Another Civ III MTDG?

[peter grimes]

Are you raising your hand, Fe?

I think the issue of admin appointments came up because people thought that Ginger Ale and Regent_Man might like to play. If both are willing to administer a second game, then we can proceed to the next step.

I may be jumping the gun here, but I'd like to hear other people's opinions on a couple of Ruleset issues from the last game.

There were two elements of the Ruleset that I found curious. For all I know, we are better off with them, than without them; but I wonder what other people think.

0.3.3 - Spoiler Info

Description: Upon joining a new team, you are not allowed to give out spoiler info to your new team that the new team you are on would not know about if you had not joined. If you have to give out spoiler info to prove your case, then do not post / vote in the thread.

This actually worked smoothly with the refugees to MIA, but it seemed to me that the exTNT folk should have been allowed to share anything they wanted - at least, from their own memory. I don't think that it would have ruined the game experience, and it may have even spiced up the 'recruitment' aspect of things. So, even while being overwhelmed by enemies, TNT citizens would have been wooed by the three remaining teams, for the more active members had heads full of valuable intel.

1.8 Enjoining Teams

Description: No team or individual is permitted to barter, gift, or otherwise trade multiple cities with the intent of joining teams to destroy another team and keep both teams alive to survive to the end. If a team decides to drop out however, its players are allowed to change teams as permitted under Section 0.3.

Definition: A team trading one or more cities to another team for the purpose of either granting that team an advantage (premature contact with another civ, map information, etc.), or denying an aggressor the right of conquest.

It bothered me that KISS wasn't allowed to trade / gifts its cities to DNUTs. It seems to me that gifting cities in that way is simply the corollary of MIA funding TNT in their fight against KISS. Why is one allowed and the other not? I'd like to know more about the past experiences that have led to the creation of this rule, as it seems to me to be an unnecessary infringement on a team's options of actions.

Again, if this is premature, I apologize

 

[fe3333au]

No not me buddy ... I'm not the heavy leader type

Regarding first rule
... I also think is should be modified ... as long as the defeated teams forums become locked then it would be OK ... it would also add spice to future diplomatic encounters

Second Rule
... difficult one, I can see the pros and cons ... perhaps it could go to a vote at some stage.
What concerns me is if you are about to take a city and then it suddenly swaps hands ... and I don't want a situation where cities can be swapped and then given back just to reveal the map.

 

[Ginger_Ale]

I would rewrite the ruleset, or at least heavily modify it. It was too vague and the punishment system was very awkward.

 

[Whomp]

I have a small problem with the spoiler info. There were two occassions when I had spoiler info. Once when Provolution posted detailed TNT battle plans for Donut in the UN thread and the second time was when MIA sent TNT a inadvertent email that detailed their builds along with the 30 knights that were due to upgrade. BCLG showed me this information and if we were able to use this information it could have created a much bigger problem for MIA. We did not say a peep in the KISS threads.

As far as team captains go I will volunteer to be one. I know a lot of the players.

 

[Chamnix]

MIA sent TNT a inadvertent email that detailed their builds along with the 30 knights that were due to upgrade

Do you have a copy of this or the date it was sent or where it came from (was it our gmail or some other email)? I had no idea such a thing even happened, and I'm kind of curious about how it did.

 

[greekguy]

i agree with peter, refugees should be able to tell their new teams whatever they remember from memory. there was so much i wanted to tell MIA, but i had to keep my mouth shut.

also, concerning team captains (since i think that's the way people are leaning now), how about these for the 5 captains:

Whomp (since he volunteered)
Chamnix
Robi_D
Tubby Rower
someone from TNT (myself, donsig, or BCLG)

that should lead to some interesting teams if those captains get to pick their teams.

 

[Whomp]

Do you have a copy of this or the date it was sent or where it came from (was it our gmail or some other email)? I had no idea such a thing even happened, and I'm kind of curious about how it did.

I believe it was sent from Gen W's email to TNT with pictures. It was the turn TNT was eliminated and BCLG was joining KISS. He showed them to me. I looked and immediately felt it was way too much information. I asked GA and RM and they agreed.

So if we change the rules I assume this would have been completely legal for me to know. Just a fyi.

 

[RegentMan]

I'm also okay with admining again.

 

[lost_civantares]

Do you have a copy of this or the date it was sent or where it came from (was it our gmail or some other email)? I had no idea such a thing even happened, and I'm kind of curious about how it did.

I think BCLG100 was talking about this.

 

[killercane]

To echo Fe and Peter Grimes' sentiments, perhaps the ruleset could allow for putting penalties in interteam contracts (the Simpsons Protocols or Green Alliance) for breaking the contract. That way, if a team were to trade technologies such as we did, and the admins agreed, the penalty would be easy to enforce as it is written into the contract signed by both teams. Teams would know the penalties with breaking such a contract, and would be less likely to deal unfairly. The admins would be the ultimate arbiters for the enforcement.

 

[Vind2]

Maybe to some extent, But breaking treaties is always fun

 

[peter grimes]

Fun or not, breaking a treaty should always remain an integral component of the diplomatic operating space... in other words - Game Administrators should not be enlisted to enforce Treaties or Agreements. Consequences of breaking a deal should not be litigated; the consequences are only real, and have verifiable force, if enacted in-game.

Don't misread me: I'm certainly not advocating a free-for-all, whereby any team may freely forsake its contractual obligations. Quite the opposite, actually! Trust is something that teams accrue in the game. Trust cannot be dictated by a game admin. That is a false god.

To echo Fe and Peter Grimes' sentiments, perhaps the ruleset could allow for putting penalties in interteam contracts (the Simpsons Protocols or Green Alliance) for breaking the contract. That way, if a team were to trade technologies such as we did, and the admins agreed, the penalty would be easy to enforce as it is written into the contract signed by both teams. Teams would know the penalties with breaking such a contract, and would be less likely to deal unfairly. The admins would be the ultimate arbiters for the enforcement.

I wouldn't oppose this. However, I think the best scenario is to leave the admins out of things as much as possible. On the other hand, if every treaty or trade had an admin penalty clause written in, that would certainly have a positive enforcement effect.


Yet, I'm still persuaded to think that each team is free to amend each agreement to make if admin-enforceable. Why not just leave it as that? Why bother to write a special rule when we are perfectly capable of doing so on our own?

 

[aluka]

I agree with Peter Grimes, there should be no penalty for breaking treaties from a party outside the game structure. Takes away from the fact that states have decided to break treaties countless of times in the past and it has been up to other states to punish them for it.

Then again I was only involved in the last game of the briefest of moments so I do not have the experience of the first game to draw upon in deciding what would make the next game more enjoyable.

 

[BCLG100]

I think BCLG100 was talking about this.

and people thought i couldnt keep a secret, i did check with RM whether i could use it or not-unfortunatly i showed whomp beforehand and yet we kept stum in the KISS forum about it, much to my annoyance

 

[Tubby Rower]

yeah we were pretty clueless the whole game

as far as me being a team captain... that would be fine although I'll need extensive help as fellow MP members of CDZ can atest

 

[Robi D]

I don't think having team captains is the best idea IMHO. Going from Greekguy's suggestion of captains, for example what happens if Chamnix picks BCLG but BCLG wants to be on Tubby's team. That just leads to people being unhappy and losing interest in the game.

If you look at the Civ4 MTDG it all worked out ok. Some people want to stay with the same group they were in this game others wanted to try the game with new people, plus on top of all that you had new people coming into the teams. AFAIK their have been no problems and everyone is happy.

Maybe they take things a little too seriously over at Apolyton but the civ3 MTDG was played in good spirits, sure there were a few flare up, but then most were more amusing than sinister and at the end of the day we all shook hands and congratulated each other. Considering all that i don't see any reason to change the current system. "if it ain't broke, why fix it"

 

[Tubby Rower]

I think that the idea of team captains was one more of the defacto leader of that team until a "government" is established

 

[Robi D]

I think that the idea of team captains was one more of the defacto leader of that team until a "government" is established

I might have misunderstood, but that would be fair enough, although i have to say i think there would be better people than me to lead a team, i mean who in their right mind would want to be on a team led by me

 

[Tubby Rower]

although i have to say i think there would be better people than me to lead a team, i mean who in their right mind would want to be on a team led by me

I was thinking the same about me... but at least one person thought that we'd be good.

 

[BCLG100]

Well someone mentioned my name..... did you all not notice the team i was playing died first?????