Diplogame Rules and Victory Discussion

[Robert]

We did no tech trading in HOT 6.
It was pretty boring because there were no alliances, no diplomacy, no interaction between the civs.

It was just enter-pressing turn-processing boringness.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by LzPrst
not ruined by tech trading per se, but by the necessity of tech bloc'ing. which makes long-term alliances a permanent necessity instead of a temporary arrangement. which is not very realistic and even less dynamic/fun.

imo.

the problem is keeping tech trading in, without it leading to tech blocs...

Hmm, that may be hard to do.

If we had a tech conquest mod though it could inspire more warfare. Backwards civs would invade in order to get tech bonuses. This could create the necessity for alliances.

[LzPrst]

we need to find a balance. perhaps the 10 trades max is all we need?

[The Capo]

Well I think we're actually discussing a mod in the mod thread that involves some techs being tradeable and some completely untradeable.

If we are successful we don't really need to discuss this anymore in this thread. Well, we may still want to implement a maximum amount of trades a civ can have, but in general it will no longer be an issue.

[deity]

Using mods is always fraught with trouble - subs comng and going/organising and waiting for players to set up correct installs etc etc.

I think we should pick one tech path that is trade-able and use the honour system.

With NO tech brokering flagged we could allow tech trading on the direct path to Democracy (but NOT the pre-requistes).

Thereafter no more tech trading as most civs will be up to speed by then.

Thoughts?

[Toni]

Yes i agree with Deity - lets not use mods - this will hurt us when having subs.

[The Capo]

I disagree with deity in general, as that is my policy.

But on this issue, I will stand by what I normally try and do for Diplogames and that is this; nothing.

I think the best diplogame is the one with the least rules. If we want to come up with some type of scheme to prevent all-out tech trading we should completely disallow it.

However I am against this as well. In my opinion, and many of you are (unwillingly) aware of most of them, there should be no stymie towards any diplomatic agreement any two states can make. This includes tech trading.

I am also quite aware that this is, after all, a videogame. Being a videogame it is susceptable to people taking advantage of the system and this creates unfair games. So I guess what I am saying here as I go on and on is that there doesn't appear to be a perfect solution to this problem other than completely disallowing tech trading altogether.

While I'm here I might as well let you know my reasons for being against what I just suggested...

1) As stated above it limits what a country can do diplomatically, and this is not in keeping with Diplogaming in general.

2) if a state is in a series of prolonged warfare, where money becomes paramount, it will punish them technologically. Without tech trading there can be no way to bounce back.

3) By taking away/limiting tech trading you remove a weapon a state can use in secret against another. (Country A hates Country B, Country B goes to war against Country C, Country A does not want to create a situation where a world war begins so instead of openly fighting Country B, they provide military tech to Country C without Country B knowing)

4) While I don't like the "bad start" complaint, countries with bad starts will likely be kept in the dark without tech trading, especially in situations where they may absolutely need it, (they may need bio to get more food, or printing press for badly needed income).

5) Finally, without tech trading we also limit what civics a country is allowed to pick, sort of. If everyone is competing directly for technology, without the option of trading tech everyone pretty much has to go the Free Religion route, you know what I mean? I mean, eventually every state is going to be the same and there would be little to no merit on mainting a theocracy, or any other type of civic that would be fun to play as, especially in a game like this where your type of government is part of the fun.

So those are my reasons for being AGAINST limitations on tech trading. I think every player has to keep in mind that this is a Diplogame, and I know everyone wants to do well but doing well in a diplogame involves a little bit more than making it to AC first, or at least it should and to many of us it does.

So I dunno, argue back son!

[Pinchak]

10 trade limit

This kills several birds with one stone, and does it in a way that is not overly complex.

[deity]

Well, as I posted a while back I'm now in favour of no new rules as well; and also agree as a compromise with Pincak's 10 trade limit.

However I think anonymous play would solve the alliance problems anyway but this will only work if everyone commits to keeping their civ a secret. But I can't see enough players committing to this which disappoints me greatly

[Pinchak]

I think anonymous play would solve the alliance problems anyway

So you think the alliance issues stem from players gravitating toward certain other players... and not from tech blocks as was discussed earlier?

I would be all for anonymous play if there wasn't all the login red tape. That extra hassle might be worth it if people couldn't figure out who was who, but I don't think that will be the case after say two or three sessions.

[deity]

I know. To have successful anonymous play we need absolute commitment from all players plus a degree of competence with logins etc.

I think tech blocs are formed from in game events AND OOC baggage.

[LzPrst]

a definitive advantage of the anonymous login, is that ALL interaction must be in character. and even though there will be suspicions of who is who, they will still be just suspicions, you can never be 100% sure.

and 10 tech trades is quite a lot. the only thing it will do is increase the threshold for each tech trade.

the examples Capo gave are actually arguing in favor of a 10-tech trade limit, because all of the said situations could be balanced with tech trades. but you would want to delay using up all your tech trades for exactly such a situation where you would really need it.

and remember. it is fully possible for many other ways of helping a civ. there is $. give a civ a few thousand to upgrade units, that helps. troops. gift a dozen units and that helps. and if technology is the only way to help them (for example giving engineering to a civ being attacked by Knights), then save a few tech trades so that you can actually do it. if tech trades becomes a strategic evaluation, then perhaps it would work far better. there would actually be more diplomacy and negotiation before trading techs as their value would go up greatly.

[The Capo]

Ultimately we are going to find out which country is which anyway. Someone is going to miss a log-in, and when they need to get back in, or if their computer fails or something, we are going to find out exactly who they are, and right when that happens the whole thing will fall apart. I think we are big enough to play without using aliases, or anonymity to protect ourselves.

We know what is at stake here.

There's no real reason to do it. Sure it may create more in character diplomacy, and theoretically may remove all OOC diplomacy altogether, but that will only last a few turns then it will just become something that didnt' really accomplish much to begin with.

But if you all insist, I'll do it.

[deity]

Basically you are saying it's an interesting idea but a bit difficult to do...

Let's try it and commit to it and make it work - nothing is lost.

And if we adopt a simple code that is reflected in ozzy's point system:

Use minus points for exposing or speculating to others about who a certain civ is. Ie keep your thoughts to yourself.

[The Capo]

I hate to beat a dead horse, but I still don't see the point of playing anonmyously?

I mean, where does this concept come from? Why are we talking about it?