really trust anybody. But that for engineers work normal speed. .net games are more safe and comfortable but engineers work double speed.

For editing just use this button:

Posted almost simultaneously

I don't think .hot games are unsafe, since the map is revealed (not the unit locations but the general geography and cities) anyway, and since one can always center the map on some empty stretch of ocean at the end of one's turn.

Btw, .hot also does not require ctrl-n.

[Eurisko]

Come on, one more player for Germany or France.

[Historical Atze]

Well then gimme Germany...

[AiC]

dann lassts mal krachen

[Civilionaut]

hello atze

thats nice

[Eurisko]

Hell yes.

So, .net or .hot?

I am for .hot, for obvious reasons.

If nobody is against it, I will start in .hot.

Also, please clarify your stance on the rules proposed by Rebel.

[Historical Atze]

hot

-Money, city and money exchange allowed? If so only by CivDip
Don't care
-Sneak Attack
We have already tried here various arrangements to give the defender an advantage. It always ended up in verbal fighting and the PBEM going up to smoke. Civ favours sneak attacks, so do I.
-incremental rush build
it would be VERY interesting to try this here as Cobra and I have already disussed this Idea in the past - I am for it

The rest is ok ...

[Eurisko]

Ok, let me sum up:

-No tech exchange? (PASSED)
For: Rebel, Eurisko, Sephiroth, Atze, Civilonaut
Against:
Undecided:

-Money, city and money exchange allowed? (PASSED)
For: Rebel, Eurisko, Sephiroth, Civilonaut
Against:
Undecided: Atze

-No INCREMENTAL rush build? (PASSED)
For: Rufus, Rebel, Atze, Civilonaut
Against: Sephiroth
Undecided: Eurisko

-No sneak attack? (TIED)
For: Rebel, Eurisko, Civilonaut
Against: Rufus, Atze, Sephiroth
Undecided:

-No expansion at the expense of independents? (REJECTED)
For: Rebel
Against: Atze, Civilonaut, Eurisko, Sephiroth
Undecided:

Please post your opinions on any rules where you haven't yet so I can start the game.

Btw, I assume that people agree on giving trade units the ignore ZOC flag?
I will post the modified rules file with my turn.

[Historical Atze]

Ok, let me sum up:

-No tech exchange? (PASSED)
For: Rebel, Eurisko, Sephiroth, Atze
Against:
Undecided:

-Money, city and money exchange allowed? (PASSED)
For: Rebel, Eurisko, Sephiroth
Against:
Undecided: Atze

-No INCREMENTAL rush build? (PASSED)
For: Rufus, Rebel, Atze
Against: Sephiroth
Undecided: Eurisko

-No sneak attack?
For: Rebel, Eurisko, Sephiroth
Against: Rufus, Atze
Undecided:

-No expansion at the expense of independents?
For: Rebel, Eurisko
Against:
Undecided:

Please post your opinions on any rules where you haven't yet so I can start the game.

Btw, I assume that people agree on giving trade units the ignore ZOC flag?
I will post the modified rules file with my turn.

I am for expansion at the expense of neutrals/independents ...

[Eurisko]

Btw a question:

Let's say I have a city with 10 production and I want to build a unit which costs 60 shields. I rushbuild a unit which costs 50 shields (not incrementially) and then change to the unit I want to build.

Would that be considered incremential rushbuilding?

[Historical Atze]

Don't think so ...

[Civilionaut]

doppelt

[Civilionaut]

My fotes

No tech exchange

Money, city and money exchange allowed

No INCREMENTAL rush build

No sneak attack

expansion at the expense of independents

[Rufus]

-No expansion at the expense of independents? (PENDING)
For: Rebel, Eurisko
Against: Atze
Undecided:

I am not for expansion at the expense of independents, BUT: It should be allowed. The players have to perform this task!
The English player for a example should not be interested in a Germany with Italy and more Nations in it. It should be interested in the balance of europe, because
its stronger in rest of the world then the european nations are at the beginning.
And China for a example is definetely realistic, if it would be conquered...
Long speech, short sense. Im for expansion

And im for hot.