The Dance of Civilizations [Diplo Game] [Organization Thread Pt1]

[Egypt (DoC)]

I think that India is right, they have little to nothing to gain by this rule. So Korea, I understand your concerns, but I think you are taking the discussion too far. India is not hellbent on gaining as many techs as he can, he's just playing the game and having fun and posting cool stories. He has very little to gain from this rule as his research capabilities allow him to research older techs in just a few turns, he doesn't need others.

My thoughts are as follows:
- since the main goal of this game is the 'diplo'-part of the game, I think the score difference is not a really big issue. Also, even if bottom civs get more techs, they would still not gain up much on the big boys, as they are simply too far ahead, and if we keep the rule in place that you can only do free trades of techs two eras back, then the gain is minimal.

- the fact that the top civs are much further ahead doesn't bother me at all. In the real world, the same thing happens. I think it's actually really cool to see the differences. This way, we get the same unbalanced world we actually live in, and the same international political situations that we are familiar with, spawning great story lines!

- However, in the real world, there is development aid. Allowing free tech trade could be seen as an actual reflection of development aid, a tool often used to secure strategic resources in third world countries (ie what China does in Africa), but also as window dressing or sometimes because of genuine humanitarian reasons. I like the idea that on some level we can use that in our game. Because we can only trade techs freely from a while back, this shouldn't cause too much upheaval in the balance of the game I think.

To sum up:
I vote yes, because of how it affects the diplo part of the game: it brings in the element of development aid, enabling us to think up all sorts of strategies surrounding the giving and receiving of aid, which I think could be interesting. I can't think of many negative sides to enabling it, especially since it only concerns techs from two eras back.

[Arabia (DoC)]

AHHHH !

Thats what I thought

OK then I say FREE TRADE ... I vote YES

Sorry for the confusion.

[India (DoC)]

the current vote is about a minor change:

Now: when the techs of an era become freely tradeable you can get free techs only if you can offer a technology in return

proposed change: Now the free techs would become really free, so no need to hurry trading in the fear of missing something.

[Arabia (DoC)]

Arabia ABSTAINS because I don't understand the vote.

I think it is working fine even if I really don't understand any time I get a trade request what it is going to cost me.

When it was free trade I haven't been reporting them (sorry) ... free trade is free trade why report?

I recently had a bunch of people sending me trading requests for the one trade I had and they didn't but I turned them down fearing I'd spend a voucher... then after I realized from the threads that we'd crossed an era. Now because they already have it I think you are saying now that if I have nothing to trade I can't trade for one I don't have? So I can't even accept a gift?

Aside:

Sorry I find all these trading rules a little over the top. I assume every time I get a trade request that I'm spending a voucher. Most times now I just turn them down ... its easier. My worthless opinion ... Either allow trades freely or prevent them in the game options entirely and the whole management issue goes away. But that's beside the point. Right now I'm terribly behind have no chance in catching up but I play about 1 in 2 turns mostly (although right now I'm super busy at work and don't have time) ... I get poor votes because I don't post elaborate stories but votes or score really I don't care about ... Civ is a little mindless distraction and enjoyment for a friggin miserable life right now. But next week ... I'm sitting on a beach in Negril and its all worth it! Ottoman is subbing for me ... he'll likely do better.

[India (DoC)]

You can't imagine that some of us propose something to make the game better and even help _others_ not themselves.
You don't belive me even if I say that I got only 1 useless medieval tech and won't need more free trade.
Thats why the answer to my question: it is India who would get the most beneift by saying yes to your proposal, because it would make my rivals relatively weaker.

But you still haven't said a word about what is your problem not enforcing the 1 on 1 rule.. you just keep saying it's bad because a top5 civ proposed it so they must hide their true intention somewhere.. bah..

[Korea (DoC)]

yes i do relaise i am in top 5, i am one fothe few intop 5 scores who is agaisnt this proposal so it shows by the votes who it really beinfits

undermy plan the lower scored civs will trade all there old era tachs to eCH OTHER and the top 5 will need to reasearch any they skipped.

THE LOW civs have not been benifiting as muhc as top civs.

do a count of how many free techs persia and byzx and india got each round of free trades so far, AND COMPARE IT to how many the bottom two civs got, they prob got one per round so far , whilst the indians have repeatedley gained 3 or more

[India (DoC)]

there would be no scramble for you if you couldnt get the techs

every era it is you trading the most so dont tell me you dont want this

if you dont like the scambling or worry bout missing a turn then except my propsal and it removes all those worries from ytou,

The question now is not who can trade freely but how do we do these trades...
but consider this:
In current system the more advanced civs usually have better chance to get free techs because they have more to offer->more possible trade partners, so the change would help the less advanced civs the most.

About your proposal: I don't really like it (do you realise that you are in the top 5, right? )
I have a question, what do you think: which civilisation would get the most benefit from your proposal?

[Korea (DoC)]

there would be no scramble for you if you couldnt get the techs

every era it is you trading the most so dont tell me you dont want this

if you dont like the scambling or worry bout missing a turn then except my propsal and it removes all those worries from ytou,

[India (DoC)]

@Korea
Nice.. voting no just because we will vote about your proposal later...

This proposal has nothing to do with my civ. I'm not even interested because I had every medieval tech (except the useless divine right) and I will have every usefull renaissance tech by the time we could trade them for free.

You just expect I want this because of some hidden benefit... bah..

I've said my reasons:

-I don't like the mad trade race we have every time
-I don't like that it has nothing to do with diplo or strategy
-I don't like the possibility that by missing a few turns (for ooc reasons) you may had lost your chance to trade.

It will change a little actually, because most of us could get the techs anyway, it would only take away the hassle.

Then we could talk about how to help the smaller civs (I had my idea too, but not many supported it because the general opnion was that we shouldnt give ooc help..)

Btw YES

[Persia (DoC)]

I'm sorry Robert, eventhough I agree that your system works if everyone would use it more clever, the fact is that nobody will do that because we prefer to keep it simple.

That's why I vote 'yes' to this proposal.

[Korea (DoC)]

i vote no to indias proposal as it will simply mean the top scored civs will continue getting further ahead

[Robert]

Rule Change Vote:

current rule:

4b. When 4 civs have advanced to the next age (ancient, classical, medieval, renaissance, industrial, modern) all techs of the age before the past age can be traded freely in a 1 tech for 1 tech trade without the need to spend vouchers. (If 4 players are in the medieval age, all techs of the ancient age can be traded freely, etc.)

The question is:

- Do you want to remove the "in a 1 tech for 1 tech trade" part from rule 4b
*yes
*no
*abstain

Vote closes in 48 hours.
According to rule 11 the change can only apply if 66% agrees.
So if within the 48 hours 10 players agree with this change it will be applied. After the 48 hours it will be applied if 66% agrees.
The 66% of measured based on the players who do not abstain. Not voting = abstaining.

Happy voting!

Ps. a 2nd vote may be needed about the change Korea is suggesting. This change is no incorporated in this vote! Voting 'yes' or 'no' does not make a difference to Korea's suggestion. Either with a 'yes' or a 'no' to this vote, Korea's idea can still be applied. (or not be applied). just FYI.

[Robert]

The rule was there not to balance things but to make sure that civs won't fall behind too much. Limiting it only to a few civs will add a new function to the rule.

Score-list based rules are dangerous because it may stop people from advancing to ensure their position out of the top-5.

Going with India, I'm going to make the proposed rule change in next post, addressing the fist issue first.

[India (DoC)]

Ok, but wea re talking about two different things now:
-How can we trade the free techs
and
-Who can trade freely

Let's stay on the first topic first, after that we can vote about the second.

[Byzantium (DoC)]

.