MP C4DG Chat Poll 5: City Gifting

[snoopy369]

NYE brought up at the end the concern of City Gifting, particularly to save a civ (as in Vox in PTWDG1, I believe?) This was brought up as most people had left the game, so please discuss your thoughts here before we have any official resolutions, though this one is obvious in its wording, excepting whether city "gifting" would be permitted at all, or only when the recipient wasn't about to lose (which I guess would be up to Aeson and I to decide??).

[Jon Miller]

I think it should be allowed

JM

[Krill]

I think that city gifting has to be allowed to sort out borders. Say, after a 2v1, team A may have to trade some cities to team B, and Team B has to trade some cities to team A, to get the border into manageable shape.

City gifting to gain a vassal ought to be illegal, because that starts to passinto the "Permenant" alliances territory...

[Donegeal]

As this is more of a discussion as yet, I will post my comments here...

I feel that city gifting should only be allowed in the pursuit of peace negotiations after a war (edit- this would include border realignment after a 2 v 1 war, but it must be done at the same time as the peace negotiations), and then only between warring parties.

The city gifting that occured in both PTWDGI (a brilliant strategy by GS, BTW) and the first ISDG (were we suffered prolonged WW after we had defeated an enemy because they had teleported to another continent) was a fiasco that I hope to avoid here. There is too much potential for exploitation here (with unit teleporting and changing borders). Its not that I don't trust everyone in this game ( ), I just DON'T want to see things degrade because of open interpretations of rules.

[Edit] Oops! Forgetting to put that "don't" in that last line makes a huge difference!!!

[Maniac]

Perhaps a civ should have a unit next to a city to be able to receive it by gifting?

[UnOrthOdOx]

I have a long history of being violently opposed to gifting land and/or cities to 'save' a dying civ/team for any reason.

I've yet to see anything convincing to change my mind on that front.

Regular gifting should be OK, if not neccessary, though. In fact, I would say removing it potentially cripples Team Merc. We would never be able to capture a city for someone.

[Krill]

Yeah, I am against gifting land or cities to save a civ. just my personal view, not the view of GS as far as I know though...

[ZargonX]

I think in certain instances gifting to "save" a civ can be acceptable, as long as it is done as part of a larger understanding. In PTWDGI, the entire Vox "rebirth" was negotiated in good faith with all sides involved. Peace must be a part of the deal to avoid what Donegal mentions with perma-war weariness. And if a civ is willing to become a vassal civ, I think that's their perogative. Other teams will understand what's going on, so if they let that happen, that's their fault, eh?

[UnOrthOdOx]

I wouldn't call the vox rebirth exactly good faith on all fronts. There was a public outcry that I never understood, and GS felt they NEEDED to allow it to not be the 'bad guys'. (my view on the situation)

I spoke out against the whole demanding Vox be allowed to live then (the only one to do so who was NOT a member of GS), I stand by that stance now. I don't like vassals.

This is all personal opinion BTW. I would imagine Team Merc will see Vassal gold being the same color as everyone else's.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Krill
I think that city gifting has to be allowed to sort out borders. Say, after a 2v1, team A may have to trade some cities to team B, and Team B has to trade some cities to team A, to get the border into manageable shape.

City gifting to gain a vassal ought to be illegal, because that starts to passinto the "Permenant" alliances territory...

See, I don't see what is wrong with these type of 'permanent' alliances

they are common in real life, and in classic games like diplomacy (And they are really useful in Civ)

of course, Vassals don't win when their overlords win

JM

[Jon Miller]

Vassal's always have the opportunitiy to change sides (unless they are being played by the 'overlord' team

there is always the possibility of Backstab

(we played true to Lego... but if we had seen an opportunity to win by backstabbing them, I at least would have argued to do so)

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

See, Vassalage enables you to have a higher science rate, more productive 'empire', etc

however, you also run the risk of your vassals backstabbing you, if you get weak and they seen gain in it for them

Jon miller

[Jon Miller]

taking out vassalage lowers opportunities in game, and makes it a weaker game I beleive

JM

[Jon Miller]

to alternately put it though, I am OK with not allowing City gifting to 'save' a civ

vassalge should be fine, and is a different question (The civ(s) that should have the choice of taking a civ as vassal are it's neighbors, I think)

btw, I thought that Vox had the possibility of surviving on a boat?

Jon Miller

[E_T]

One thing that needs to be bought up, in respect to the PTWDG1. In the Bobian War, RP gifted a city to GS to help facilitate their Troop Logistics (i.e. landing in city and immediately moving out).

Would we allow the same here, if the situation was similar??

E_T