Amendment clarifying Article C

[DaveShack]

It's high time we fix Article C, since common sense interpretation of its meaning is not possible in the current environment.

Current text:

Article C. Game Structure
No more than 5 cities built by Fanatikos may exist at any time. In addition, only one city from each foreign civilization may be taken by any means. All other cities that we gain must be razed immediately.
​

Proposed new text:

Article C. Game Structure
No more than 5 cities built by Fanatikos may exist at any timethe end of a turn. In addition, only one city from each foreign civilization may be taken by any means may be held by Fanatikos at the end of a turn. Any other cities beyond the limits stated in this article must be razed immediately or abandoned prior to the end of the turn. New cities may be built or acquired during a turn or between turns as long as enough cities are abandoned prior to the end of the turn to comply with the limits stated in this article.
​

Proposed new text without formatting:

Article C. Game Structure
No more than 5 cities built by Fanatikos may exist at the end of a turn. In addition, only one city from each foreign civilization taken by any means may be held by Fanatikos at the end of a turn. Any other cities beyond the limits stated in this article must be razed immediately or abandoned prior to the end of the turn. New cities may be built or acquired during a turn or between turns as long as enough cities are abandoned prior to the end of the turn to comply with the limits stated in this article.
​

Reasons for supporting this change

1. The proposed change conforms to the traditional definition of 5BC which is normally used in succession games.
2. The held at the end of a turn language eliminates any need for judicial interpretation.
3. The mechanism of culture flipping as interpreted by the current judiciary does not give us any in-game advantage. Not being able to accept and then abandon a city flipping to us negates smart play on our part in pushing for cultural advantages on our borders.
4. The rule as currently interpreted makes conquest of another continent inordinately difficult. Such a conquest would logically comprise establishing a beachhead via capture of a foreign city, staging troops, and then striking and capturing our real objective and abandoning the beachhead. Furthermore if a MGL results from overseas conflict, the ability to create an on-continent army is much more realistic than having to ship the leader home. These obvious and usually necessary tactics are eliminated by the rule as written.

edit If this proposed amendment passes, it does not mean we necessarily will employ any of the game tactics which the amendment would allow. Making us use these tactics is not the purpose of the amendment. The purpose of changing the law is to avoid unnecessary and ill-advised mis-interpretation of what should be a simple and straightforward rule.

 

[Nobody]

i agree with this new law

 

[Cyc]

Looks good to me, too. Very good.

 

[Ginger_Ale]

Sorry, part of this is good, part is bad.

The section mentioning we can BUILD cities in the turn to abandon later (as military staging points, to infringe on other civs, etc.) in the turn goes against our variant.

5 Built Cities

I interpret this as saying we can have 5 cities that we have BUILT. Period. Clearly, this law is going against this.

Change "New cities may be built or acquired during a turn" to "Foreign cities may be acquired during a turn" and I am with it 100%.

 

[Black_Hole]

This changes 5BC to passive 5BC... I believe we decided against this in pre game(or maybe it wasn't brought up...)
I don't like the idea of us being able to disband cities by the end of a turn for them not to be included in our alotted amount

 

[greekguy]

This changes 5BC to passive 5BC... I believe we decided against this in pre game(or maybe it wasn't brought up...)
I don't like the idea of us being able to disband cities by the end of a turn for them not to be included in our alotted amount

ditto to that. i don't think we should be allowed to build more than 5 cities. period. we have built 5 cities, so no more settlers should be produced by our nation.

 

[ravensfire]

Sorry, part of this is good, part is bad.

The section mentioning we can BUILD cities in the turn to abandon later (as military staging points, to infringe on other civs, etc.) in the turn goes against our variant.

5 Built Cities

I interpret this as saying we can have 5 cities that we have BUILT. Period. Clearly, this law is going against this.

Change "New cities may be built or acquired during a turn" to "Foreign cities may be acquired during a turn" and I am with it 100%.

No issues with this revision.

I would not have supported the original, still thinking about these changes.

-- Ravensfire

 

[DaveShack]

OK, I'm in a hurry to get this done before peace with Germany, for a reason which should be obvious once you stop and think about the normal peace process.

In the interest of speeding this along with a minimum of disagreement, I will reluctantly adopt the citizen input without further discussion on that point.

Proposed poll:

Do you approve this amendment to Article C of the Constitution?
Yes/No/Abstain

Note: New text is provided both with and without formatting. The "unformatted" version is the one to be included in the Constitution. The "formatted" version is provided for your reference only and is not binding. Any disagreement between the formatted and unformatted version is incidental and does not affect amendment passage.

Current text:

Article C. Game Structure
No more than 5 cities built by Fanatikos may exist at any time. In addition, only one city from each foreign civilization may be taken by any means. All other cities that we gain must be razed immediately.
​

Proposed new text without formatting (official copy):

Article C. Game Structure
No more than 5 cities built by Fanatikos may exist at any time. In addition, only one city from each foreign civilization taken by any means may be held by Fanatikos at the end of a turn. Any other cities beyond the limits stated in this article must be razed immediately or abandoned prior to the end of the turn. Foreign cities may be acquired during a turn or between turns as long as enough cities are abandoned prior to the end of the turn to comply with the limits stated in this article.
​

Proposed new text (non-binding copy, provided for reference only):

Article C. Game Structure
No more than 5 cities built by Fanatikos may exist at any time. In addition, only one city from each foreign civilization may be taken by any means may be held by Fanatikos at the end of a turn. Any other cities beyond the limits stated in this article must be razed immediately or abandoned prior to the end of the turn. Foreign cities may be acquired during a turn or between turns as long as enough cities are abandoned prior to the end of the turn to comply with the limits stated in this article.
​

 

[Strider]

We change this law for what point or purpose? To cover the lies and misguided failures shown to us inside of the pre-game? 5BC has failed, when it was proposed, it was said that it would add challange to the game. Look at where we stand, is this challanging?! No, once again we are preying on the weak.

This game is won, we might as well drop it now. It has been won faster than almost any other DG in history, and they say that it was suppose to be the most challanging? No, let us have our last rays of excitement. We are destined to win, this law will only drag it on longer. Let's abolish it, erase this inanimate reminder of failure.

I propose we remove Article C. from the constitution. It does nothing but hold us down. We are ordained to win this game, excepting some sadistic idoicy. This law does nothing to stop that, and it serves to just to torture us longer.

In retrospect, is this not what was predetermined?

 

[Donovan Zoi]

I vehemently disagree with the spirit of this amendment. Basically what we would be stating is that we could welcome refugees from another nation, only to destroy them once they have become Fanatik citizens.

Did you hear that last part? The law sponsored by DaveShack will allow the the opportunity to slaughter Fanatik citizens! There is no way I will ever support an amendment that presents this abhorrent practice as an option.

NOTE: There will be some that will notice the similarity in my stance to that of my game-ending defense of the people of Gordium, who were about have all cultural buildings razed immediately after joining our empire. I am sorry folks, but once we accept foreign citizens as our own, we have no choice but to treat them properly.

 

[vikingruler]

I'm for it 100%. This gives us the oppurtunity to legally achieve any victory conditions.

 

[greekguy]

I'm for it 100%. This gives us the oppurtunity to legally achieve any victory conditions.

really, you can win Domination by extorting cities in peace deals and then immediatley razing them?

 

[Black_Hole]

I vehemently disagree with the spirit of this amendment. Basically what we would be stating is that we could welcome refugees from another nation, only to destroy them once they have become Fanatik citizens.

Did you hear that last part? The law sponsored by DaveShack will allow the the opportunity to slaughter Fanatik citizens! There is no way I will ever support an amendment that presents this abhorrent practice as an option.

NOTE: There will be some that will notice the similarity in my stance to that of my game-ending defense of the people of Gordium, who were about have all cultural buildings razed immediately after joining our empire. I am sorry folks, but once we accept foreign citizens as our own, we have no choice but to treat them properly.

I fully agree, the slaughtering of Fanatik citizens is never just
Is is no fair to the foreign citizens, when we accept them into our culture then immedidiatly kill them

 

[Bootstoots]

I'm for it 100%. This gives us the oppurtunity to legally achieve any victory conditions.

I guess you could theoretically get enough cities in a single IBT to win domination. But in practice, that's absurd. Culture, conquest, space race, diplomatic, and histograph are all certainly possible with the variant as it is now. So what victory condition would that enable again?

As for this amendment, I'm on the fence. On one hand, I want us to be challenged as much as possible by this variant, and I dislike the idea of taking cities and then burning them to the ground for our own benefit. On the other hand, this would be a significant in-game advantage to us.

 

[RegentMan]

I am against this amendment. We started this game playing with only five built cities and one captured city from each rival power, not capture as many as we can and raze select ones at the end of the turn.

 

[DaveShack]

I repeat again, the primary effect of the amendment is merely to make it possible to accept cities in peace deals and culture flips, and change our holdings. Maybe we'll never need it, but if we do need it, it will be an urgent need. Five words say it all -- saltpeter, coal, oil, aluminum, uranium. If we end up short of one of these resources and unable to trade for it, with the amendment we will be able to choose a common sense resolution to an actual problem, and without the amendment we may have no way to solve the problem.

Still, I admire those who disagree with it on principles, like DZ.

 

[Bootstoots]

I repeat again, the primary effect of the amendment is merely to make it possible to accept cities in peace deals and culture flips, and change our holdings. Maybe we'll never need it, but if we do need it, it will be an urgent need. Five words say it all -- saltpeter, coal, oil, aluminum, uranium. If we end up short of one of these resources and unable to trade for it, with the amendment we will be able to choose a common sense resolution to an actual problem, and without the amendment we may have no way to solve the problem.

Still, I admire those who disagree with it on principles, like DZ.

How exactly will the ability to take a city and disband it immediately give us those resources for any longer than a single turn?

Edit: Never mind, I see your point. But what's wrong with colonies?

 

[greekguy]

I'm for it 100%. This gives us the oppurtunity to legally achieve any victory conditions.

greekguy didn't say that ^.

 

[DaveShack]

Edit: Never mind, I see your point. But what's wrong with colonies?

That's where accepting a city for peace comes in -- the land has to be cleared before we can use a colony there. Why not just raze it ourselves? Because low unit support may leave us on a shoestring budget where we don't have enough units to go gallavanting all over enemy territory, especially if the resource town is on the other side of their continent. Just have a galley with a worker and a defender handy...

It's all in the land of maybe right now... I'm trying to make reasonable moves possible, in the event we do end up needing them.

 

[Bootstoots]

The poll on this issue is now open.