Ruleset Vote!

[AutomatedTeller]

I think you make a good point, PurpleTurtle, but I think that such a transfer wouldn't disallowed.

I think a better parallel would be if Denmark gave Copenhagen to the US with Germany at the door. Iceland and Greenland were never really threatened with invasion by Germany and if Denmark hadn't given them over, iceland in particular would almost certainly have been invaded by the british anyway, to keep it out of German hands.

Or perhaps I'm misreading the rule - let me ask this:

Say canada is taking over the US with an army of caribou, but has no navy outside the great lakes. Would it be invalid for the US (under this ruleset) to give Hawaii to Japan for safekeeping? It would certainly be invalid for the US to give MA to the English (they might pay rent in tea)

 

[oyzar]

I think you make a good point, PurpleTurtle, but I think that such a transfer wouldn't disallowed.

I think a better parallel would be if Denmark gave Copenhagen to the US with Germany at the door. Iceland and Greenland were never really threatened with invasion by Germany and if Denmark hadn't given them over, iceland in particular would almost certainly have been invaded by the british anyway, to keep it out of German hands.

Or perhaps I'm misreading the rule - let me ask this:

Say canada is taking over the US with an army of caribou, but has no navy outside the great lakes. Would it be invalid for the US (under this ruleset) to give Hawaii to Japan for safekeeping? It would certainly be invalid for the US to give MA to the English (they might pay rent in tea)

So if Denmark gave copenhagen to the US it would make the germany troops have to go back to germany before they could attack the city? That doesn't make much sense now does it(that is what the game mechanics does).

@ PurpleTurtle: Why don't you participate in the discussion in the team forum or respond to my PM's?

 

[Lord Neil]

I am unsure about the city rule as well. I agree that swapping a city to bump units out of the radius is an exploit but what if there were no units inside the borders? In that case I believe that it would be an allowed strategy when faced with human opponents who can reason with each other and understand the risks of accepting cities that would be in the way of a conquest.

 

[PurpleTurtle]

I can happily accept the explanation that this discussion has occurred before and that is why this approach is being taken. My point however, was simply that this hasn't been brought to the attention of those new this. I wasn't a participant in the previous game and thus had no way of knowing. Additionally, I wasn't offered any alternatives to the rules I was asked to vote on. This suggests that these rules are open for discussion and that it was anticipated that there would changes made. If the rules in the last game worked to everyone's satisfaction, why vote at all this time? I would have made no complaint if they had just been offered to me as the rules. That said, I appreciate that everyone has been so polite and that it was possible for me to relatively gracefully discover a satisfying answer.


*edit* Oh, I would like to point out that when I voted and laid out my complaint that 15 of the 22 had already voted, and given that I just read the rules and voted without looking at what was being said in the forum about them first, I am willing to bet the other 7 did as well.

 

[oyzar]

I am unsure about the city rule as well. I agree that swapping a city to bump units out of the radius is an exploit but what if there were no units inside the borders? In that case I believe that it would be an allowed strategy when faced with human opponents who can reason with each other and understand the risks of accepting cities that would be in the way of a conquest.

If you read the rules carefully you will notice that there is nothing probhiting this...

 

[AutomatedTeller]

So if Denmark gave copenhagen to the US it would make the germany troops have to go back to germany before they could attack the city? That doesn't make much sense now does it(that is what the game mechanics does).

@ PurpleTurtle: Why don't you participate in the discussion in the team forum or respond to my PM's?

I guess I didn't write my post clearly.

I was saying that this was precisely what the rule is designed to prevent, because it is gamey and that actions like turning over more distant possessions (like, in this case, Iceland) would be ok.

 

[cIV_khanh93]

what's with the naval units deal?

 

[DaveShack]

what's with the naval units deal?

It dealt with a war exploit involving boats and neutral units. At one point there was a bug where having a neutral unit on a boat allowed the boat to enter an opponent's city. The game code considered having a hostile unit in the city to mean the city was captured, even if it wasn't a type of unit which should be able to capture. Or perhaps it was an aggressor unit in a neutral boat...

I'm pretty sure the bug was fixed, but the proposed rule is still there just in case.

 

[cIV_khanh93]

where is our necessary and proper clause?

 

[DaveShack]

where is our necessary and proper clause?

What's that?

 

[oyzar]

where is our necessary and proper clause?

It is in clause 4.3 .

 

[Niklas]

Something that came up during a discussion that I'm surprised isn't in the rules (maybe it's so obvious) - shouldn't there be a clause that disallows any diplomacy (or other forms of strategizing) between teams before they meet ingame?

 

[Krill]

Probably. I'm also suprised by the no screenshots allowed before paper rule. It was tried before and universally panned in the C3C ISDG, but if it's already been decided it's for the best by you guys...

 

[Niklas]

That rule worked fine for the Civ3 MTDG, why wouldn't it work here?

 

[oyzar]

I personally hate that rule, but i can see it working...

 

[Krill]

That rule worked fine for the Civ3 MTDG, why wouldn't it work here?

The C3C ISDG had 2 circular continents with 3 teams on each, so the borders between each team was going to be very long. Now, without screenshots you can easily say stuff like "from this tile xxy from this mountain south east 30 tiles". But really, how often do you get straight lines in CIV...it's alot easier to just send a cropped sceenshot of both lands noting borders and proposed city locations and eases diplomacy. So all that rule does is make it harder to accomplice border treaties and, maybe, co-ordinate units, and nothing more.

 

[peter grimes]

I personally hate that rule, but i can see it working...

To which rule are you referring? The Screenshots w/ Paper rule, or the No Out Of Game Contact Until In Game Contact rule?

I think it's fairly obvious that we should be contacting the other teams before we meet in-game. For that matter, we could get the admins to keep the teams' email addresses in escrow until in-game contact.

 

[Krill]

I think it's fairly obvious that we should be contacting the other teams before we meet in-game. For that matter, we could get the admins to keep the teams' email addresses in escrow until in-game contact.

Don't you mean "We should not"?

 

[Niklas]

I think it's fairly obvious that we should be contacting the other teams before we meet in-game. For that matter, we could get the admins to keep the teams' email addresses in escrow until in-game contact.

I guess you left out a negation there somewhere.

Krill, I believe that by previous precedent it *is* ok to send screenshots if they only show things that the other civ can already see. The point of the rule is to disallow "Map trading" before Paper, not to get in the way of other kinds of communication. Someone feel free to smack my fingers there though.

 

[DaveShack]

I think there might be a "not" missing there somewhere.

Edit: wow, it's pretty active today, two people replied while I wrote that sentence!