grant2004 said:
I disagree with this strongly. I don't think any one team serves to benefit from this more than others. You don't know what our plans with the economy are, as much as you'd like to speculate. You don't know what other teams are planning for their economies. Even if there were only a handful of espionage economies in the game, any economic model will allow you to build sufficient spies to attack resources if you so choose.
Except "any economic model" will not be effective with those spies used against an ESP economy as the ratio of total ESP spent by both teams is a very major component of the likelihood of success, detection, and the cost of the missions. And, didn't Sommers warn you I was as prescient as I am verbose?
I think it's strange that you're questioning "the specific removal of this limitation" when no such limitation exists in the base game.
Look back in the thread to Lord Parkin's previous rulesets. I mean, come on, both you and Talonschild both commented on that,
you specifically commented on the rule in question. Can't you guys put 2 and 2 together on this to figure out what I meant?
Anyway, the rule can be enforced easily. You just say
"you cannot sabotage/bombard an improvement that was added on the current/last turn (depending on order)". It doesn't matter if your team or another sabotaged it before. Easy fix... if you're actually trying to fix it
Or "IMPOSSIBLE" as
you insist.
And now comes the complaining that we're damaging a "hypothetical planned economy that was in no way an espionage economy by altering rules"
Well, I believe Parkin's ruleset was already out in public view well before CFC picked its picks, so there's that. Hardly "locked up in his head".
DaveShack, with an ESP ratio of like 100:1, the espionage economy civ is never going to get a spy caught basically.