RAH rules: The Neverending Saga

[Flatlander Fox]

I like adding the GW in non-duel games, but not raising the price of other wonders.

[ColdWizard]

For increased cost of HG, Pyramids
War4
CW

Against increased cost
rah
FF
Ming

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse


We have rules - no unit bribe, no city bribe. No cheating.

That's all we need - unless deity plays, then we have to hire teams of lawyers.

I still think unit bribe is fine though.

[rah]

Hmmmm, after listening to the discussion, I'll go along with adding GW back in, in games of 4 people or more.

I'm also up for reducing cost on MP, just to see if anyone will build it.

[DrSpike]

Obviously I don't get an official vote but I think increased cost for HG should be considered further......and maybe pyramids as well.

[ColdWizard]

anybody wanna speak out against letting the GW back into 4 player games?

[War4ever]

THanks spike i need the support, i say bring GW back and up the cost of pyramids and HG, and lower the cost of Marcos

[rah]

Even though I'll support the GW position (see, discussing it can change opinions), my initial objection to it was in four person games, the map lay out usually means you have easy access to two of your three opponents since everyone usually ends up in one of the four quandrants. If one of your easy access opponents builds gw and the other builds the war academy, it removes a lot of incentive to go to war.

But since that is only one of the possibilities, I guess I can live with it. This is why I specified in 4+ games. In a three person game, the above example is considerably more likely to occur.

RAH
More continued games would make me reconsider my opinion on a lot of different things.

[Ming]

I can go along with GW for 4+ or more games. And I would really like to see MP cut in cost... like rah, to see if somebody would build it. If it were only a 100 shields, then in a four person game, it would just be a tad more expensive than building 3 diplos... and we might actually see it being built every once in a while.

[rah]

Assuming a 4 person game.

Since it's possible that you will lose one diplo by chance moving up to establish an embasy, 120 cost to establish 3 embasies seems closer to reality to me. That coupled with it usually being more difficult to get to one of your three opponents, 100 shields for MP might be low. I'm thinking in the 120 range first to see if it's built. If not, I'd consider dropping it to 100.

[Ming]

120 is a good starting point for me. I have no problems with that. What do other people think?

[ColdWizard]

rah's reasoning sounds reasonable


Hey Ming, you're against raising the cost of HG and Pyramids yes?

[Ming]

At this point... yes. While I agree HG is probably worth more... I still see it as a matter of "choices" early in the game. To build it, you are giving up on something. If indeed it is being built by 4 caravans later in the game, then everybody has the option to go for it later, so it's pretty fair. If somebody wants to give up cranking settlers out of their capital early... let them. It's a choice.

[War4ever]

i have a hard time supporting a less expensive Marcos, and not increasing the two i voted for....having an embassy that early in the game without risking your diplos at identical costs is a trade off too isn't it..instead your rewarding the player for not taking a chance to get his dips in??????

seems foolish to me....i vote no now on the lower cost of marcos (even though i would like to see it built more often) without the increase in in pyramids/hg....

for the same price as three diplos???? no way, and for less ??? no way...it has to cost at least 150 shields otherwise all were doing is making it simple to get an embassy......which can be difficult at times , sometimes not...

my vote is GW in four man games only, Pyramids 300 shields, HG 300 shields, and marcos if the above applies 150 shields to compensate for the fact that reality dictates that you could easily lose i diplo trying .

[rah]

Hmmm I did include the risk of losing a diplo trying to establish. hence the 120 vs 90 cost. And if you move them up with a good defensive unit early in the game, there really is no risk. And I think we should look at each issue seperately. Combining seems to encourage compromising one for another. I don't want to play those games. Each should stand on it's own merit.

On that note, if we want to try 150 for marcos, i'll agree to that, but I don't think it will be built anymore than it is now at that cost.