Tweet
15 your up.
-
-
Sad no Capo.
Tech Buddy still allowed? Not really naughty just a very good way for 2 players to get ahead of the pack. We all know about it so anyone can make such an agreement and you cannot be forced to trade with anyone you don't want to. Just like the old joint win tactic in Diplomacy board game - you guys all too young to remember board games I know - it's a legit way of forming an early game unbreakable alliance.“Quid latine dictum sit, altum videtur”
- AnonComment
-
Just a few comments on the rules as they stand...
The whole "double move" thing needs better defined. As it reads now, players must observe "the turn order". This basically means that the first player in the order could wait until there is one minute left in the turn to play, thus denying the second player his turn. I would go with the classic "50% timer" exception which allows the second player to go ahead and play his turn if 50% of the timer has expired. This event also effectively switches the turn order for those players, until the exception happens again. In cases where more then one civ is against another single civ, the single civ should become the "first player" for that war. The other civs can go ahead and move if 50% of the timer expires, but the turn order would not switch.
Measured war is a great concept, but I feel the 51% OOC end the war vote is problematic. Both sides of the conflict arguing to the masses on behalf of their cause... then the vote, which is sure to leave the outvoted party sour. Also, when do these votes happen? How often do they happen throughout the war?
I also think that if we are going to allow for catch-up tech trading, we reduce the number of vouchers. Basically we are adding a lot of overhead for what will effectively be a redundant concept. I think the whole tech trade thing needs revisited. Personally, I feel any and all techs from two eras earlier should be freely traded, not one era. The setup as it stands greatly reduces the incentive to be a tech leader at the cost of perhaps other factors.Comment
-
Hmm, I could have a subbing problem. My laptop was donated to my organization by a member a week ago, and he didn't get rid of the administrator account. So now I can't install anything on it...
I"ll check with him, but I'm not sure he'll give me that password. And he is in NYC, so it is doubtful I'll see him before my trip.Captain of Team Apolyton - ISDG 2012
When I was younger I thought curfews were silly, but now as the daughter of a young woman, I appreciate them. - RahComment
-
well i wont give an opinion on any rules, jsut let me know if i break one accidentlyGM of MAFIA #40 ,#41, #43, #45,#47,#49-#51,#53-#58,#61,#68,#70, #71Comment
-
i take it we not using custom civ names for this game ?
to maintain anon are we also enforcing non changing of city names
or is that allowed.GM of MAFIA #40 ,#41, #43, #45,#47,#49-#51,#53-#58,#61,#68,#70, #71Comment
-
I think we should be able to have custom civ names as long as the name doesn't give away who you are.Originally posted by Rasputin View PostComment
-
Update:
All Players have picked their CIVS
Comment
-
I think that we are allowed to change our cities names as well as civs names.Comment
-
Some thoughts:
1. Yes we should name changes, but of course anyone who changes names in such a way as to reveal their identiy falls foul of the rules as already stated.
2. With respect to Pinchak I think that the double move rule (2) as written is correct. If the second player doesn't have time to move, then teh rule as written allows that they contact the host to be given the time (though that could be made more explicit in the rule). The old 50% time rule still led to huge problems when innocent problems (work, comms etc) led to an opponent getting a critical double move on you; and differences where some felt that after 50% it was fair to make a double move, while otheres felt one still should delay if you can. This rigid enforcement of the turn order is the only way I believe of getting peace and harmonly.
3. Agreeing with Pinchak I think that there is something unbalanced about the tech trade rules as written - if only five need to have entered the next era, then most people will never need vouchers, and so 15 is far too many. I wonder if there is a simply typo here since in earlier discussion we had it as X is tradable without vouchers, when people (and 5 seems fair) enter X+2 not X+1.
4 I agree with the principle of the vassalage rule (14). However, I would like to see an addition which says that no vassalage agreement can last for more than X turns. I think 100. This allows real long term arrangements but does remove the permanancy which seems a problem with in-game captiulation. I know you could say "but its up to the parties to agree what terms they want", but these negotiations are always in teh context of one being very weak (having lost a war) so I think the imposition of a 100 turn limit (which is a long long time) is appropriate.
They are my thoughts about the rules, but no going to go to teh stake on any of it, but if they seem helpful refinements that great.
I will do the randomised name pm as asked in a mo.Comment
-
suggestions for additions:
02. Civilizations that are at war or want to declare war have observe the turn order which is set the turn before the war starts. Thus: no double moves during wartime or when declaring war. Every player gets at most 24h to make his war moves. The host will pause the game if the turn is about to advance in 1 hour, without the last player involved in the war having had a chance to play his turn. When 24h have past the player just missed his turn. If the 2nd player in the turn order misses his turn he's first in the turn order from that moment on.
14. No permanent vassalage (capitulation). The vassal must obey the terms made in a vassalage deal unless it's been freed (by a 3rd nation or by the master, or if the master doesn't live up to the terms). Every vassal has the right to end vassalage after 75 turns. This rule is in place to find a way to get long lasting vassals then 10 turns only without being forced to remain a vassal by game mechanics.
Regarding Tech Trading:
a keep it as it is?
b Only trade techs of 2 ages ago (5 tech leaders) without vouchers
c Only trade techs of 1 age ago (5 tech leaders) with 10 (or 7?) vouchers
d ????
Please give input here.
@Ozzy: You can't just re-install the laptop completely? Use a different boot cd or something and cold install windows/linux/whatever?
Or let him take the laptop over using teamview (no install needed, I think) and give your account admin rights?
@Pinchak: I agree with you that measured war will always keep some unsatisfied feeling somewhere. I don't think it's possible to make it waterproof. Any suggestions?
@All: you guys agree with Pinchak? Or is this good enough?
I think that civ / city names can be changed. Just use something original that won't link your civ to you
@St Jon: I don't see problems with tech buddying. Use your skills to find the best tech trades, if tech buddying helps, that's ok. There's only a limited ammount of vouchers anyway.
On a different note, here are the civs/leaders: (alphabetical order)
Code:Arabs Saladin Byzantine Justinian I Dutch Willem van Oranje Egypt Ramesses II England Elizabeth Greece Pericles Inca Huayna Capac India Mahatma Ghandi Korea Wang Kon Mali Mansa Musa Native America Sitting Bull Ottoman Mehmed II Persia Darius I Rome Augustus Russia Catherine
Formerly known as "CyberShy"
Carpe Diem tamen Memento MoriComment
-
@The Priest: I'm sorry, please send a list of all civs in a random order to Ozzy, not a list of all players That would be quite useless.
Formerly known as "CyberShy"
Carpe Diem tamen Memento MoriComment
-
I'll start creating DoC Apolyton accounts when I'm home again, somewhere during this weekend.Formerly known as "CyberShy"
Carpe Diem tamen Memento MoriComment
-
I don't get a vote of course, but option b, does that mean if there are five civs in the renaissance you can freely trade in the ancient age or in the classical age?Originally posted by Robert Plomp View Post
I'm going to assume that option b would mean classical age (otherwise it'd be useless), and then option c would mean if 5 civs were in the renaissance then everyone could freely trade techs from the medieval age. Which seems like too much.
So my unofficial vote goes to option b. But maybe less than 5 civs. How about 3-4?Captain of Team Apolyton - ISDG 2012
When I was younger I thought curfews were silly, but now as the daughter of a young woman, I appreciate them. - RahComment
-
You're right Ozzy. When x civs are in ren, then all civs can freely trade ancient / classical techs (but not med techs yet).
The nr of civs can be changed of course. All just give input there.Formerly known as "CyberShy"
Carpe Diem tamen Memento MoriComment
Comment