Ruleset Discussion

[Earthling]

Well, I thought the suggestion was something other than it was in the first place, and I really only see this as a minor point, cause almost every team will have the HE on their own anyway. Westpoint I won't be too worried over either. So no rules on unit gifting specifically is fine by me.

On the other hand though I would be against city gifting to abuse certain wonders. But we already have a rule on city gifting, so I don't see a need for a redundant rule.

 

[grant2004]

Yeah I guess you're right DS, unit gifting rules can't be enforced properly. However if we do believe that such tactics are in poor taste. I think a rule should be added on the honor system. I trust the people on these forums to play a fair game, as long as there are clear standards for what fair is. We need to agree if Heroic Epics and West Point should be built with such a strategy, or if we should require civs to wait for one of their own units to gain experience.

Rules on the transfer of certain wonders however are enforceable. It will be possible for a civ to notice such a transfer and any illegal use of it.

 

[nabaxo]

I don't get why you guys would want to ban HE and Westpoint unit gifting. How is it unfair compared to tech-alliances for instance?

 

[grant2004]

To be clear calling it HE/Westpoint unit gifting makes it sound like you're sending units produced with HE/Westpoint to another civ, when what we're talking about is sending highly experienced war veterans to a civ who hasn't fought sufficiently to gain an experienced unit themselves, so that 2nd civ can produce a HE/Westpoint for themselves.

I mention that because I misunderstood the issue because of the name given to it, and didn't think it was a big deal at first. Now that I understand what this practice is, I see it clearly as an exploit. Tech trading is part of the game, the game is designed with mechanisms to make it possible. The game has the requirement for a high experience unit specifically so that civs who have not fought sufficiently can not produce a HE or Westpoint. Gifting units to overcome this game mechanism is an exploit.

In case you don't see my reasoning, I'll point out that I did vote against tech trading as well, so even by the standards you've suggested, I'm not being inconsistent..

 

[nabaxo]

I understand perfectly what is meant and my question still applies. I personally think it is a natural part of a multiplayer game. When playing with other people you can agree to tech-alliances and other things like that, that's not a natural part of the single-player game.

 

[Irgy]

Well I'd prefer we decided whether it was on the honor system or not before we start, because there's nothing worse than having something on an unofficial honor system for some people but not for others. I'd suggest that unless and until we decide it is on the honor system it isn't, and if it isn't we shouldn't feel the least bit guilty about doing it, whether it's considered an 'exploit' by some or not.

If they ever patch this, I like the idea that the unit would have to be one you built, but also that you could build the HE with a unit that you built but gifted away to someone else. Not sure the code supports it, but inspiring tales of heroism in distant lands fits the theme a lot better than an imported veteran.

 

[Sommerswerd]

inspiring tales of heroism in distant lands fits the theme a lot better than an imported veteran.

Now that i think about it, it does not seem far fetched to me that the skilled veterans of say the French and Indian War finding themselves now fighting for the Americans in the American Revolutionary War would lend their experience and skills to the building of a military Academy like west Point... or that statues or epics depicting their heroic exploits as British soldiers during the previous war might be created in America. What is wrong with that?

Why does it seem like we consider everything an exploit that the AI doesent do, or dosent do properly? Everything that can be done that shows some human imagination and ingenuity is deemed an "exploit." Gosh we should just play against the AI, it never uses any of these "exploits", like pre-chopping wonders, or choke manuvers, or saving promotions for healing and/or until they become necessary or "slaving" Great Persons by starving out GP points with caste system. What cheaters and "exploit" abusers we all are .

 

[Sherlock613]

Regarding the gifting of highly experienced veterans, it's not an exploit.

@ Sommerswerd, Civ is not historically accurate, so that's not why I raised the issue either.


My problem with gifting units that allow building of the Heroic Epic is that the original person EARNED the unit. The player had to fight enough to gain those promotions. So, this player 'deserves' the advantage of the Heroic Epic for all the presumed damages and or/risks of war.

The receiving person did not have to earn the unit. Presumably, the receiver did not have to deal with a war, and so does not 'deserve' the advantage.

No need to get on a soapbox. This is just a very standard rule that I was surprised to see missing.

 

[nabaxo]

Why does it seem like we consider everything an exploit that the AI doesent do, or dosent do properly? Everything that can be done that shows some human imagination and ingenuity is deemed an "exploit."

I agree completely with this sentiment. We should not ban this stuff, we should instead come up with strategies to deal with it. This whole idea of all this being "unfair" is nothing but bullcrap imo.

Whether you "earn" or "deserve" is irrelevant. You earn it by having an ally, you deserve it by being diplomatic with the other teams. This is multiplayer.

 

[Sherlock613]

By that reasoning, let my ally gift me a city w/ Mausoleum so I can get 12 turn golden ages. This is multiplayer. Deal with it...

 

[DaveShack]

Doesn't it seem reasonable that by having great diplomatic relations with an ally you trust, you should reap all the benefits of that alliance?

 

[DaveMcW]

Voting Results

Ruleset - Yes
Maverick: Yes
AMAZON: Yes
Sirius: Yes
CDZ: Yes
Merlot:
Quatronia: Yes

Amendment 1: Sneaky Research Allowed - No
Maverick: No
AMAZON: No
Sirius: Tie
CDZ: Yes
Merlot: No
Quatronia: No

Amendment 2: No Espionage Civic Changes - No
Maverick: No
AMAZON: No
Sirius: No
CDZ: Yes
Merlot: Yes
Quatronia: Tie

 

[Robi D]

Not wishing to start another elongated philosophical discussion after a vote has taken place, but reading through the thread, LP's comments about the civic changing mission causing constant anarchy strike me as a little odd, because the anarchy is not caused by the mission but by changing them back to not be stuck with crap civics. Surely it would have been more efficient to stick with the crap civics then to constantly try to change them back and having to endure turns and turns of anarchy?

 

[Lord Parkin]

I hate crap civics. But either way, you lose out on a whole heap of research and/or production.

 

[Robi D]

I hate crap civics. But either way, you lose out on a whole heap of research and/or production.

Call me stupid but in that situation i be keeping the crap civics then going and changing my rivals civics to the same crap ones i have and make it a zero net gain for all concerned, since they would lose and equal amount of research/production.

 

[nabaxo]

By that reasoning, let my ally gift me a city w/ Mausoleum so I can get 12 turn golden ages. This is multiplayer. Deal with it...

Exactly! Now you're getting it! And by "deal with it" I mean coming up with counter strategies instead of bending over to take it while complaining about it.

Doesn't it seem reasonable that by having great diplomatic relations with an ally you trust, you should reap all the benefits of that alliance?

It seems perfectly reasonable to me.

 

[grant2004]

Doesn't it seem reasonable that by having great diplomatic relations with an ally you trust, you should reap all the benefits of that alliance?

There are plenty of ways for allies to cooperate without using broken mechanics. I thought this was a pretty clear cut case of subverting the intention of the game's design.

I'm surprised to see so much opposition to such a rule. Unfortunately I don't think we're going to sway each other on this. I'd love to see a vote on it to see how much support there is for such a measure, but the only way such a rule would be enforced would be by people recognizing that there is a large majority sees it as improper and agreeing not to do it. If such a majority does not exist, then I guess the rest of us should just get ready to exploit this mechanic as well.

 

[Earthling]

City gifiting already has rules on it though, and I doubt an admin would approve something to be exploitive - kicking units out of territory, wonder juggling etc... probably already are out with the current rule well enough anyway.

 

[Sommerswerd]

City gifiting already has rules on it though, and I doubt an admin would approve something to be exploitive - kicking units out of territory, wonder juggling etc... probably already are out with the current rule well enough anyway.

Agreed

 

[Indiansmoke]

Can the final ruleset be stickied in a new thread and all new ammendemnts updated there plz, so that we are clear on the rules?