Diplogames Rule Discussion Thread

[Prussia]

TORaCT seems interesting, as it can give a new aspect of "Hmmm, I have a massive army but I need more techs, let me conquer for technology."

It can also give some very interesting diplomacy, so my vote is for TORaCT.

[The Capo]

I agree with Prussia here, if we are going to make a rule like this TORaCT is the best way to go.

[Frank Johnson]

I vote for STFU.

[deity]

Originally posted by MMC
Everyone appears to be going OTT here. My favourite pasta is TORTOlini. I think everyone is just a big PRETT for letting themselves get dragged into this.............

Caught a big one in the drag net here

[Robert]

So, whats PRETT actually?

and I miss how TORTO is easier to administrate then TORT since it needs more administration

[Robert]

n/m just realised what PRETT is. too difficult imho

If im correct its now:
TORaCT: 3
TORTO: 3

Since these two are leading we should focus on these I believe, for sure since theyre close together and therefor a 6 vote all together at least.

Both have a quality that can be shared as well, a new option, TORaCTO is possible as well
(trade only researched and conquered techs once)

I still believe that the TORTT (trade twice instead of the TORTO trade once)

I am willing to switch over to TORaCTT as a compromis:
- you can trade techs you researched twice
- you can trade techs you got for peace twice
- trading for peace falls under the same rules as normal trading (dont give techs for peace that you didnt invent or conquer yourself or that you traded twice already)

maybe TORaCTT is the acronym that we are looking for since the TWICE part is much more acceptable to though who hate the ONCE part in TORTO

[MMC]

Originally posted by Frank Johnson
I vote for STFU.

I would have to agree TBH.

[OzzyKP]

I think the once thing was the key part of TORTO. I could be ok with adding in the conquering dimension, I think that would enhance the game, but I'd prefer once over twice.

[Prussia]

The problem is that if you are going to limit the amount of times a tech is traded, it requires way too much moderation, but if someone is willing to keep track, by all means, it would definetely give some spin to the game.

[Robert]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
I think the once thing was the key part of TORTO. I could be ok with adding in the conquering dimension, I think that would enhance the game, but I'd prefer once over twice.

I prefer no limit on the times you trade it at all. It kills one aspect of the game almost as much as NTT. It removes the desire for having 3-party alliances. It simply restricts too much. I can't see where your desire for 'once' comes from, afaik things worked out pretty fine with TORaCTO in HOTW5, eventhough we never worked out the Conquest part.

If you can't trade one tech multiple times you remove the advantage a civ has for inventing a tech first.

[Schtix]

I think this whole thing is getting out of hand, or just going nowhere.

So, although I believe in PRETT as the most realistic and best rule, I'm going to vote TORTO and get this thing over with, since votes seem to be going that way.

Put me down for TORTO.

[MMC]

Originally posted by Schtix
I think this whole thing is getting out of hand, or just going nowhere.

So, although I believe in PRETT as the most realistic and best rule, I'm going to vote TORTO and get this thing over with, since votes seem to be going that way.

Put me down for TORTO.

If you think that PRETT is best, vote for it. Don't skew the results.

[Robert]

I agree with MMC, please don't vote to just 'get things over with' for sure since what you say is not true, the vote is 3-3 and would be 3-3-3 if you vote for prett.

I must say that I'm a bit dissapointed that people don't give more reasons for their voting. A cold vote result is the worst we can have. I've been pretty vocal about how the systems I oppose against ruin trade, research and the game mechanics indept and will make our game a less enjoyable factor.

Unfortunately nobody counters my arguments but people just keep on voting against it anyway. I have no problems with that, my arguments may be trashy, but please counter them in that case, let me know why I am wrong.

[MMC]

In the real world, there are two types of law: Artifical Laws which can be broken, and Natural Laws which cannot. Human Beauracracy falls under the category of Artificial Laws, whereas the Laws of Physics are essentially unbreakable.

The whole point of Diplogaming (as I see it) is to drop all the Artificial Laws, and let in-game diplomacy take over. This is how the real world works, therefore this is how we should play Diplogames.
The trouble is, many people find that certain freedoms are allowed in Civ4 that cannot happen in the real world, due to the Natural Laws. Thus we are required to create Artificial Laws to replace the circumvented Natural Laws. If we under- or over-compensate, then we have an equally unrealistic situation.
The only rule which I believe comes close is the PRETT rule. By only limiting gameplay to that covered by the Laws of Physics, we can be free to enjoy Diplogaming in all its finery without having to worry about agressive tech trading.

[Robert]

1. I don't think we should let a 'game' to be ruled by the 'real world'.
2. PRETT isn't really a 'real world' situation either, since why would someone who has technicall knowledge be unable to share it when he wasn't the first to invent it?