Tubby Rower
Chronic Slacker
So is this the ruling on this topic..... We never received a clear-cut answer. If so, could "trickery" be defined please.Ginger_Ale said:
DISCUSSION: * Renaming units & cities
- Thread starter Rik Meleet
- Start date
Renaming units or cities in order to use them in diplomacy as something else, or to make them seem like something they aren't (trading a city as a peace deal, but instead of the city you wanted, you renamed an artic city that to confuse them) or making it so at a quick glance a stack appears to be only "Warriors" when in fact they are "Spearmen" by renaming all Spearman to "Warrior". So when renaming units, you don't need to say "Curragh - HMS Bounty", you can just say "HMS Bounty", but if you rename it to "Galley" or "Galley - HMS Bounty" when it's a curragh, that is against the rules.
Let me know if you have a question.
Let me know if you have a question.
fe3333au
Deity
I also assume that swapping city names with another is also prohibited ...
If someone is trying to challenge anothers' actions, please post a thread about it.
Swapping city names with no benefit for the team other than confusion from other teams is not allowed.
Swapping city names with no benefit for the team other than confusion from other teams is not allowed.
Provolution
Sage of Quatronia
I suggest that the brilliant legalists in the various teams coin out a new rule here for FUTURE reference, instead of seeking to pin Team TNT on the rule we did not break.
A petty defamation campaign it is to reduce our diplomatic options, now, come with a constructive proposal in place of defamation on future rules for city naming.
A petty defamation campaign it is to reduce our diplomatic options, now, come with a constructive proposal in place of defamation on future rules for city naming.
Daghdha
Absent Minded
Admiral Kutzov
Idiot Emeritus
not a barrister, but i slept at holiday inn express last night
I will put up a new thread soon Provo, a thread related to the verdict which will hopefully be up in under 24 hours (most likely).
fe3333au
Deity
This seemed to have been started with my innocent query about renaming ... knowing that F-11 was an option that all teams would be utilizing to gather intel and being familiar with pbem ... I am very aware of the naming conventions and 'Spirit of the Game' issues ...
It is a pity that this opportunity was not used to clarify things prior to the recent issue erupting ...
>>>>
Post 4 resulted from a team discussion by MIA ... where all issues were discused and evaluated ... I suggest that this is, if not adopted ... at least used as a starting point for rule modification and clarification discussions ...
It is a pity that this opportunity was not used to clarify things prior to the recent issue erupting ...
>>>>
Post 4 resulted from a team discussion by MIA ... where all issues were discused and evaluated ... I suggest that this is, if not adopted ... at least used as a starting point for rule modification and clarification discussions ...
Speaking as an individual, I can't see any reason why normal naming of cities is anyone's business other than the team owning the city, with the exception I previously stated about offensive or taunting names.
Deceptive renaming (units named with another unit type, cities named like resources or technologies) should still be illegal, there is no need to change that part of the rule.
Deceptive renaming (units named with another unit type, cities named like resources or technologies) should still be illegal, there is no need to change that part of the rule.
fe3333au
Deity
Point is F-11 gives you a glimpse of other teams cities and the scenario i brought up before about a curragh (for strategy purposes) keeping hidden has the ability to ... move in -> view city -> move out
Provolution
Sage of Quatronia
We are willing to discuss rules on fair grounds, and Team MIAs is a fair template.
However, TEAM TNT is not fully aware of PBEM conventions and so on in particular subsets of Civ3 communties, so bear over with us for that. We barely observe the F11 screen at all, as we consider that a waste of time. We tend to divert our resources into other areas. However, for many of us, do not consider the F11 as the key thing here.
We consider the time Civs have actually met, that duties on informing changes of city names and so on should be kept. This would be consistent and coherent with the similar rules for trading maps or communications, which require map making and public press technologies. Spirit in the game is also a question of "realistic" immersion, and the F11 screen is sort of an exploit in this regard. We may be very limited and shortsighted in our team, but we are not using civ utilities or F11 cities in general.
However, I now see that F11 can be used/misused to influence diplomacy by commenting/analyzing own findings to other teams, possibly using a case as an alternative media outlet or as a source of new intel.
The solution to this, would be to limit city naming duties to MET civilizations, not UNMET civilizations. That would be the most fair thing to do, since when no relation is established, how could a leader of a nation know a city name, to stay in character.
Colombus had never heard about Mexico, or Tenochtitlan when he set over the Atlantic 1492. Colombus had not the F11 button to press. Colombus even mistook the size of the Earth, and thought he would end up in Asia. Possibly, Colombus may have liked to complain this lack of information on future conquests to God, and forced the Aztecs to send a canoe filled with city names and other data across the Atlantic in punishment. Yet, Colombus was some of the more resourceful men of that era, and he figured something out. Anyways, we are at 2320 BC now, and our people are not that advanced and sophisticated, and I think we can keep the innocence a little bit longer till our civs meet, and take it from there.
Right now, all this cause a situation where wrongfully wresting new information from other teams, or even forcing them to comply with unwritten laws is the order of the day. I am fine with the other unmet teams changing names on their cities, as long as one communicate all the namechanges to MET neighbors.
Unit names should never be changed, except for workers to fit into planning name models, as workers are captured. Conquered cities are also fair game once.
However, we are open for new interpretations and new laws. WE can for example scrap the requisite for map making for trading maps and so on, if we are not to stay in character.
However, TEAM TNT is not fully aware of PBEM conventions and so on in particular subsets of Civ3 communties, so bear over with us for that. We barely observe the F11 screen at all, as we consider that a waste of time. We tend to divert our resources into other areas. However, for many of us, do not consider the F11 as the key thing here.
We consider the time Civs have actually met, that duties on informing changes of city names and so on should be kept. This would be consistent and coherent with the similar rules for trading maps or communications, which require map making and public press technologies. Spirit in the game is also a question of "realistic" immersion, and the F11 screen is sort of an exploit in this regard. We may be very limited and shortsighted in our team, but we are not using civ utilities or F11 cities in general.
However, I now see that F11 can be used/misused to influence diplomacy by commenting/analyzing own findings to other teams, possibly using a case as an alternative media outlet or as a source of new intel.
The solution to this, would be to limit city naming duties to MET civilizations, not UNMET civilizations. That would be the most fair thing to do, since when no relation is established, how could a leader of a nation know a city name, to stay in character.
Colombus had never heard about Mexico, or Tenochtitlan when he set over the Atlantic 1492. Colombus had not the F11 button to press. Colombus even mistook the size of the Earth, and thought he would end up in Asia. Possibly, Colombus may have liked to complain this lack of information on future conquests to God, and forced the Aztecs to send a canoe filled with city names and other data across the Atlantic in punishment. Yet, Colombus was some of the more resourceful men of that era, and he figured something out. Anyways, we are at 2320 BC now, and our people are not that advanced and sophisticated, and I think we can keep the innocence a little bit longer till our civs meet, and take it from there.
Right now, all this cause a situation where wrongfully wresting new information from other teams, or even forcing them to comply with unwritten laws is the order of the day. I am fine with the other unmet teams changing names on their cities, as long as one communicate all the namechanges to MET neighbors.
Unit names should never be changed, except for workers to fit into planning name models, as workers are captured. Conquered cities are also fair game once.
However, we are open for new interpretations and new laws. WE can for example scrap the requisite for map making for trading maps and so on, if we are not to stay in character.
fe3333au
Deity
I agree with F-11 ... unfortunately it cannot be turned off and is available for all ... so how is this for an in-game explanation ...
Since there are barbarians in the world ... both friendly and unfriendly ... I put to you that F-11 is simply the rumours and whispers heard and retold over camp fires ...
Therefore once 'seen or heard about' (F-11) a city should not be re-named unless the brackets method is used ... NEW NAME (OLD NAME) ... this is kept for a number of turns and then the old name is removed ... or maybe keep a '*' there to indicate a renaming ...
This would address the F-11 issue
But what about the secret peek ... more difficult to adresss ... maybe have brackets untill the situation below ...
Of course all of this is not an issue as soon as we have all officially met ... because then any renaming of a city is simply announced in the UN
Since there are barbarians in the world ... both friendly and unfriendly ... I put to you that F-11 is simply the rumours and whispers heard and retold over camp fires ...
Therefore once 'seen or heard about' (F-11) a city should not be re-named unless the brackets method is used ... NEW NAME (OLD NAME) ... this is kept for a number of turns and then the old name is removed ... or maybe keep a '*' there to indicate a renaming ...
This would address the F-11 issue
But what about the secret peek ... more difficult to adresss ... maybe have brackets untill the situation below ...
Of course all of this is not an issue as soon as we have all officially met ... because then any renaming of a city is simply announced in the UN
Provolution
Sage of Quatronia
Good, barbarian whispers and rumors were not that reliable, still being in character, so the lack of reliability is emulated by the option to change city names. We should also ban public thread commentaries on the F11 screen in order to isolate shared intelligence resources of UNMET civilizations. WE felt the spirit of the game was violated as well, even some persons seeking to strongarm us into changing OUR names according to THEIR whims. Therefore, F11 should be left out, and when we met, we can observe namechanges on the map itself. El Dorado was never found, Timbuktu took centuries to find for white men, and Alexandria Eschates was long a myth, until it was found in the Fergana Valley. I can give more examples. F11 is not something to be counted on.
I agree with Daveshack on the tradepart. I am surprised that Team Doughnut seems to agree with Team TNT here, I thought all three teams were ganging up on us in this case. So we can all fairly say we come from different civ traditions, and should respect each other for that.
I am mostly concerned about the unit naming, since battle reports analysis for intel is a key aspect of realism for the game. Formations could be named the same for centuries, as military tradition required that. Unit names must be fixed and locked.
But good to have a constructive dialogue going.
I agree with Daveshack on the tradepart. I am surprised that Team Doughnut seems to agree with Team TNT here, I thought all three teams were ganging up on us in this case. So we can all fairly say we come from different civ traditions, and should respect each other for that.
I am mostly concerned about the unit naming, since battle reports analysis for intel is a key aspect of realism for the game. Formations could be named the same for centuries, as military tradition required that. Unit names must be fixed and locked.
But good to have a constructive dialogue going.
fe3333au
Deity
I agree with the dialogue becoming constuctive 
I'm not sure about the F-11 being dismissed as incorrect information ... perhaps the admins can comment on that ... I (and this is personal as I am not the UN rep) would prefer our prefered city naming convention as this also addresses the sneak peak ability of horse and sea units ...
As to the military units ... do people feel that as long as the unit type appears in the name everything is OK ...
EDIT - This could also add to the role playing element as team MIA places a bounty on the head of the Exploding Warrior Donut Kissers for commiting crimes against ... blah blah blah
Armies of course can be called anything ...
I'm not sure about the F-11 being dismissed as incorrect information ... perhaps the admins can comment on that ... I (and this is personal as I am not the UN rep) would prefer our prefered city naming convention as this also addresses the sneak peak ability of horse and sea units ...
As to the military units ... do people feel that as long as the unit type appears in the name everything is OK ...
EDIT - This could also add to the role playing element as team MIA places a bounty on the head of the Exploding Warrior Donut Kissers for commiting crimes against ... blah blah blah
Armies of course can be called anything ...
One new law change we had in mind: people can change cities as they please as long as it is in no way related to diplomacy.
But please do not excessively use it...not only is it hard on the other teams, it's hard on you too, you forget all the names. I will put a poll up later.
But please do not excessively use it...not only is it hard on the other teams, it's hard on you too, you forget all the names. I will put a poll up later.
Admiral Kutzov
Idiot Emeritus
we agree with this
Provolution
Sage of Quatronia
Ginger_Ale said:
Good call, this will end transoceanic diplomatic infringement in ruledebates and other activities before diplomats meet. Not having teams fish for confirmation on their analyses in public thread court litigations and so on.
However, we can set a quota on 3 namechanges per city or something. I think the need for freedom in domestic planning and identity building overrides one continents interest in unfairly leveraging F11 in order to influence another continents domestic and diplomatic development. Diplomatic contact is the only objective criteria that can be used here. The sneek peek with curraughs is not an issue here, as we can see all namechanges on the map, by comparing turns. I never had any problems with people changing names on their cities, but then again, I am not that easily confused.
fe3333au
Deity
What is your problem buddy ... if your aim is too ruin the game for people just keep it up !!!
How many warnings do you need from the administrators before you pull your head in ???
If this comment results in a banning then so be it ... I have joined this game in order to have fun and not debate with an egotist ... Learn some manners ...
How many warnings do you need from the administrators before you pull your head in ???
If this comment results in a banning then so be it ... I have joined this game in order to have fun and not debate with an egotist ... Learn some manners ...
Provolution
Sage of Quatronia
I am not egotist, this F11 thing should be kept in the quiet, and not be part of communications before civs have met. I am not seeking to ruin anything, but to keep rule discussions and cases separate, and to contain public thread debates to rule specifics only before civs have met. There are more of us at TNT meaning this.
Obviously, there is a divide between KISS and MIA one side in this discussion, and TNT and partly Doughnut on the other. We just have to be candid about that. I think no team without diplomatic contact should have the right to request information on other teams actions until they have met, which is a pretty key principle. No need to be defensive here. For that matter, all cases involving separate team in-game actions should be handled discreetly before teams met, such as in other team demogames.
This is where the F11 key plays in. Some want to keep F11 as a key component to their planning before Civs met, others want to sustain a civilizations right to organize themselves internally. This seems to be a very contentious issue, but must be handled, and no need to get overtly emotional here. What I do not want, is untimely questions of team actions before civs have met in public threads.
However,, if that is in the spirit of the game it is ok, we may just readily adapt to that. same applies to trading map before map making and so on. As long as rules are agreed on and written, we are fair with that. This is also an issue, what is the spirit of the game? Is it decided unilaterally by some "veterans", or reached on in consensus?
But to boil it down into components, the renaming, we can organize it this way.
City naming for use in the diplomacy screen (all cities)
City for use in the mapscreen (only seen cities)
City naming for use in the diplomacy screen (only seen cities)
City naming for early comparison (F11)
Unit renaming for confusion purposes
Unit renaming for identity purposes
Unit renaming for organization purposes
Obviously, there is a divide between KISS and MIA one side in this discussion, and TNT and partly Doughnut on the other. We just have to be candid about that. I think no team without diplomatic contact should have the right to request information on other teams actions until they have met, which is a pretty key principle. No need to be defensive here. For that matter, all cases involving separate team in-game actions should be handled discreetly before teams met, such as in other team demogames.
This is where the F11 key plays in. Some want to keep F11 as a key component to their planning before Civs met, others want to sustain a civilizations right to organize themselves internally. This seems to be a very contentious issue, but must be handled, and no need to get overtly emotional here. What I do not want, is untimely questions of team actions before civs have met in public threads.
However,, if that is in the spirit of the game it is ok, we may just readily adapt to that. same applies to trading map before map making and so on. As long as rules are agreed on and written, we are fair with that. This is also an issue, what is the spirit of the game? Is it decided unilaterally by some "veterans", or reached on in consensus?
But to boil it down into components, the renaming, we can organize it this way.
City naming for use in the diplomacy screen (all cities)
City for use in the mapscreen (only seen cities)
City naming for use in the diplomacy screen (only seen cities)
City naming for early comparison (F11)
Unit renaming for confusion purposes
Unit renaming for identity purposes
Unit renaming for organization purposes
Similar threads
