This ruleset is the result of more than a month of heated discussions. I'm quite glad that these discussions are finally over, so please don't stir it up again...
I can assure you: every single rule has its reason... (In the last couple of weeks I learned that our beloved good old C3C is riddled with bugs like a moth-eaten rug. The possibilities for exploits and cheating seem limitless... Just the information gained from F11 (by repeatedly changing the tile assignment of your cities and watching how the numbers change in F11) allow you to get precise information on the number of beakers, shields and food collected by every opponent every turn, on when he build which unit or city improvement, on when he peeled off another worker or settler, on how his start position looks like etc etc. You just collect the data turn after turn, solve a couple of mathematical equations and of you go. It's like looking into your opponents F1 screen...)
I will address some of your points below.
These all sound fine although I have to point out that they depend on the honor system.
The entire C3C game depends on the honor system... It's probably better to not play it at all in multi-player modus. Single-player competitions like GOTM are perhaps better, but if you don't trust your opponents, then look for a different hobby.
This is too vague, and it sounds intimidating. I signed up to play a game of Civ 3, not a bloody accounting exercise. This makes it sound like I have to document every last mouse-click while playing, and that's patently ridiculous.
Some of the people at Civforum wanted exactly that: document every single action... I'm quite glad I managed to get this "relaxed" rule...
These are stupid. If alliances are going to be unregulated, so should trades.
These rules prevent a couple of very nasty exploits. For example two teams could exchange all their artillery units, thus saving a lot of unit upkeep. They could "share" an iron resource, so that both teams can build swordsmen with only one iron available, etc.
These are stupid, too. If someone invades your borders, just declare war on them. Given the numerous other examples where we're on the honor system, it's just silly to get legalistic about borders and RoP. Just use the in-game system -- it works fine.
I think it is rather stupid to declare on them, if they trespass on your territory. Why should you reward them with war happiness for their misdoings? No, if they absolutely want to enter your territory against your will, then you should be the one enjoying war happiness!
The in-game RoP system is insufficient, because you may be willing to let one galley or scout through your territory, if the other team grants the same to you, but you don't want to give them full RoP. In single-player you can just say "leave or declare", but in MP this option is not there.
This seems unnecessary and arbitrary. Is there a reason to ban automated orders, or does someone just not like them? If there's a good reason, it should be mentioned here.
In one of our recent PBEMs muzbang just showed us a nasty bug, if you play two civs in a row and click "Continue game" instead of "Save and exit". What happens is that basically the workers of the first civ work at double speed. So you get a mine in 3 instead of 6, etc. I did not test it yet, but I can imagine that automated workers may show the same or a similar bug.
This is similar to the well-known bug that units on "auto-move" get twice the speed. (They make one move during your turn and the next move right before the next party loads the game, then they "pause" in the second turn. So you could send a spearman from 6 tiles away into a city that is about to be attacked, and save it this way. Or send a settler two tiles in one go and beat another party to an important location. Etc.)
Also, if this type of deception in diplomacy is banned, then so should deception in contracts and alliances (section 4).
Good point actually. (But I will certainly not start another discussion. Let the games begin, the rules are as good as they will get.)
This seems like a pointless rule -- unless a graphics mod could reveal things like Oil tiles before Refining is discovered. Could someone confirm whether that's the case?
I don't know, as I never used any graphic mod other than the standard one that comes with the game. However, after what I saw in the last couple of weeks, I can imagine that exactly this is the case. The Civforum players must have a reason for this rule...
Doesn't the game itself enforce this?
Actually, after justanick confirmed this, you are right. I didn't know it was one of their old rules that got obsoleted by a patch. I thought it was meant to prevent yet another exploit (after all, I haven't done that much tech stealing in my Civ3 carrier: either my games end earlier, or I never bother to research that optional tech and build a small wonder... So I could well imagine that they found another trick how to get more techs in one attempt...)
So I guess the rule can be deleted, but on the other hand it doesn't hurt, so why bother?
Would anyone actually agree to sacrifice units for another team to get leaders?
Yes, why not, if the other team grants you the same?
And CivAssist II. It organizes some types of information SO MUCH better than the game client itself that it's not reasonable to expect me to play without it.
...and if the concern is about spoilers, CivAssist doesn't cause a problem in that regard.
CAII had been disputed heavily for weeks, and in the end we had to let it go. I love it as well, but it does have a couple of exploits, for example it displays submarines on the map, when it shouldn't do so.
This seems dumb -- either make them amphibious or not, don't make it a weird cross between the two.
Besides, this rule is intended to prevent a team from blockading their coast with Warriors. Simply making Archers amphibious will prevent that tactic.
The rule is meant to prevent coastal blockade, but cities should be save like in the real game. And archers are not sufficient, because once you have discovered Invention, you can no longer build archers, but the other team could still build warriors by disconnecting their iron...
Sir Lanzelot