Rule Listing

[proviisori]

You could make a report about your achievements and post it to the civs you have contact with.

...and when the public posting is made possible (i.e. some preset year) you could make a summary of your civ's endeavours so far.

[Golden Bear]

For clarification. Nobody asked me to remove any of my writings. Nobody even hinted at it.

I reacted to inputs that suggested that people were finding things in the stories that just did not exist. The story was original and fresh with no intention except of enjoying the writing and entertaining some nice people.

I was hurt by the insinuations and chose to make it a non topic.


Golden Bear

[proviisori]

Because Snoopy's PM box is full, I'm going to post this here:

This was found by team CRC in ISDG:

From Morcar of team CRC.

We just have found an exploit in game mechanics relative to great people. The heart of the problem is simple: we can use 2 or more great people both for starting of GA and, for example, for creating academy in the city. You can try it by yourself: create two different great persons in the city (using WB for example) and then use first for academy, then quickly switch to second great person and choose start GA. This works only in original game and doesn`t work in Warlords.

I have not tested this yet, but assuming this is true I propose the following rule:

No Golden Age may be started in a turn in which a Great Person was already used for something else. (lightbulbing, building, great citizen, etc.)

-> If you notice you can chose a Golden Age first and then use left-over great leaders to do "something else"; you just can't do it in the order Morcar shows that can be exploitive.

Teams: discuss please.

[Kloreep]

Wow, Civ4 actually has an exploit.

I hope we can just agree not to exploit this, rather than having the rule that was proposed in the quoted text... IIRC you cannot choose what GPs are consumed in GA creation, so the proposed rule does have a downside.

[binTravkin]

With noone to look things over (I haven't seen snoopy369 and Aeson for a while), I would like that there was a rule as suggested.
I really doubt it's gonna hurt gameplay for the logical reason, that if someone gets a GP he will use it asap, so in any case if there will be two or more GPs for any civ in any given time, they're likely to be used either for Golden age or separately on separate turns.

[proviisori]

And this can be monitored easilly because other teams get notification when someone's golden age is started. So, the admins can look that other GP actions hasn't used during that turn.

[Kloreep]

Originally posted by Flamer(fin)
And this can be monitored easilly because other teams get notification when someone's golden age is started. So, the admins can look that other GP actions hasn't used during that turn.

Indeed. I think we'll be fine if Snoopy or Aeson can simply check on GP usage retroactively.

[snoopy369]

I'm around, just not much for the past few weeks, and not a lot this week. Work blah. I think it'll be fine, I'll pay attention adequately to GPs to make sure no-one does this. I don't think it's much of a concern, though, nobody here would do something that underhanded.

[E_T]

From what I see, this applies to a situation where there are 2 GP's and doing a double use thing. Could someone do a test for when you have 3 GP's (say ENG, Profit & Artist) and you use 1 regulary (say the ENG for a wonder build) and the other 2 for a GA??

If it tests out O.K., for a situation of 3 (or more) GP's, then we only have to worry about the double use of just 2 GP's.

E_T

[Kloreep]

Originally posted by E_T
From what I see, this applies to a situation where there are 2 GP's and doing a double use thing. Could someone do a test for when you have 3 GP's (say ENG, Profit & Artist) and you use 1 regulary (say the ENG for a wonder build) and the other 2 for a GA??

If it tests out O.K., for a situation of 3 (or more) GP's, then we only have to worry about the double use of just 2 GP's.

E_T

Would be good to know. Regardless, though, it sounds as if this should be able to be avoided by anyone who wants to; just use one GP, go move some other units and/or wait 30 seconds, then start the GA, if you indeed need to use multiple GP actions on the same turn.

[bongo]

I *think* I found a possible exploit that should be incorporated in our ruleset.

It's about city-gifting. If two civs(A and B) are at war and A is about to lose a city, A can avoid this by gifting the city to C.

B then have to choose if they view the interference as bad enough that they want war with C as well.

While this may be a perfectly reasonable tactic in a desperate situation it can also be exploited. If C has peace with B, B's forces will automatically be transported outside of the citys cultural border. Even if B indeed go to war with C over this their forces will be thrown back at least one tile, buying the defenders extra time.

Such rule alread exist over at the german webring forum(this is one of the base rules for PBEMs there) www.civforum.de :
5) Das Verschenken von unmittelbar bedrohten Städten an einen anderen Mitspieler, der mit dem Gegner einen NAP hat (oder andere laufende Verträge), ist nicht erlaubt.

I suggest we adapt a similar rule into this game with the following wording:
A team may not gift a threatened city to a third party if the gifting result in the teleportation of the attackers unit(s)

[ZargonX]

Well, I can't speak for my entire team, but that sounds like a pretty reasonable provision, bongo.

[snoopy369]

I'd have to go research it, but I thought there was a more severe version of this already in place (essentially, no city gifting except as a result of a peace treaty from a real war) ...

[bongo]

We never reached consensus on that.

Trading of cities is not forbidden, as there was not a consensus on this topic, and it's permitted by default; however the players are reminded that this is a seroius hot button issue, and if you are considering trading cities for anything other than a peace treaty or border agreement, it is strongly recommended that you discuss it openly (if this is permitted by in-game contact) with all parties in the game prior to doing so, as otherwise you will likely make some enemies you might not expect to make.

From the first post in this thread.

Personally I think cities should be traded, sold and gifted away like any other commodity but that's just me. I suggested the rule change because city-trading in this case trigger some extra effects.

[proviisori]

I think Bongo's suggestion is good.

Originally posted by bongo
Personally I think cities should be traded, sold and gifted away like any other commodity but that's just me. I suggested the rule change because city-trading in this case trigger some extra effects.

I wonder how much it would cost to buy all the team Mercs' cities?