Beyond the Pit [Pitboss Diplomacy Game] [Organization Thread II]

[The Capo]

That pertains to trades though, what about just giving the tech away, to an ally for instance?

[The Capo]

Also there's this;

Say you have two countries; Mongolia and Turkey. Mongolia needs a boost in tech, but they have one that Turkey doesn't have, so they trade their one tech for Turkey's two, which means Mongolia loses a voucher and Turkey loses two vouchers. But in order to make the trade fair, and to convince Turkey to accept Mongolia cedes one of their vouchers TO Turkey (remember, vouchers are tradeable).

Thus the situation changes, instead of Turkey losing two vouchers it only really loses one, and Mongolia loses two instead.

That way you can control the situation better. So in your situation the trade could have been you give two techs and rome gives one tech and one of their vouchers. Thus it would be Rome, in effect, losing two vouchers and you losing only one.

See what I'm saying?

[Pitboss Japan]

i get it.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by The Capo
That pertains to trades though, what about just giving the tech away, to an ally for instance?

If Turkey gives one tech to Mongolia for free then Turkey loses one tech trade voucher. Mongolia's tech trades are not affected.

A gift is no different than a trade.

[Pitboss Persia]

Originally posted by The Capo
Also there's this;

Say you have two countries; Mongolia and Turkey. Mongolia needs a boost in tech, but they have one that Turkey doesn't have, so they trade their one tech for Turkey's two, which means Mongolia loses a voucher and Turkey loses two vouchers. But in order to make the trade fair, and to convince Turkey to accept Mongolia cedes one of their vouchers TO Turkey (remember, vouchers are tradeable).

Thus the situation changes, instead of Turkey losing two vouchers it only really loses one, and Mongolia loses two instead.

That way you can control the situation better. So in your situation the trade could have been you give two techs and rome gives one tech and one of their vouchers. Thus it would be Rome, in effect, losing two vouchers and you losing only one.

See what I'm saying?

Yeah, but the problem with doing like this, is that it doesn't take the value of the techs into consideration. My purposal does. And, unless i missunderstood, the main objective of having tech-trade rules is to control the "beaker-market" not the "number-of-techs-market"-

[Pitboss Japan]

you are all confuseing me way more then i really want to be. is their anyone who could clearly explain the right way to trade techs please.

[The Capo]

It should be up to the PLAYER to decide the value of the tech to them and their strategy. I think the current system is fine.

[Pitboss Persia]

Originally posted by Pitboss Japan
you are all confuseing me way more then i really want to be. is their anyone who could clearly explain the right way to trade techs please.

The right way is explained in the first posts of the tech trade thread.

We are discussing a way to make the existing rules more compatible with trades where multiple minor techs are traded in exchange for one big tech.


@Capo : You asked about what happens with giving techs. Simple. Just use my system. Take the side that gives the most beakers away, and the number of techs are the number of vouchers. In this case, the giving civ would use one voucher, the recieving civ wouldn't, since they don't give beakers away at all.

What i suggest basicly works the same way as the rules we currently use, but it allows the multiple minor for one major tech trades on a more equal level.

[MMC]

Since it's too early in the game for you to go over whatever the stupid limit was (was it 15?), I'd suggest you trade away happily but keep a record of every detail of the trades. Then you can work out the appropriate values or whatever once people have decided what rules we're playing by.

[The Capo]

I think it should just be straight up 15 vouchers, like we decided before. Its the same logic behind keeping the timer at 24 hrs. If you think you're getting screwed don't make the trade, its that simple.

[Pitboss Japan]

you are right we already agreed so we keep it how it is.

[Pitboss Maya]

We are discussing a way to make the existing rules more compatible with trades where multiple minor techs are traded in exchange for one big tech.

Keep in mind that other commodities can be used to even the deal, gold being the most common.

And if you are behind and don't have any "big" techs to trade, you can always trade a voucher.

I see the mentality behind using beaker values, but I fear it would cause too much confusion. Some people can barely grasp the current concept of tech trades in it's simple form.

[Pitboss Persia]

Originally posted by Pitboss Maya


Keep in mind that other commodities can be used to even the deal, gold being the most common.

And if you are behind and don't have any "big" techs to trade, you can always trade a voucher.

I see the mentality behind using beaker values, but I fear it would cause too much confusion. Some people can barely grasp the current concept of tech trades in it's simple form.

Yeah i know that. It seems that many of you already have made clear that there is no unanimity over adopting this rules for this game. But what do you think about them anyway, should they be used in future games ?

I still look for the crack in the rule that I have suggested, but the only one I have found so far is the one Maya stated above : It's not as simple to evaluate if the deal you are about to make is fair. I fail to see other drawbacks.

Trading a voucher is even less profitable than trading a second minor tech by the way, since the one you trade with will probably get more use of a voucher as he would get with a second minor tech, while the price you pay remains the same.

In the end, what i have suggested was not that complicated. I simply meant to allow to count two minor techs as one single tech regarding voucher counts, using the relative beaker value in determinating what are minor techs. The 15 vouchers limmit would not be changed.

[Pitboss Persia]

Oh and, BTW, i will be absent the next two weeks, but i have already arranged subbing.

[Pitboss Japan]

thanx for telling us