Living Large: Chapter 1

[Dis]

turn sent

[Mazarin]

turn sent

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Sent to andy_hammer and Flandrien.

[andy_hammer]

Sent 3850bc to cerberusivciv3 and Flandrien

[CerberusIV]

turn sent

[Beta]

sent

[Dis]

turn sent

[Mazarin]

turn sent

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Sent to andy_hammer and Flandrien.

[andy_hammer]

Sent 3500bc to CerberusIV and Flandrien

[CerberusIV]

3800BC to Betahound and Flandrien

[Flandrien1]

As a moderator, I would like to propose some additional rules of conduct to enhance gameplay.

RULE 1 : No rushing great wonders with a leader.
Building great wonders is too risky when someone can build it in a single turn.
As a compensation, leaders can still be used to build small wonders.
(This does not affect other civs.)

RULE 2 : No going to war with another civ without a formal declaration of war in this thread.
It's not fun playing a game when you don't know what is going on.


Can all players here give their vote whether or not they would like to include these rules ?

[Mazarin]

RULE1: well...I don't mind if someone des rush with a leader...it's something we already know from SP...and I don't think it's too risky, because you can still switch to another wonder

RULE2: As soon as you have embassies you can see who ist at war...can't you? And declaring that you're at war might show some of your strategy to others...to be true, I don't see the point of this

[Beta]

sent

Rule 1 - sorry Flandrien - I agree with the concept - I think building wonders in one turn with a GL is a farce - (maybe a 25% savings or something like that would make sense), (and I also think 'banking' shields in a work project is afarce) - but the rules are the rules. It would also handicap the players who chose military civs (not me by the way) as that is one of the advantages of that trait - a better chance of generating a GL. If we were going to use this rule - it should have been agreed-to up front, as it may have affected their choice of civs.

Rule 2 - can't agree here either. If two civs who I have not made contact with are warring on the other side of the world - well, I have no right to no. If I have made contact with them - I will know in the game.

You walk a fine line when you try to introduce 'out of game' rules. Personally, I think EVERYTHING - and I Include diplomacy in that - should be done within the game.

[CerberusIV]

I don't want to change the rules at this point. Having someone else rush a GW you were trying to build is simply a risk of the game and one has to be prepared to cope with that.

As for a formal declaration of war in the thread, it would reduce the incentive to have embassies as you would not need them quite as much to know what is going on.