TimBentley
Deity
A minor quibble: there need not be zero gold in the treasury; having income so that the gold would go below zero would be the problem.
Ruleset Discussion
- Thread starter Ginger_Ale
- Start date
gmaharriet
Ancient Crone
I've never seen or heard of this being done. Is this something which could only be done in a pbem game by 2 civs who are allies using each other's units against a 3rd team?
CommandoBob
AbstractArt
Shouldn't the tech be Map Making not Map Trading ?
Yeah.TimBentley: Thanks.
gmaharriet: Yeah, because those units are non-combat, allied teams could just capture and recapture each turn those units and use them twice.
ThERat: I think there's a difference between negative gpt (say, -3gpt @ 80% science, 201 gold in the treasury), and having a negative treasury, which is what the exploit is (for example, -11gpt @ 100% science, 1 gold in the treasury), where there is a clear difference between the gained commerce/beakers and the commerce/gold paid from the disbanded units/buildings.
I don’t know if people didn’t respond to these because they disagreed, but I figured I’d repost them in case they just got overlooked (besides, I just love quoting myself 
):
EDIT: Regarding negative income:
I would eliminate the word consistently - if people don't want ambiguity, then we can't have that in there, and I don't see any legimate reason you would put your treasury below zero gold for even one turn.
):EDIT: Regarding negative income:
I would eliminate the word consistently - if people don't want ambiguity, then we can't have that in there, and I don't see any legimate reason you would put your treasury below zero gold for even one turn.
I saw them, I just didn't respond. Eliminating going to the big picture is not something I support - it's not an exploit; sometimes you'll want to change prebuilds (say, for knights, the turn you discover Chivalry), or adjust other builds/laborers.
ThERat
Deity
sorry, I wasn't clear enough. Deficit spending is perfectly fine as long as there is gold in the coffer. What I meant is spelled out here
RegentMan
Deity
This one is worded poorly, in my opinion. Once a team meets another team, they are free to e-mail/private message/MSN each other whenever they want. However, they cannot trade contacts with each other, whether it be in the diplo window or in an e-mail (Team X is north of you would be improper before writing).
Banning this will also elimante the chance to prevent riots if you lost a luxury in the interturn or war weariness struck badly...
If this happens it is common usage (and no exploit imo as the city governor does the same) to go to the first rioting town and fix the mistake for all others.
ThERat and RegentMan: Done and done.
This was part of the ruleset last game:
Do we really want to allow that? Also I believe working high commerce tiles then breaking into the build sequence after commerce is computed to work production tiles is a clear exploit that must be banned.
As far as flipping a prebuild the turn you complete a tech, I don't really care one way or another. We lived without it last game, and I don't think it makes a real difference - you just have to plan your prebuild to finish one turn later. My proposed rule would forbid flipping prebuilds, but I wanted a simple rule, and it is more complicated to allow this but ban the hypothetical walls example above.
If the governor prevents riots, then I guess we should be able to also. In that case I suggest making the rule so that the only thing that can be changed in the build sequence is hiring additional specialists.
Do we really want to allow that? Also I believe working high commerce tiles then breaking into the build sequence after commerce is computed to work production tiles is a clear exploit that must be banned.
As far as flipping a prebuild the turn you complete a tech, I don't really care one way or another. We lived without it last game, and I don't think it makes a real difference - you just have to plan your prebuild to finish one turn later. My proposed rule would forbid flipping prebuilds, but I wanted a simple rule, and it is more complicated to allow this but ban the hypothetical walls example above.
If the governor prevents riots, then I guess we should be able to also. In that case I suggest making the rule so that the only thing that can be changed in the build sequence is hiring additional specialists.
AutomatedTeller
Frequent poster
I can see a reason why a team would deficit spend.
Say you are at 100% science and have built a granary and have 15 gold. You have enough gold to handle 15 turns of deficit research.
In the interturn, you get raided by a barb horse, and now have no gold in the treasury.
This has to be allowed.
Say you are at 100% science and have built a granary and have 15 gold. You have enough gold to handle 15 turns of deficit research.
In the interturn, you get raided by a barb horse, and now have no gold in the treasury.
This has to be allowed.
Proposed Rule said:
I would say that having 15 gold with a -1 gpt deficit when you end your turn does not violate this rule regardless of what happens on the interturn. (And I hope nobody thinks that means it would be OK to send the 15 gold to someone with accept and claim they were not violating the rule because the other team hadn't accepted yet).
donsig
Low level intermediary
I suggested earlier that the rule should mandate teams notifying admins whenever a building is sold or units disbanded automatically due to a deficit with no gold to cover it. Then the admins could investigate and determine if there was intentional rulebreaking. As I said earlier, we also need to know what the punishment is. If there is no punishment then there is no use in having a rule. Perhaps we'd be better off just haiving a gentlemen's agreement not to engage in deficits we can't cover from our existing treasury.
ThERat
Deity
I think all teams should be mature enough to follow these rules. Of course, someone could always cheat, but I am sure nobody want to play that cheap.
What is the purpose of rule 4.4 - keeping combat logs? What difference does it make if logs are kept or not? Is it sent to the opposing team so they have some idea what happened to them rather than finding things out the hard way (examination)?
fe3333au
Deity
The BattleLog is used in all pbem games ... primarily to inform the other team what you could not see happening.
Without it, it would be difficult to know which team attacked you or if indeed the 'missing' unit was lost due to barbarian action.
It also gives the attacking team a chance to brag their combat achievements to the other.
Also to clarify losses the enemy has suffered in the attack, which would be unknown if the defending unit did not get wounded in the encounter.
Without it, it would be difficult to know which team attacked you or if indeed the 'missing' unit was lost due to barbarian action.
It also gives the attacking team a chance to brag their combat achievements to the other.
Also to clarify losses the enemy has suffered in the attack, which would be unknown if the defending unit did not get wounded in the encounter.
In a PBEM, when you open up your turn, you don't see the enemy units attacking. So, what this rule does is make the game a bit more like Singleplayer - the other team has to report who they attacked, with what, and what the outcome was. In Singleplayer, you'd see an enemy bomber go overhead - in a PBEM, you'd just open up the save to see some of your units damaged/killed!
Yeah, the combat log is sent to the opposing team. Isn't it pretty clear? "Teams are required to send a battle log to the team(s) they attack during their turn, indicating what units attacked, and what the result was."
Cyc
Looking for the door...
I don't see any problems in 2.12, but as far as 2.4 goes, this is a text-based game, so is verbal to mean typed text? I can put together a typed map that is just as readable as a graphic map. Are we saying that one map is better than the other? Or are we saying that we can't enforce this rule?
Similar threads
