A Sticky Situation - EA game - Austen/Helheim wins, not suitable for newbs or inexperienced

Game info
Name - (Now that's what I call) A Sticky Situation
Type - llamaserver PBEM (Play By EMail) - Llamaserver FAQ - http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=35160
Schedule - 1st turn 48h, then 28h until players prefer 52h. Then repeat for 76h if necessary.
Players - 9 (This game is designed for players who have a decent level of MP experience, and who are comfortable with most (all) of the most commonly used game mechanics, and in playing against skilled players. This is NOT going to be a game that is friendly to newbies or inexperienced players, and I will likely turn away any who sign up. So please don't be offended if I don't allow you to play, and please understand that newbies in vet games have a seriously unbalancing effect, and can easily spoil the game for those players. And of course known douche bags are not welcome in any way shape or form)
Nation Selection - First come first serve (no Water nation, as they suck in newbie every game. Unless there is more than one water nation, then they become ok again (if not my cup of tea). Edit - Water nations were allowed in this game because there was more than one of them)
Diplomacy - Machiavellian. Trades are binding.

Game Settings
Age - Early Age
Independent Strength - 7 (Note this is not default)
Research - Standard
Magic Sites - Default for the age (so 45 for EA)
Money - Default
Resources - Default
Supplies - Default
Random Events- Default (which is Common)
Re-naming - On
Score Graphs - On (although I'm open to negotiation on this)
Hall Of Fame - 15

Mods - A version of CBM 1.92 that will incorprate the changes to the next CBM that llama has made to date (currently EDM changes and the removal of Agartha Darkness PD), and Kianduatha's Pretender changes from his CBM sub-project.

The mod can be found here - https://dl.dropbox.com/u/97382000/CB1.92.ED...enders.0.02.zip

The list of EDM changes can be found here - http://z7.invisionfree.com/Dom3mods/index....&#entry22020668

Kianduatha's Pretender sub-project, along with the changes, is here - http://z7.invisionfree.com/Dom3mods/index.php?showtopic=934

Map - Cloaca Maxima - https://dl.dropbox.com/u/97382000/CloaxaMax...pen%20Ports.zip

There will be hidden fixed starts, and the capitals will not be marked with VP's. Please use the map linked above for playtesting, as I will not be releasing the final version of the map file, and you only need the image file from the above link to play the game.

Victory Conditions - Hold 5 capitals for 3 consecutive turns, with win claims to be checked by a non-player (or Calahan the admin).

(Note there will be no VP's at capitals)(see game rules for more details on victory settings)

General Rules - All the basic ones, which in general means these http://z7.invisionfree.com/Dom3mods/index.php?showtopic=726. All the games on this forum use these rules (unless the game has a good reason not to, and clearly states otherwise). And of course the most golden rule of them all, which is don't be a douche bag.

(There is a very extensive set of game rules in the 2nd post, and I would be very appreciative if all players could take the time to read them. I will likely be updating them before the game starts though, so you can hold of un raeding them until I update them if you wish. I will post in the thread when I have ipdated them)

Admin - Calahan ..... Vice Admin - TBD

Player List

1. Atlantis - Frozen Lama - Defeated turn 27
2. Fomoria - Immaculate - Survived until the end
3. Hinnom - mockingbird - Defeated turn 22.
4. Helheim - Austen - Winner (by concession) on turn 57
5. Lanka - GFSnl - Defeated turn 43
6. Oceania - Kianduatha - Survived until the end
7. Pangaea - Deadnature - Defeated turn 46
8. R'lyeh - Maerlande - Survived until the end
9. T'ien Ch'i - Fantomen - Survived until the end

Edit - Player order changed to reflect llamaserver order

This post has been edited by Calahan on Jan 5 2013, 02:27 PM

Game Rules and More Detailed Game Information
V.1.1

Game Schedule, Delays, Stale Turns, Needing to Leave the Game, AI/Substitutes etc

Game Schedule
The game schedule will be 24 hours per turn at the start (turn 1 is 48 hours), and then increase as players begin to need more time. And I would like players to take particular note here that when the schedule says 24 hours, then that means players are expected to sumbit one turn in that period of time. That is all it means. If all players want to submit more turns during that time so that the game speeds up, especially in the early stages, then that is fine. But if a player only wants to play one turn per day, for whatever reason, then THAT IS ABSOLUTELY FINE as well. Since as long as players are not staling and not asking for regular delays, then they get a perfect score in regards to submitting turns by submitting one turn in the allotted hosting schedule.

Behaviour Regarding the Schedule that is Strictly Not Allowed
There is one particular thing I do not want to see, and in fact as an admin I am no longer willing to stand for it, so I want all players to take particular note of the following.

I do not want to see players badgering and pressuring other players to submit turns faster than the hosting schedule so that the game speeds up. In particular I'm refering to posts such as "Hey JohnD, did you know that if you are last to play your turn (which you mostly are) then if you wait a few minutes you can play your next turn as well, and this helps speed the game up for the rest of us". I do not want to see any posts like this, and I don't want to hear any excuses or reasons on this matter. The schedule is the schedule, and nobody is expected to play any faster than the schedule, and I will not allow players to harass others into doing so.

I know this happens in lots of games, and such message are a fairly frequent guest on game threads. BUT NOT IN THIS GAME. If I don't have a problem with it as admin and organiser, then neither should any of the players in this game. Yes I know it speeds the game up. Yes I know the early turns take just a few minutes. Yes I know lots of players like fast early turns. But I don't care about any of that. Some players like to play slower, and as long as they don't stale or ask for delays, then I am prefectly happy for them to take 23 hours and 55 minutes over turn 2 if they want to, and do the exact same thing for every turn that follows as well if that is their preference (although I don't recommend playing chicken with the hosting deadline, as that just means you're asking for a stale).

A lot of players need to get it out of their heads that there is something wrong with doing this, because there absolutely is not. Staling and frequent delay requests can cause problems, players using all the availabe time to play their turn does not. And I will argue with anyone who claims otherwise. If you want a blitz game then go and play in one.

Delay Requests
Ideally, please post in the game thread and PM the admin if you need a delay, just in case the admin misses one of them (and so that the other players know what's going on). The admin will be friendly so most delays will be granted, but please give as much notice as possible, since asking for a delay 5 minutes before hosting probably won't do any good. In the early phase any request up to 24-48 hours should be ok (if you are away over a weekend for example), anything longer may need to be temporarily subbed (or accept a stale). Once the game gets more intense and critical, then longer delays will usually be granted.

Stale Turns
Stales are always unwelcome, but they are not the end of the world, and I doubt a stale free MP game has ever existed. So can I please ask players not to drop-out just because of a stale turn or two. The same can be said for losing a big fight. It hurts, but it's not a reason to quit tjhe game or go into a staling sulk. If a player stales for 2 consecutive turns then the position will be assessed, and that player will either be turned AI, or a substitute will be sought. In the latter case, the game might need to be delayed a short while for a sub-search to take place.

Fighting On Until The Very End
In most of the games played on this forum players are expected to fight on until the very end and until they are defeated in-game. If a game does not make mention of this either way, then it's safest to assume that this is the default stance of the admin. And in my games I certainly do expect players to keep fighting, and keep putting effort in until the very end.

Although please note that when I say I expect players to fight on until the very end, I do actually mean that I expect players TO FIGHT ON UNTIL THE VERY END, and NOT JUST SUBMIT TURNS UNTIL THE VERY END. As the latter is incredibly insulting to the other players and the admin, and in my opinion constitutes acting like a douchebag. And in my games it is only my opinion that matters on such issues.

Fighting on until the very end means a player continuing to care about their nation, continuing to care about the other players in the game, and continuing to put in the time and effort required to put up a good fight, until they are defeated in-game. Fighting on to the very end DOES NOT MEAN simply leaving all your troops and mages on default orders while you send in blank turn files (to avoid a stale mark), while you do nothing but wait for your last fort to be captured. You might get some situations where you literally can't do anything, but most of the time there is always something you can be doing to improve your position.

For example if you have any gem income then it can be used to either summon more units, given to mages to reduce casting fatgiue, or traded with other nations for items. I know these might only be small things, but it all helps to make life for difficult for your enemies, and help you put up a better fight. And as such it is /very/ rare that you will ever be in a situation where you can literally do /nothing/ to improve your situation. As even unlocking some low level spells can improve matters, and that only requires you spend a few moments of time on the research screen.

But to simply stale or send in blank turns just because you can no longer be bothered to play anymore is incredibly selfish behaviour, and also very insulting to all the other players in the game who are putting their own time and effort into playing their turns properly. And anyone I find doing this will be banned from all my future games. As all players should aim to have some pride in their play, and not just simply adopt a "I don't give a shit anymore" attitude the moment they realise they are going to lose a game. As again that is very insulting to the other players, and certainly constitutes acting like a douchebag in my book.

Needing to Leave the Game
If you do have to leave the game for any reason, then please can you let the admin know about it. I understand that this is not always possible to do depending on the problem, but it is always highly appreciated if possible And if you can find your own substitute for your position, then that would be even better. But one thing you should not do is turn yourself AI, even if you have to leave suddenly I'd prefer you to just abandon your nation to stale rather than turn AI.

As I would please ask that nobody goes AI without prior notification and permission. I can not emphasise enough how important this is, and how much players turning AI can ruin MP games. And even though it sounds strange, a staling nation is always better than an AI one. It is also considered to be very bad manners in this community to turn AI without first obtaining permission to do so from the game admin, and anyone doing so is unlikely to be welcome in any future games that I arrange or admin. (see below where I mention that being a general douche bag is banned in this game)


Victory Conditions

Capitals
Please take note that capitals will not be marked by VP's in this game. So winning claims are to be verified by the non-playing admin (which is me in most cases).

Also please note that it is up to the players themselves to keep track of how many capitals other players hold, as in this game there is no graph to tell you this exact info, and players claiming wins do not have to give any warning when they are about to win. So make sure to get those Scouts out there if you want to know exactly what's happening in the overall game, so that you always know who is close to owning enough capitals to win.

How to Claim Victory
As for the actual victory requirements, you need to hold X capitals in total for 3 consecutive turns. This figure can include your own. So if the requirement is 6 capitals, then that is your own plus 5 others, but please note you do not have to own your own capital to win. As an example if you capture your last needed capital on turn 50, and if you are still holding all the required number of capitals at the start of turn 51 and 52, then you are able to claim victory and ascend as the one true Pretender God

I should add that to claim a valid win you need to provide the three turn files for the three turns that you have held the required number of capitals for. As one or two turn files won't be enough to verify that you have met the victory conditions. (although this can often be unnecessary if nobody contests the win claim)

Allied and Joint Victories
I am not a big fan of allied or joint victories, but then I also know I can not force players to fight either, especially if they have been on friendly terms all game, or if a game would drag on too long while two superpowers battled for supremacy. So if two or more players want to claim a joint/allied victory, then they will need to get a concession from every other player still in the game. You can not use capitals held to claim a joint/allied victory in the way you can when claiming a solo victory, as it has to be by concession for joint/allied win.


Who Can Play In This Game?

Experienced players only.

(fleshed out version coming soon)

Contacting Other Players, NAP's (Non-Aggression Pacts), Trades etc.

Contacting Other Players
The usual method of contacting other players is by using forum PM's, but it's also quite popular to communicate by emails or on the IRC channel. Some players even prefer in-game messages. I don't mind which option players choose, and none of them are forbidden in this game (as some games have settings that only allow in-game messages).

When Can I Contact Another Player?
I would please like to ask that players do not contact other players about in-game matters until those nations either come into contact in-game (be it with borders or scouts), or until the game has reached turn 20. As there have been minor problems in previous newbie games I have admined where nations that have not yet met in-game, have agreed to team-up against another nation they share a mutual border with. As while there is nothing wrong with early 2-on-1 wars, as they are a part of the game, I don't think it's right that such arrangements should be made outside of the game-world. (such as pre-game or before meeting the nation you are contacting).

This is not a rule you will find in most games, but due to one or two past experiences as an admin, I would like to see if this rule will help to prevent some of the minor problems that occured in previous games, and I don't think such a rule will have much, if any, negative effect on the game. I know I have no way of enforcing this rule, but I would like to think that all the players want to play fairly and as such also play by any additional game rules that the admin decides upon.

Thread Posting
Players are pretty much free to smack talk or roleplay and such on the game thread to give the game some life if they wish. But I do not like to see players fishing for info on the game thread with posts such as "Hey if you border Nation X, then let me know if you want help attacking them", as this should be done via PM's etc. Likewise players also need to careful what they post, as innocent posts like "It's turn 10 and I've already found I'm bordering Nation A and Nation B" does yourself no favours at all, and only encourages Nation A and Nation B to have a quick chat and decide to both attack you. Don't give away scouting reports for free. But posts regarding gem trades or item requests are fine.

Non-Aggression Pacts (or NAP's for short)
No NAP agreements in this game will be considered as inviolable in any way. You are free to sign as many NAP's as you wish, but you do so at your own risk. Also I personally think that in a game like Dominions there really isn't any such thing as an NAP, since in theory everyone is aiming to win, and there can be only one winner. So all NAP's should instead be considered as Mutual Benefit Agreements, whereby both nations benefit for whatever reason(s) from not engaging in hostilities with the other nation. But the moment one side is no longer benefitting from such an agreement, then that is the moment they are most likely to break them. So if you are ever surprised by a nation breaking a NAP agreement, then maybe you were mistaken with regards to just how important that agreement was to them, or how much they could gain from suddenly attacking you.

Never forget that the diplomacy in this game is machiavellian, which basically means you should not believe anything another player tellls you, as each player is perfectly entitled to speak falsehoods if they think it gains them an advantage. Also please do not make the fatal mistake that many players do of relying on NAP's to defend your lands and your borders. As NAP's offer absolutely no protection from attack in a game with machiavellian diplomacy, and if you are relying on NAP's as your only means of defence in this type of game, then you are playing the game very wrong and very badly.

As only your troops, mages, and overall military might can protect your lands, not any promises from neighbours. And if you over-commit yourself to war(s), and leave vast sections of your lands completely undefended as a result, then you only have yourself to blame when other players take advantage of your failed strategic planning and seize their chance to conquer your lands without resistance, and regardless of any friendly agreements they might have made with you. Never forget that forts filled with troops and mages always acts as a significant deterrent against would-be attackers, and likewise the reverse is true that empty forts and lands will only ever serve as an open invite for a free lunch. Do not paint yourself as an easy target, as you have absolutely no right to complain if your own poor strategic decisions leads to others taking advantage of it.

As strategic planning and decision making plays an absolutely vital role in this game, and if you make bad choices and formulate bad plans then you deserve to lose every time. And if you lost a game because you were not good enough at these skills that time around, then the simple answer is to analyse what you did wrong and try not to repeat the same mistakes in your next game. Though sadly instead of doing this some players prefer to moan and complain about being attacked, rather than facing the cold hard truth that they were not good enough that game, made bad strategic decisions, and simply got outplayed as a result. These players have also made quite a name for themselves in the community in this regard, and I would not want to see any players in this game following that path. Learn to improve not to complain.

Trade Agreements
But trade agreements such as a gem / item swap / purchase / province trades, are a totally different type of agreement to NAP's, and players are expected to honour any and all trade agreements that they make.


Banned Exploits

1. Copying the script orders from Bogus and his friends to others commanders (ie. The 'Fire Commanders' orders).
2. Overloading other players labs by sending them lots of items they did not request. Be they worthless or valuable.
3. Exploiting obvious mod bugs. If you find something which is obviously wrong or looks wrong then you have a duty to report it, and not exploit the bug until the admin makes a decision on it.
4. No using keyboard shortcut commands to issue orders that are not available via the orders menu. This includes Blood Hunting underwater. Patrolling with immobile units. Breaking siege with immobile units. Patrolling to break siege. Site Searching while besieging or whilst being besieged. And any other such exploitative keyboard shortcut that I am either unaware of, or can not currently recall. There are to be no exceptions to this rule without my permission, and I am only ever likely to give my permission in situations where using a keyboard shortcut is needed to counter an exploit.
5. If you notice a player is staling, expecially if it's your current opponent, then you have duty to report it to the admin.
6. Silently beating up a known staling player is being a serious douche bag (see 8).
7. No move-blocking by probing enemy armies with lone commanders. If you want to probe an enemy army then hide a Scout in that province and use the "Attack Current Province" command, as that runs no risk of blocking enemy movement. Any player that uses move-blocking is in immediate violation of the next rule.
8. Being a general douche bag is not allowed in this game. This is probably the most important rule of the game, and if you break it then you can expect to be kicked out.


Roll-backs
I will likely only allow a turn to be rolled-back if there is an error in hosting, a game threatening bug, or if there is an exceptional circumstance that gives cause for a rollback (server error for example). But there is no set rule on this, and each case will be assessed on a case by case basis as the need arrises. I will not always role-back if there is a hosting error, and neither will I never roll-back, as I will decide what I cosider to be the best course of action at that particular time.

But no player should expect a turn to be rolled back just because they staled. 95% of stales are the fault of the player, and there is almost no way an admin can justify rolling a game back if, due to their own fault, a player staled. Sending turns in well before the deadline can also help prevent inadvertent stales (such as from power cuts or server blips). The game itself isn't completely bug free, and it's certainly possible to get incorrect battle replays, minor movement problems, or buggy item/spell effects. But again it's hard to justify a roll-back for such matters, even if they can result in problems for the player it effects.

Roll-backs can bring with them some serious game-ruining problems, and no roll-back should ever be done without a very good reason or without exploring other available options. Since roll-backs should never be seen or treated as the norm for dealing with the large range of theoretical problems that can occur during a game.


Final Note To All Players

First I have a request to all players in this game, and that is to read this great set of general tips regarding personal conduct in MP games written by Sheap. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com//showthread.php?t=32050

Also, please can I further emphasise to everyone to firmly keep in mind that Dominions 3 is a computer game. If someone is dishonest and backstabs you in the game, this does not mean that this is how they are in real life. If you honestly believe that people will behave the same in real life as they do in a computer game then I personally think there is something wrong with you, and I would prefer it if you did not sign up for this game. Maybe use the time to instead get yourself checked out by a psychiatrist, who can help you separate computer games from real life.


'Thank You' for your time in reading all this. Good luck and happy gaming to all the players.

Edit - Note to self - Add more info about what can and can't be posted in the first 20 turns.
Also add something about capitals being under siege not counting as reseting the countdown timer

Helheim!

Great!

Lanka.... Mhuhahah.... please.

In the op you say exprienced players, then in next post you indicate opposite.

But I ONCE played a lot, but have not played in at least a year. So maybe I meet both conditions. I will take some hot celestial on monkey action, gogo Kailasa.

Oh you updated rules... Why the switch?

Formoria.

Good spot. The chunky game rules in the 2nd post were just a straight copy and paste job from the rules I use in my newbie games, and forgot there was a section that dealt specifically with who could play (ie. what inexperienced meant).

Corrected it now, and I'll flesh out that section when I get time (which won't be for a day or two at least)

I've added you in as Kailasa.

But do I recall correctly that if you were to pick a side to sit on the Dominions serious/casual playing scales, then you'd be firmly on the casual side?

Mainly asking as this isn't intended to be a "fun casual" game at all (or at least not in the same sense that say players like Sombre will often organise fun casual games). And if you haven't been around the playing community much in the past few years, then you might not be aware that I don't organise "fun casual" games, as I only organise proper MP games where I expect maximum effort from all the players, and for them to fight hard until the very end. Which basically means no staling, no turning AI, and no submitting half arsed turns when you're in a losing war.

If you're good with all that then that's excellent But thought I'd point it out as it's way above the level of commitment that was usually expected from players in games from a few years back. And so given that you haven't played in a good while, I just want to make sure you're aware that these commitment levels have changed since back then (or at least for my games they've changed)

"Switch"? What switch?!? I have no idea what you are refering to here.

Tir na n'Og

How many games are you in at the moment HoleyDooley? It's not still some insane number is it?

And did you manage to win any of your games yet? Or get to a good number of late games where you had a good chance of winning? Since you've played a lot of games from what I can tell, so you really should have achieved one or both of the above if you're moving up from newbie games. (or even better achieved these in non-newbie games)

Since I seem to recall a few months back that I only didn't let you play in my AssAsians game because I was concerned with the number of games you were playing in at the time (12+ IIRC), and not that I thought you weren't eligible to play in a newbie game. So I'm just wondering what's changed between then and now for you to be stepping up a few gaming levels (ie. Have you won some games? Any links to games you're playing in now so I can check out how you're doing?)

I'll sit this one out then, and try to play some IRC games before deciding to jump back into a PBEM game.

I started up a SP game to do some testing and found I have forgotten all the spells. I need some time to get re-acquainted. Seems I'm the one switching, then.

I am in 8 currently...though 2 are almost over (should be already over, some people just won't admit defeat)
another I am hanging in but just as support, not a contender.

In Smiting_Season its late game, I am doing okay but definately not the top 2. No graphs.
In Primordial_Cake its turn 19 and doing very well...no graphs.
in Initiative, its turn 34 doing okay, but currently fighting 2 nations, one of which is twice my size. No graphs.
In Waaarghs, its just turn 6, graphs are on. Helheim.
In Mod_Mayhem, graphs are on and only 5 players remaining, but I am equal strength of the other 2 strong nations. Its turn 46 and graphs are on. Nehekhara.

HD

Pangaea please!

thanks for setting this one up Calahan.

I am in 8 currently...though 2 are almost over (should be already over, some people just won't admit defeat)
another I am hanging in but just as support, not a contender.

In Smiting_Season its late game, I am doing okay but definately not the top 2. No graphs.
In Primordial_Cake its turn 19 and doing very well...no graphs.
in Initiative, its turn 34 doing okay, but currently fighting 2 nations, one of which is twice my size. No graphs.
In Waaarghs, its just turn 6, graphs are on. Helheim.
In Mod_Mayhem, graphs are on and only 5 players remaining, but I am equal strength of the other 2 strong nations. Its turn 46 and graphs are on. Nehekhara.

HD

Thanks for the info HD. Not much for me to go on though since so many of them are graphs off.

You missed the part where I asked if you'd won any games. Or are those two games that are about to finish (where players won't admit defeat) both likely to be wins for you? And you must have finished a bunch of games by now, so are there any you came close to winning (if you didn't win them?)

Since the situation that I'm really trying to avoid is having a player in this game who, to be blunt, just isn't good enough yet for this level of game (or at least the level of game I'm hoping it will be). I've never seen you play at all, and the only thing I know about you is that when I came back to the community a few months ago, it seemed like you were playing in just about every game that was running (which might actually have been true!). So I have no way of judging your playing level apart from obvious signs such the number of games you've won. Or haven't won, which is often more telling (I find win ratios to be a really good indicator of playing ability)

Since I can't think of any good players who played, lets say 15+ games before managing to win one. I recall that you suggested previously that you prefer getting more experience from playing more games, rather than playing just a handful of games, but playing them with max effort. And that you were a better player for it.

http://z7.invisionfree.com/Dom3mods/index....post&p=22006623

And while everyone might have their own preference or ideas on how to improve, which therefore affects whether they go for quantity or quality. Practice shows quite overwhelmingly that those who choose quantity rarely match up to those that choose quality. Or maybe it just turns out that way if those prefering quality are just better players to begin with. All I know is I can name a lot of players who were often playing 6+ games at a time, but who never manged to win a single game ever, and as far as I could tell, never improved much past learning the basics. And vice-versa a load of good players who went the quality route. Although that's not to say you can't be a good player going for quantity, but they would have to be the exception to the norm IMO.


Please don't take all this the wrong way though, as you might well be a good player and my abscence from the community for 6+ months just meant I didn't notice it. But what I do know is I've played in enough so-called non-newb games to know that none of them were non-newb, and I find it as frustrating as hell when I'm battling hard against another vet in my first war, only to see other vets getting fucking walkovers against players making newb mistakes, and who really shouldn't have been anywhere near the game at all. Since it was simply way out of their league. And that has taught me that to have a good vet/non-newb game, the admin has to be a harsh and cruel bastard during sign-ups, as even one player out of thier league can ruin the game for all the others. (mainly by going down too easily and too cheaply in their first war)

So in short, I need something more to go on than what I currently have to allow you into this game. Because right now all I really have is that you've played a lot of games (likely 10+ finished), but I see no signs of you having won one. But I do see signs of you not having done well in a lot of game (reference to you mentioning before being down to your last fort in several games). If you've won a game then that will be good enough. Or if you can show me some evidence of having been in contention to win 2+ games that were well into late game, then that should be fine as well (turn files will do, or even game name, as then I might bug llama for the files if need be). But I'm afraid that without such supporting credit, I simply don't have enough to go on to let you play.

And I'd rather be the arsehole admin who stops someone from playing, rather than the kind admin who lets anyone play but in doing so ruins the game for others. (enough people think I'm an arsehole already. Plus that fits my character better than being kind does)

Lol, Pangaea was one of the nations I was thinking of offering to you as a handicap if you were playing in my newb game. Good job I didn't if it's your first choice here (was thinking Pan but with no Gorgon, no rainbow, and must pick a Pretender with national paths. So one of those Bulls, Great Mother, Lord of Wild/Hunts etc).

I haven't won any games and I am happy to pass on this one.

Cheers,

HD