Issues that Should Be Decided NOW

[ZargonX]

Sorry, don't mean to yell But these are some things we should sort out before we get too far into the game. As the PTWDG has demonstrated, there are certain "things" that can "happen" that can "cause" "disagreements." Therefore, I think it is in everyone's best interests to have a full public discussion now, and sort out what's what.

Let us begin by going over things that have caused controversy in the first PTWDG. The one that pops immediately to mind:

-Force Teleporting. Some consider it an exploit, some consider it good use of game mechanics. Time to decide officially whether it will be allowed in this game or not.

There are also some other non-mechanic issues, but things that people may or may not want to allow.

-Razing cities before they are taken. (The Lux Maneuver). There has been discussion as to whether it is in the spirit of the game, or just a cheap way to deny your enemies their victories out of spite. In the same vein...

-Gifting away cities that are about to be taken. (The Espana Maneuver). Again, smart strategic move, or cheap way or screwing with your enemies?

Discuss!

[DaveMcW]

"The Lux Maneuver" - The important thing is grabbing your enemy's territory. Getting cities or workers or great leaders along with that land is a nice bonus, but they are insignificant compared to the value of the land.

"The Espana Maneuver" - I would consider accepting my enemy's cities before I can capture them a declaration of war. And after seeing GS's true motives, I'm sure everyone else will too.

[Togas]

Live and let live, baby. All of this talk about making rules and restrictions is just taking away people's freedoms to make choices and forcing them to live under someone else's morality.

Team Sunshine believes that EVERY team should be free to decide for themself what they feel is fair and just. Tyrany by the majority is tyrany nonetheless.

--Togas

[Arrian]

"The Espana Maneuver" - I would consider accepting my enemy's cities before I can capture them a declaration of war.

I disagree. It isn't nice, and it very well could be a good reason to declare war and take the city(ies), but in and of itself it isn't an act of war. Particularly if your "enemies" are not as yet actually in a state of war with you in-game.

If I had been in GoW's shoes, I would have been pissed, and would have very much regretted signing a NAP with GS. I would hope and pray that GS could be manuevered into breaking it. Meanwhile, I'd do my best to work around it until it was either broken by GS or it ran out. Then I wouldn't stop 'till they were dead (which I'm sure is GoW's intention now).

The Lux maneuver - I got a kick out of that. I think it's fine.

Teleportation via gifting cities - I do kinda feel it's an exploit of game mechanics. However, what if you're in a situation where you are going to gift a city for an "acceptable" purpose, but you happen to gain a benifit from it - the troops inside warp to your capitol, and it just so happens that you need them in that area...

That gets a bit tricky. Should we say that any city that is gifted has to be first emptied of units?

-Arrian

[FrustratedPoet]

Re: Issues that Should Be Decided NOW

Originally posted by ZargonX
-Force Teleporting. Some consider it an exploit, some consider it good use of game mechanics. Time to decide officially whether it will be allowed in this game or not.

-Razing cities before they are taken. (The Lux Maneuver). There has been discussion as to whether it is in the spirit of the game, or just a cheap way to deny your enemies their victories out of spite. In the same vein...

-Gifting away cities that are about to be taken. (The Espana Maneuver). Again, smart strategic move, or cheap way or screwing with your enemies?

Why not just ban them all? As long as everyone knows where they stand now it'll be fine.

Complaints and arguments largely arising from these things has already ruined one game. It wouldn't be smart to let it ruin a second.

[ZargonX]

Complaints and arguments largely arising from these things has already ruined one game. It wouldn't be smart to let it ruin a second.

Exactly my reasoning. However, it needs to be decided in such a way that is fair to all involved. The teams as a group must decide what is acceptable, and what isn't. So, though Team Sunshine's laid-back hippidom may sound fun (), it will probably lead to arguments later.

[Shiber]

What about the 'road-to' bug, if that still exists?
And fortifying galleys at the end of the turn? You get to see 3 tiles away when you galleys are fortified; if they've expended their MPs this turn but they're carrying troops, you can activate them and use 'fortify all' to fortify the galley as well. IMHO this is definitely an exploit, since the game was not meant to work that way. (only cargo-carrying galleys can see farther even after they spent all their MPs? Why, because the troops on the ship can aid with lookout jobs?)

[Shiber]

Clarification: I'm not saying that I'm for or against the proposal to decide on international MP rules. I'm just trying to help out those trying to come up with a list of potential exploits

[ZargonX]

No, that's a good one, Shiber. You know, even if the whole thing gets rejected, just having a list of known exploits, etc, is in itself an equalizer. Some people play a lot more MP than others, and not all teams know about some of these things. If the playing field is twisty, at least make sure it's level

[Arnelos]

The Muhammed Al-Sahaf Team believes that rules established by the "United Nations" would merely restrict our sovereignty and end up being used by the mercenaries and infidels as excuses to invade our country and steal our oil.

Should the U.N. establish such rules and MAST is ever called into question about whether we have broken them, we DARE you to send your stupid international inspectors into our country, violate our sovereign rights, and then NOT FIND PROOF of your claims that we have violated any of your stupid illegitimate rules!

We hereby state that we have never violated any U.N. mandates nor will we ever violate them. It is the mercenaries who have violated them and they should be overthrown.

Thank you.

- From your friends at MAST

[Kloreep]

Originally posted by Arrian
That gets a bit tricky. Should we say that any city that is gifted has to be first emptied of units?

This is a good idea. I'll vote for this proposal. It also makes the Espana Maneuver more difficult depending on turn order of the involved teams.

Note that I am speaking for myself (plus my cat), and not for all of Team Tabemono (plus their cats)

[Niessuh]

Re: Issues that Should Be Decided NOW

Well, most of the players of my team do not participate (yet ) at the PTWDG I, so perhaps we need a more extensive explanation of which that exploits are.

Starting from the things read here and in the PTWDG I (personally) think:

Originally posted by ZargonX
-Force Teleporting. Some consider it an exploit, some consider it good use of game mechanics. Time to decide officially whether it will be allowed in this game or not.

I am not sure of what's that: cancel a right of passage with a friend civ so that the units in their territory are expelled towards your new cities?

-Razing cities before they are taken. (The Lux Maneuver). There has been discussion as to whether it is in the spirit of the game, or just a cheap way to deny your enemies their victories out of spite.

Scorched Earth policy seems valid to me , and historically justified.

-Gifting away cities that are about to be taken. (The Espana Maneuver). Again, smart strategic move, or cheap way or screwing with your enemies?

WOW! the España Maneuver!
I can't deny this! Latin lover will accept every city with female citizens!
Seriously talking, I again think that it's valid even historically (greek city-states, mid-age german & italian kingdoms, middle east during the crusaders)

So any (game) action will be corresponded by a (game) reaction. I do not see nothing personal in this. (yes, this is my first PTWDG ) And I think that teams using these tactics are not winning at the PTWDG I.

Maybe the problem is that we used to play against the AI like the aggressor, and at the MP there is to think much more defensively. All these tactics agree in which they benefit the defender, so as a builder the two last ones seem valid to me.

[UnOrthOdOx]

Just to inject my personal opinion:

I don't think that either the razing of cities to prevent their capture nor the gifting of cities to prevent their capture are an exploit. At all.

I don't even think that RP making sure there was a nice military stack inside of Toledo when it was gifted, transporting them to the front is an exploit. I call all of that smart gaming.

Now, whatever happened with Inchon, and I don't know for sure, only GS can answer this. But, if the sole purpose for gifting that city for one turn was to teleport troops, I call that a blatant exploit of game mechanics and a deplorable move.

So, bottom line: If you are permanently gifting a city, sure, take advantage of the warp. If you only want a warp, I see it as wrong.

HOWEVER:

My wife so cleverly discovered another gifting exploit that needs be covered in one of our games involving the Pyramids, and Sun Tzu's to a lesser extent.

The nation with Pyramids or SunTzu's can 'sell' granaries and/or barracks to a second civ on the same continent by gifting of a city back and forth...

free granary to the second civ...she is fond of gifting a granary for two slaves....

(might work with the internet too if a game ever lasted that long...)

[Aeson]

Does the mobilization exploit work in 1.21f PBEM? It is certainly game breaking, and if it's still active needs to be banned in both games.

Other than that, I'm not sure if there are any exploits I think need to be banned. I don't mind if any exploits are banned either.

[Octavian X]

I'd prefer if the the game was a free-for-all.