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

[Pitboss Rome]

As I understood it (when I proposed it) a voltan was not tradeable - you can get a voltan for anything.

But the voltan gave the ability to receive a tech without the giver having to use a voucher.

So, if you are giving Fission to the Inca, you just give it, and they use up a voltan. You don't use a voucher. I think that is what people have been doing up to now.

[Pitboss Japan]

From my understanding they are just like voucher but u can only use them for tech not other things live cities of other things like that.

[Robert]

The tech trade thread shows which civ got how many voltans, and it keeps the tally (along with the vouchers)

Yes, Marcus moved again. I'll contact him anyway.

[Pitboss Maya]

So, if you are giving Fission to the Inca, you just give it, and they use up a voltan. You don't use a voucher. I think that is what people have been doing up to now.

Correct. And to clarify further, using your example, you could not trade a voltan for an Inca city, or gold, or a resource, or even give them one for free.

One voltan entitles you to receive one tech without costing the giving nation a voucher. That is the only way it can be used.

[Pitboss Spain]

Welcome back! The world has chanced.

I have noticed that. Of course since I was away from the month of Janurary, I cannot vote for that month.

[Robert]

Why not? If you read through the story thread you should be able to. Or talk to your sub.

[Pitboss Maya]

On a different note, Sparta and Portugal have decided to sign a Defensive Pact.

So much for the top nations not allying. Wasn't that your suggestion Cyber?

Now write a long justification about how this really isn't an alliance, blah, blah, blah...

I demand that my "Noob Guide to Diplogaming" be reposted!

The double standards that come from certain players are so blatant it is insulting to my inteligence for people to even suggest that they don't exist.

[Robert]

I think that I have talked about top-players not allying with each other.
I think there was a debate somewhere before the game started that top-3 players shouldn't be allied with each other. But this never became a rule.

I still think that top players should restrain themselves a bit when allying with each other.
I am not sure if this Greece-Portugal thing is an alliance or only a defence pact.

So far I think that the alliances in this game are very dynamic!
And I don't get the idea that a few civs are dominating the game together and give other civs no chance. (which would, ie happen when Portugal and Khmer would dominate)

But that's just my opinion.
If ohers have other opinions, we should just debate it here.

I'm also interested in Greece's and Portugal's vision on this.
Do you think, Maya, that this is an unballance in the game? Can this not be countered?

[Pitboss Maya]

But this never became a rule.

As far as I can tell, there are no rules except for the vouchers and double moves. This is the problem. One player does something that is "discouraged" and they get called out on it. Another player does the same thing and nothing is said. Read my "Noobs Guide to Diplogaming"... it is all spelled out in there. Oh, that is right... SOMEONE erased it! Dispite the fact that it was opinion, and had nothing offencive in it. Nazis.

I am not sure if this Greece-Portugal thing is an alliance or only a defence pact.

A defensive pact is an alliance. Just as a square is a rectangle. Lets not play the name game.

Do you think, Maya, that this is an unballance in the game?

Yes I do. Not that my nation is currently in a position to attack either Greece or Portugal, but the argument is always made that lesser nations can climb the ladder so to speak by perhaps bonding together and attacking a game leader. When you have the 2ed and 4th ranked nations effectively forming one defensive military, this is clearly not an option. It also allows for said nations to progress with little fear of attack, while smaller nations need to dedicate part of their already smaller resource base to a more robust defence.

In all reality however, I lean toward no rules. What drives me crazy is this big gray area we have of "preferences", "suggestions", "accepted practices", "frowned upon", and all the other obscure terms used to allow for ingame actions to be interperted by the powers that be as either "legal" or "illegal".

Even that wouldn't be an issue... if there was some consistancy involved.

[OzzyKP]

With as many players as we have in this game, it'd be a bit boring if we all ended up in two huge blocks. I agree that top players shouldn't be allying with each other.

[Pitboss Portugal]

ooc - I have no problem cancelling the pact with Sparta in order to address Maya’s concerns. What I am confused about and will be grateful if someone can answer me: Example if someone attacks Sparta and say another power wants to intervene because it sees interest in helping in this case Sparta HOW will that be treated? Will we have another debate like this or this will be accepted?

Thanks

[Pitboss Japan]

Correct me if I'm Wrong but didn't something like that happen already where Portugal was attacked and Sparta intervened. No one had a problem then so why now?

[Pitboss Greece]

Well, I'm also fine with cancelling the peace treaty.

This treaty was made more to defend ourselves against the Khmer, then to defend ourselves against other nations.
Like it is more to scare others off, then it is to really help each other.
Portugal and Sparta are located quite far away from each other.

But it is more a reaction to the Khmer-alliance.

It's not an alliance, btw, Maya. An alliance is where you attack other nations together. This is only a defence pact.

I'd hate it for story reasons to immediately cut it off again.
For sure since it's not going to hurt anybody. If the Maya invade Sparta, it's not as if Portugal can help anyway.

I'm fine with making it an anti-'maya alliance' defence pact. Where we promise to help each other when the Maya and it's allies declare war on one of us.

[Pitboss Maya]

I'm fine with making it an anti-'maya alliance' defence pact.

Mayan alliance? Am I missing something here? Last I checked half the world has signed a "treaty" against me.

If you are referring to the Khmer... we only trade tech. If this is the basis for an alliance then I would say everyone is in alliance with practically everyone.

I do regard the Khmer as friends however. They are one of the few nations who haven't screwed me over. We do not however, have any agreements, public or behind the scenes, with regards to military ambition.

[Pitboss Maya]

Double post. Blame Apolyton.