The Altera Centauri collection has been brought up to date by Darsnan. It comprises every decent scenario he's been able to find anywhere on the web, going back over 20 years.
25 themes/skins/styles are now available to members. Check the select drop-down at the bottom-left of each page.
Call To Power 2 Cradle 3+ mod in progress: https://apolyton.net/forum/other-games/call-to-power-2/ctp2-creation/9437883-making-cradle-3-fully-compatible-with-the-apolyton-edition
Description: No team is permitted to barter, gift, or otherwise trade a city or cities, unless to return the city or cities to a previous owner or to divide up the territory of a conquered civ.
Definition: For all reasons, aside from those listed below, cities may NOT be traded or gifted to another team
Reason 1: Returning ownership - If a team was previously in possession of a city or cities, the current owner can return it to that team's possession.
Reason 2: Spoils of War - After concluding a war and either signing a peace treaty or conquering a third party, the cities of a third party can be gifted or traded between the parties who were at war with the third party.
Reason 3: Borders - Cities may be traded between teams as part of a border agreement.
Prohibition: Under no circumstances may a city be granted by a team to another team where those two teams are unable to have an Open Border agreement.
Purpose: To prevent the use of city trading to break the spirit of the game by allowing early contact or denial of conquest.
This has been amended slightly from current ISDG rules to adjust for Astronomy and the absurdity of a team giving another team a city when they can't trade.
Once there are galleons, you can't hide the cripple very well.
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(") This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your signature to help him gain world domination.
Jon Miller- I AM.CANADIAN
GENERATION 35: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.
Jon Miller- I AM.CANADIAN
GENERATION 35: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.
Hmm. City gifting has been a staple of DG intrigue for as long as I have followed it - largely from the outside. I would allow it. It is a reasonable diplomacy outcome and is actually an integral part of the SP C4 game.
Originally posted by notyoueither
Is this reasonable?
Description: No team is permitted to barter, gift, or otherwise trade a city or cities, unless to return the city or cities to a previous owner or to divide up the territory of a conquered civ.
Definition: For all reasons, aside from those listed below, cities may NOT be traded or gifted to another team
Reason 1: Returning ownership - If a team was previously in possession of a city or cities, the current owner can return it to that team's possession.
Reason 2: Spoils of War - After concluding a war and either signing a peace treaty or conquering a third party, the cities of a third party can be gifted or traded between the parties who were at war with the third party.
Reason 3: Borders - Cities may be traded between teams as part of a border agreement.
Prohibition: Under no circumstances may a city be granted by a team to another team where those two teams are unable to have an Open Border agreement.
Purpose: To prevent the use of city trading to break the spirit of the game by allowing early contact or denial of conquest.
This has been amended slightly from current ISDG rules to adjust for Astronomy and the absurdity of a team giving another team a city when they can't trade.
Once there are galleons, you can't hide the cripple very well.
Maybe add in a provision that allows for teams to capture a city for another Civ and give it to them. And also to allow for the trading of cities. Maybe two Civs have "outposts" somewhere and would like to trade cities for logistical purposes.
To allow citiy gifting for the purpose of transporting troops should never ever ever be allowed!!!
Maybe add in a provision that allows for teams to capture a city for another Civ and give it to them. And also to allow for the trading of cities.
So, Teams A and B capture a city from Team C and gift it to Team D? Why, though? I can see a point for trying to keep the borders in good shape, but I can see exploits. What if Team D is not in the war, and Team C knows that to take it's city back it has to enter Team D land, and declare on Team D, giving them war happiness. It seems exploit-ish, but I am not sure if it is...
For border purposes, I think all city trading should be allowed. Look at GoW and ND in PTWDG, with ND giving up cities to GoW, and ND annexed all of the former RP land...
Maybe two Civs have "outposts" somewhere and would like to trade cities for logistical purposes.
Uh, Can you say Open Borders?
You just wasted six ... no, seven ... seconds of your life reading this sentence.
Maybe add in a provision that allows for teams to capture a city for another Civ and give it to them. And also to allow for the trading of cities.
[q] Originally posted by Krill So, Teams A and B capture a city from Team C and gift it to Team D? Why, though? I can see a point for trying to keep the borders in good shape, but I can see exploits. What if Team D is not in the war, and Team C knows that to take it's city back it has to enter Team D land, and declare on Team D, giving them war happiness. It seems exploit-ish, but I am not sure if it is...
For border purposes, I think all city trading should be allowed. Look at GoW and ND in PTWDG, with ND giving up cities to GoW, and ND annexed all of the former RP land...
If a team gives away a city in order to prevent it from being taken back by another Civ then it is indeed an exploit. If a team captures a city, but then doesn't want it anymore and another team is willing to "buy" it from them then they should be able to "sell" it. Yes, there are a number of ways to exploit the game. It's is one of the reasons I say that we allow the admins to make determinations as such as the game progreses. Certain things with certain circumstances will be legit and some will not.
Maybe two Civs have "outposts" somewhere and would like to trade cities for logistical purposes.
Originally posted by Krill Uh, Can you say Open Borders?
Open borders wouldn't do a thing. I don't know what you are thinking here.... When I said "outposts" I was meaning cities that are not directly connected to the cultural borders of a said team.
Let's say two teams find a couple of islands and each settle one city on each island and later on they want to swap one of the cities with the other team so that each has their own island....
[q=BigFree]If a team gives away a city in order to prevent it from being taken back by another Civ then it is indeed an exploit. If a team captures a city, but then doesn't want it anymore and another team is willing to "buy" it from them then they should be able to "sell" it. Yes, there are a number of ways to exploit the game. It's is one of the reasons I say that we allow the admins to make determinations as such as the game progreses. Certain things with certain circumstances will be legit and some will not.[/q]
[q=BigFree]Let's say two teams find a couple of islands and each settle one city on each island and later on they want to swap one of the cities with the other team so that each has their own island....[/q]
They are border treaties, ergo, they are covered under the border treaty clause.
In the first case, if that was after the war had concluded, I see nothing wrong with it, so long as the rest of the rules are followed.
In the second case, it is a simple border treaty, only thing is that the land has already been settled, so the teams have to think about the sacrifices they are making, ie are the cities placed in the optimal positions, what improvements will be lost in the towns they would be giving up etc.
You just wasted six ... no, seven ... seconds of your life reading this sentence.
If you can say that the second case is nothing but a "border treaty" issue then I can say that any city gifting/trading is for "adjusting" my borders and thus legal.
My point is to allow most things because there will and should be exceptions. Allow the Admin's to make judments. I know some people don't want the Admin's to have a significant impact on the game but the fact is that they will. I think we have a very good ones for this game and we should trust them to do the job properly.
Tweet
Comment