Harovan

Supporters
  • Content count

    2,414
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

11 Good

About Harovan

  • Rank
    Monarch
  1. I'm going to need a replacement for several weeks soon, so if you're interested, mail me to my nickname at web de and I fill you in with everything you need to know. On a second thought, we may talk about you taking over permanently if you're up for it, because I have a feeling I'll be abroad this year a lot.
  2. That's true. I'd prefer no trading as well, especially in a game with 18 participants, which could end up in a huge tech pace and be over very soon.
  3. No, because that's not what I proposed. In the scenario constructed by you each attacker could take 1 city. That aside, I'm sorry to announce, that my participation may be in danger by a possible business trip abroad over several weeks in February. While I could continue my PBEMs during this time (I'd be able to send/receive emails), I wouldn't be able to play a pitboss game. Whether it's me who will be sent to this client or one of my colleagues, will be decided within this week. Chances are low that it's me (~25%), but exist.
  4. I have another proposal, to get out of that turn order prison: Wars are ok, as are double moves, period. However, to prevent overly exploiting the system and to strike a deal between warmongers and builders/peacenicks, I propose the following rule: - In every war campaign (defined from DoW to peace 1-vs-1), after losing 1 city, the unlucky defender (not the attacker!) has the right to demand an end of hostilities, if he doesn't think he can take his city back in the same campaign. To achieve this, he has to offer peace in-game, and the attacker (now 1 city bigger) has to accept it. A new war can be started by either side only after the period the game enforces to keep the peace (I think it's ~10 turns, depending on speed). This should keep more people in the game longer without eliminating competitive playing. - Diplomacy should be limited to in-game means. No contact - no treaty. After meeting and researching the appropriate techs, other things are possible (right of passage/gifting units, vassalage, defense pact etc.), but they need to be openly visible through in-game means, no secret plotting. - If possible, personalities are kept secret. Player names are the same as in-game leader names. - Borrowing/gifting units is ok, but these units need to be marked (Incan Maceman, Chinese War Elephant, etc.). Asking a neighbor for help should be coded by offering a gift of x gold in-game (x=1, if that's not possible, perhaps 10).
  5. What about a simple rule then, that double moves aren't allowed in the DoW turn? That's just 1 turn to watch and should limit annoyance to a minimum.
  6. I haven't seen a meter reader in decades. I'm reading them myself and report it by mail or online. I didn't even know, that they still exist.
  7. Truth to be told, I don't think Rommel deserved half the hype he got mostly for propaganda purposes from both sides: own side to present him as some kind of super general, the other to disguise the suckiness of their own commanders of the early African campaign. He was a brilliant general on divisional and a very good one on corps level, no doubt, and had a very high tactical skill. His operational level skills however were questionable, and the higher he got, the worse he was, because tactical brilliance gains you little if you're commanding an army or even army group.
  8. Lots of them.
  9. Please remove the Apocalypto award from me.
  10. I remember from Apolyton times, that every team PBEM game or similar event added a badge to my profile, so that after a while my profile was cluttered with icons of years old games. For my WPC presence I decided to change that and to display only badges of active games. That means, that the Apocalypto badge has to go. Since the team forums of that game are public now anyway, I decided just to leave the Civ group and hoped the badge would be gone as well. But not so. So my question is, what do I have to do to get rid of it? Please. :)
  11. I'm sure I'll regret that decision, but... if this game really fills up to 18 players (strict condition), I'm in.
  12. I don't have a potence problem, but I could use a fake Rolex. Pretty please!
  13. Sorry to disappoint, Zoid, but I stopped to believe the propaganda of both sides in this conflict long ago. While I don't think the use of firearms was as necessary as Israel claims, I'm not buying the story of Israel firing without provocation either. Following long term observations of both sides in the whole conflict, most likely there was violence, and Israel overreacted, as always. Israel may be reckless, but they aren't dumb. After the PR disaster last year, this time I bet they'll come with plexiglass shields, pepper spray and batons rather than firearms. And with camera teams. There won't be any violence on both sides (or else there will be sharp footage in the news). The activists will get arrested and released a few days later. The whole convoy goes to Ashdod, the construction materials are confiscated (perhaps not even all) and the rest is delivered to Gaza in trucks. Not telling it's a good thing, but that's what I see coming.
  14. They will board it without casualties. They're prepared for violence this time.