HOTW V - Set Up Thread II, or The Return of the Mods

[deity]

So for example,

1) I learnt Astronomy and unless anyone else learns it I'm the only one who can trade it.

Correct?

2) I got Education from China, I think, so I can't trade it from now on.

Correct?

OR

is it just new techs we learn from now on?

I prefer the first scenario.

[OzzyKP]

Yea, first scenario is fine with me. And reporting tech here is lame. I think we can trust each other enough to go on the honor system.

But of course we still have to see what the rest think.

[Robert]

First scenario indeed.
And I think we can trust each other.

[KunojiLym]

Ditto to Ozzy and Cyber

[NicodaMax]

Oh I disagree...
We can not trust each other!
But on the tech issue, first scenario is fine with me.

[Robert]

Oh I'm sure that I'm able to trust the others.
I'm not sure if they'll live up to that though.
They have failed me before

[The Capo]

What about when another Civ discovers it?

For example I too have developed Astronomy on my own, so am I not allowed to trade it just because you discovered it first?

However, you all know my position, I think this is a foolhardy plan. It takes away an important diplomatic aspect to the game, and you may cite realism as a reason for doing this but nations share technology all the time, especially military technology (for example Israel and the U.S.) so I guess you can only trade it if you discover it but then it becomes an issue of policing the players and its hard to do that.

As for Cyber's statement about the storyline; I think you are focusing far too much on storylines as controlling the flow of the game, posting is meant for diplomacy more than inventing storylines, posting is meant for propoganda more than inventing storylines, basically you are relying too much on the storylines and it may be our fault (myself, ozzy, etc.) for emphasizing our storlylines, but in actuality we are using them to describe or foreshadow what we are going to do or why we are doing things, basically you guys are making up a reason for attacking and subjugating France, which is fine. But you can't be angry when someone else presents it in a simple, and factual, way.

This issues, in my mind, was one of the central issues behind Cyber and Lz's claim that we were acting in an "OOC Manner" rather than an "IC Manner." This issue should be discussed further. See the problem with what you guys have done here, and I'm not trying to tell you what to do but I am trying to explain why I have problems with what your doing, is that you didn't follow what happened in the game. You've made up a story where France was an aggressor state, but in the game you were the aggressor state. We shouldn't let the stories trump the game; what happened in the game should be what happens in your stories.

And Cyber, seriously, everytime someone says something in the story threads that YOU feel is not correct do you have to come here and complain about it OOC? That's why its a diplogame, its a battle of wits as well as a battle of Civilization, if I say something in-character challenge it in-character.

[OzzyKP]

Except Capo, when we are dealing with the AI we do have a bit of leway to write stories around that. The point of whether America or India started the Great War (it was America) is a significant thing to discuss. However who started a war against an AI that we all agreed OOC to divide up isn't a valid OOC concern, I think the three of us are well within our rights to write the French story however we wish. France has no claim on the events anymore.

Yes the stories should mirror game dynamics, but there is a lot the game mechanics can't explain or represent in the real world. Like lets say France assassinated a high ranking official in Germany, and Germany declared war on that basis. Obviously there is no in-game way to represent that assassination, so game-wise it would appear that Germany just declared war for no reason. So stories should always mirror game play, but we should note that game play can't describe all the possibilities of the real world or the story world.

That being said Cyber, if Spain wishes to present their take on the story for proaganda purposes (whether everyone else agrees or not) its within his right to do so. It simply sets us all up for conflict potentially as each side calls the other a liar. All good fun and appropriate for a diplogame. Just like the competing claims of you and Kuno for how Nicholas was assassinated.

In diplogames - as in the real world - there is seldom one universally accepted view of events. Reality is always relative to the lens through which we view it. (very post-modern i know, but its true).

As for Capo's example about being second to develop a tech, sure go ahead and trade it. You don't need to be FIRST, you just need to have invented it yourself. Whether you invent it 1st or 5th, it doesn't matter.

[Robert]

I agree with Ozzy (though India started the great war)

And yes, spain is allowed to use it in any way they want. They can start to hate america from now on and use the american-german-indian vs france war for it. Though I think in the end that AI dealing shouldn't be a part of it. Like we never used the mongol slamming.

And regarding the 2nd war of Boston, the problem we had was that the diplomacy behavior of Russia wasn't forshadowing any help to India. And the Chinese diplomacy wasn't really foreshadowing anything. The diplomacy part was not on par with the game-part. Combined with the 4 large gang up on 3 small nations, that was our problem.

I never had a problem with Ozzy claiming Boston back again. I have no problems with Ozzy declaring war for it either.

[The Capo]

I am begining to notice a disturbing trend with our new tech rule and I think a good amendment to it would be that if three nations have the tech anyone can trade it. The reasons for this are as follows;

1) I noticed that some nations that are weaker, or are not as good at developing tech get stymied while the guys with all the tech remain the guys with all the tech.

2) Similar to 1, this was introduced to maintain a balance of power (at least partly) and as stated above the powerful countries will remain powerful and the weak will stay weak, isn't that the reason for the rule?

3) This way the FIRST to develop the tech will be able to control if it gets traded, because they can choose to only trade to one other nation and maintain their edge.

4) This allows nations that didn't discover it to eventually trade it after another nation has either discovered it or the initial discoveror (discoverer?) decides to trade it to another tribe.

What do you all think?

[NicodaMax]

I think Capo's right, not being able to trade non researched techs hurts the weaker/smaller civs a lot, and it doesn't help game balance.

On the other hand we also have seen how free tech trading also affects game balance.

This would be a good middle path approach, though I'd prefer that the number be dependant on the ammount of civs (in case we use this rules for future games). Something like: "If 50% or more of the world knows a Tech then it can be traded freely by all civs." In our case that'd make it if 4 civs know the tech, then it can be traded freely.

[OzzyKP]

Sounds like a good idea to me. I like the 50% too.

[The Capo]

I think 50% makes it pointless, we should go for 1/3 or 33% whatever you'd like to call it.

[NicodaMax]

Well, I guess the question is wether we "liberate" the tech after 3 or 4 civs know it. Have a vote...

a) 3
b) 4

ps. I vote 3

[The Capo]

I may also vote three, but I would like to know what others think before I decide officially. Anyone want to weigh in?