MP C4DG Chat Poll 3: GP Gifting

[BigFree]

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx

In this game here, however, I really have a hard time seeing any team sending GP to another team if that team has any sort of advantage on them. Who will help the larger team trigger their GA? It is suicide. No two teams are going to be equal, no matter how balanced the map. Are you going to help your neighbor who clearly makes more gold or production than you increase that lead?

Conversely, it allows two weaker teams a possible means to actually remain in the game in terms of both tech and production, if only for a brief time. In the situations of the '2 team continent' you describe, it allows that continent a means of keeping pace with a theoretical 4 team continent sharing techs.

I don't know. While I have a hard time seeing the leading team(s) finding trading partners, I see nothing but benefits possible for the rest of the teams since no permanent alliances has been decided on, I find the likelyhood of team blocks forming to be unlikely.

I'm actually convinced it SHOULD be allowed in any competitive games with no permanent alliances.

I had not thought about that before. Two teams that are not equal in stength BUT below the top team or two might use GP trading to help them get them caught up to the "top" teams.

I agree with your point that a 4th place team would be adverse to trading GP's with a 1st place team unless it was bullied into doing so.

[NicodaMax]

@ Fried & binTravkin:

It's amazing to me how these threads just feed up on themselves sometimes, ending up in rough arguments and ill remarks...c'mon guys, remember to have fun in the process

[PLATO]

I've just read through this entire thread. Are there some really proposing that we break off into 2-3 team blocks of friendly little traders for the entire game? That's what it sounds like.

If you want that kind of game then let's set locked alliances from the beginning and go for it...

otherwise, let's keep it a balanced situation where multiple strategies are encouraged.

[BigFree]

Originally posted by PLATO
I've just read through this entire thread. Are there some really proposing that we break off into 2-3 team blocks of friendly little traders for the entire game? That's what it sounds like.

If you want that kind of game then let's set locked alliances from the beginning and go for it...

otherwise, let's keep it a balanced situation where multiple strategies are encouraged.

It sounds the opposite to me. It sounds like taking away options limits strategies. This is one area where the "Diplomatic" stratedgy might pay off for a Civ willing to work that route.

[binTravkin]

Are there some really proposing that we break off into 2-3 team blocks of friendly little traders for the entire game?

Its hard to imagine how would this block survive 'entire game' seeing how we have permanent alliances off..
What then they'd do at endgame?

Friendly decide who is the winner?

And if not?
Will the teams have lot of trust in each other if they know at the endgame they will have to fight anyway?
Will this 'trust' result in 'blocks'?


The only place I see a block forming, and it will form regardless if GP trade is on or off, is 2-3 bottom score/power teams - only if one feels like losing, he will trust the other enough.
Most probably those blocks will become really friendly and practically permanent when the teams see that they've got no or almost no chance to win anymore.

There comes logical conclusion, that, as BigFree pointed out, strategies will be limited and thus there will be less chance for small teams (small civs ingame) to catch up by cooperating in GP trade, while if a top team has a serious advantage it will only continue to maintain and enlarge it.
Cooperation allows balance, I thought it was an accepted truth as from history lessons..

[PLATO]

While I do see your point bin, I have to respectfully disagree with both you and Bigfree.

Having a single path that must be followed in order to obtain the GA exploit provided by GP trading seems limited to me. This option being on seems to force all Civs to persue diplomatic relationships or to be crushed economically. Within this one type of strategy, I believe your points are well taken.

However, it seems limiting to push all teams into this one path. What if a team doesn't want to persue a diplomatic/builder strategy? What option do they have to keep the game balanced economically with GP trading blocks?

It just seems to me that having GP trading on forces all teams to adopt a single path of diplomatic strategy and limits the possibilities for varying strategies that is what makes a DG fun.

[Senethro]

I've read through the thread, and I still don't understand. Why will GP trading change the nature of the game AT ALL and does anyone ever use more than 2 GAs anyway?

[snoopy369]

Woah, guys, please keep this a bit more polite ... "Discuss the issues not the posters", I think some guy somewhere once said ...

[NicodaMax]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Woah, guys, please keep this a bit more polite ... "Discuss the issues not the posters", I think some guy somewhere once said ...

I second that!

[Mudhut]

And (having just now finished reading this thread) it seems that everyone is pretty strongly set in their views. And also, that there is a pretty even split (though some are more vocal than others....).

Let's just have the vote and all agree to abide by the result. Without whinging.

[Addled Platypus]

vote by team?

captains report here?

[binTravkin]

However, it seems limiting to push all teams into this one path. What if a team doesn't want to persue a diplomatic/builder strategy? What option do they have to keep the game balanced economically with GP trading blocks?

Why do you couple diplomatic with builder?
Although I admit a builder may be more peaceful, that doesn't mean an agressive civ cannot have diplomacy.
It can even be the 'big stick' one, which agressive civs sometimes use..

Besides, as I already pointed out, without perma alliances, even builders will never be sure about the other side's intentions.
Even more so as they become more powerful.

Also there's a point that you do not need to cooperate forever - once you've pulled out your desired GA count, you can either move to next partner, or stop doing it at all (say if you think sacrificing 5 GPs for a GA is a bit too much).

And I believe that being a single agressive team without any diplomatical is also somewhat one-way going and obsolete, the same with single builder team just building their world inside the borders.

What is even more important - if we support such diplo down tuning, we efectively crop down abilities for other, smaller and more trusting-in-each-other (which is logical from their poorer power) civs to catch up.

Diplomacy and for that matter trading is one of the most important ways to keep balance.

Would you trade a GP for a good price to top team?
No.
Would you trade a GP for a good price to bottom team?
Most probably yes, as long as you care about balance.


What is even more interesting is that we have only 2 philosophical civs in game - Sarantium and Mercenaries, which means that if Sarantium manages to utilize their GPs at best, they can gain a massive advantage.
One could say that all civs have their bonuses and maluses, at that I would like to point out that a GP is the most universal bonus as that carries in itself at least a part from following bonuses (creative = get some great artists, industrious = some great engineers, financial = some merchants, spiritual = can be somewhat offset by great prophets) and a bonus which is unique - great scientists, not even talking about numerous other uses a GP can have (GA included).

vote by team?

captains report here?

I believe this was agreed 2 pages ago.

[Metaliturtle]

...ok so it looks like the AC team is votin' NO to no GP trading!

Edited

[UnOrthOdOx]

Team Merc has not changed its vote of yes.

[Kataphraktoi]

...ok so it looks like the AC team is votin' NO to GP trading!

Where was that said?