RAH rules: Description and Origination of

[ColdWizard]

just two throw my two cents in, i like the no-city bribe rule. a few zone games i've played in have turned into bribe wars. interesting the first time it happened but it got boring fast (especially since i had less money )

[Ming]

Originally posted by DrSpike
I guess the main bones of contention are the bribing rules, since there are several variations. Also do you get much tech stealing in your games? The person with the science wonders must have hell of a time diplo-proofing his empire. And you play no city bribing; was it found to be unbalancing for your games?

First... We found that tech stealing was far less of a problem than trading techs. We are all use to tech stealing from the beginning and it's just part of the game. Actually, it can really help a game, because if your early land doesn't have much trade, you can at least catch up some by going the stealing route. But the more you steal, the harder it gets. What is far more unbalancing is trading techs. The games ended up going down the same and boring path. The first two people that met would become partners... leap frog their way light years ahead of everybody else... game over. So we stopped playing formal alliances and tech trading, and the games are far more balanced. Alliances and tech trading are great in team games... but in individual games, it got boring really quick.

City bribes on the hand are a different story. Most of the people in our early group agreed that it sucked. Every time it happened to you, you got pissed. You finally get some settler and a supporting unit 20 squares away from your capital, drop a city in that prime location you have been waiting hundreds of years to get, and some sucker walks up and buys it for next to nothing. And then yes, it just turns into a bribe fest. The race was to democracy... and it got old real quick. We love stealing techs and units... but cities just made the early diplo way too strong. So it wasn't really as unbalancing as tech trade... but it was just as boring

[rah]

Yeah tech trading became a problem quickly. The first two that met had a heck of an advantage. Especially if they met before anyone got to monarchy. Then one of them would build the great library, and there was no way the other two players could catch up.

City bribing unbalanced the games. If someone got an early king, that 150 gold was BIG.

RAH

[rah]

UPDATE
Airbases, allowed only as real airbases. Not allowed in city radius.
Nor allowed to build a line of them to block air lanes.

RAH

[SmartFart]

Airbases? I've seen a fighter once in a duel against Carnide.

[rah]

Agreed. Not likely but just in case. We've seen them a couple of times, but not in a long time.

RAH

[rah]

Another rules discussion.
The other night, during a border war, my opponent and I were busy destroying/capturing each other border cities. I had one city that was obviously doomed. It was only size three on a forest defended by two non-vet phalanxes and a one vet warrior. As the crusaders were coming down the river and attacking without taking any damage, I calmly said a prayer for the valiant but worthless defenders and preceded to sell the temple. The city was quickly destroyed but at least I recouped a few coins for my effort. While this isn't in the same class as disbanding units that are being bribed, it never dawned on me that people might not think this is Kosher.

1. Have you done this?

2. Does anyone think it shouldn't be allowed?

3. Or is this so common and I'm just being paranoid with all the accusations of cheating around here?

RAH

[Epik]

Selling a building is not cheating

As the attacker and ultimate loser in that border war, I thought I should give my opinion.

I do not think the sale of a building when you are about to lose a city is cheating. The game will only allow you sell one building per turn, so you will not get too much gold before your city is lost. It is little compensation for losing a city.

I have sold buildings during battle myself. In one game I sold the SDI in the city so, I could nuke it after it was captured and eliminate the conquering army.

[DrSpike]

Selling improvements in a doomed city is clearly acceptable. The analogy with disbanding the bribed unit seems flawed. If you could sell improvements after the city had been conquered doing that would be wrong, as disbanding the bribed unit is wrong. Similarly, preemptively disbanding a unit you believe will soon be bribed would also be fine.

[Ming]

I have no problem with that either... I've sold many of buildings when it looks like I'm going to lose a city.

And when it comes to temples, he isn't going to get it anyway when he takes the cities...

[markusf]

Selling something like a wall, would be considered cheating?

[ColdWizard]

i don't recall any particular instances where i've sold buildings, but i'm sure i have. i don't see anything wrong with selling an improvement (walls included)

[rah]

OK, the concensus seems to be that it's not a problem in general.

Markus/epik brings up the only possible exceptions.

Walls and SDI's (like we ever get to SDI's )

So let's just disucss Walls. While I don't have a problem with it, I can see Markus's point. I could go either way but lean towards it's ok to do. Other opinions?

RAH

[Ming]

I vote - sell the best item you can. If you want it to be the walls or and SDI... why not

[War4ever]

i agree with Ming...if your going to sell an item and you have two or more available.....sell anything but the temple.....the temple is always destroyed anyways...at least its never there when i get around to the city not that i want some freaks religious temples in my city anyways