Diplo for MIA

[Admiral Kutzov]

They're stalling. i don't know why, but they're stalling.

 

[Sir Bugsy]

I'm sure a fifty turn peace might be cutting into their long range plans. They are probably trying to figure out what they are going to do.

 

[scoutsout]

I'm sure a fifty turn peace might be cutting into their long range plans. They are probably trying to figure out what they are going to do.

Let 'em scheme. By the time they figure us out... it will be too late. In 4 turns we start our Golden Age, and we are already #1 in MFG, and nip-and-tuck with MIA in GNP.

 

[Tubby Rower]

FYI to the MIA Diplomats...

There is a settler 1 tile west of Flaxon Musk that looks ominous. I would seek an explanation before that settler is planted

 

[scoutsout]

If the settler crosses the proposed "Green Line", I will assume it is a prelude to war, and will pull our troops from their staging positions on the northwest coast.

I shall also begin "beating plowshares into swords" in earnest; shutting down the treasury part of our research if need be.

As for the last remaining wines, it shouldn't be a problem. I have a settler in a galley that can move there next turn.

 

[scoutsout]

Sorry for the double-post... but I took another look at the save. The MIA settler pair is East of Flaxon Musk, on an unroaded Jungle tile. I bet they're heading for the fish.

 

[Tubby Rower]

oh yeah I'm dyslexic with east and west. I always think one and type another. Sorry. I'm an idiot.

 

[scoutsout]

On this worker trading thing... this is what I sent to the admins:

I would like to pose a rules question to you. We have been entertaining thoughts of worker trading with Team MIA and/or Team Doughnut. These would be straight up worker-for-worker trades.

I'll be blunt: We've got a lot of jungle to hack. We would like to mitigate unit support costs by trading workers with other civs. Though slave workers are less efficient, they are maintenance free.

To me, this doesn't feel like an exploit, as each worker would still cost us a pop point and ten shields... and the slave workers are (after all) less efficient.

Thoughts? Comments? Do I need to request a "ruling" or anything?

(Copy to Whomp... for his info...)

Thanks in advance/best regards/etc.,
scoutsout

Here is the reply I received from RegentMan

To me, this is an exploit. You're getting free workers while the other teams are forced to pay for their own. Regardless of their speed or cost to your civ, you're still saving what will add up to a massive amount of gold.

Workers are meant to be either captured in war or given as a trade item in a trade, not to replace each other in the hopes of saving gold.

I disagree with some of the points raised by RegentMan.

• First, the workers would not be "free", they would still cost the production of ten shields, one population point, and at least one turn of production in a city. A worker must be produced before it can be traded; and there is a cost associated with that production.
• Second, not all of the other teams would be forced to "pay for their own" workers. Any team that traded workers with us would receive a similar benefit.
• Finally, I don't see the difference between buying a worker for a lump sum of gold and trading a worker for a worker. A trade is a trade.

Please Note: I have not posted this as any form of protest, or any form of appeal. I have posted it simply to voice my opinion to my teammates. If any teammate wishes to discuss this matter with the Admins, be my guest. I have voiced my opinion, but do not intend to press the matter with the Admins.

 

[gmaharriet]

I have posted it simply to voice my opinion to my teammates.

As usual, Scout, you're thinking outside the box. I'll bet the question has never been posed before. Your reasoning seems sound, and just maybe the admins will rethink the matter. It's certainly an advantage which could be available to any of the teams if they chose to do so and, therefore, not a cheat that would benefit only us.

 

[Kickbooti]

I don't see a problem with it. In fact, I think that in general it approxomates the real world.

When I lived in Chicago there were Mexican gardners, Irish contractors, Russian cab-drivers, Korean cleaners, Indian store owners. I can only assume that the reason they were there is becuase their home country couldn't 'support' them; that they came to the US, which in turn paid a sum of 'gold' for their work - a portion of which went to family in their country of origin - while these workers developed businesses that enriched the communities they were working in. I can't see the difference (or objection).

The only difference that I see between Scout's proposal and my real-world observation is that all the above examples were far from inefficient in their feild of expertise.

 

[Admiral Kutzov]

Originally Posted by RegentMan
To me, this is an exploit. You're getting free workers while the other teams are forced to pay for their own. Regardless of their speed or cost to your civ, you're still saving what will add up to a massive amount of gold.

Workers are meant to be either captured in war or given as a trade item in a trade, not to replace each other in the hopes of saving gold.

like scout, I'm not going to argue with the admins. having said that, I agree with

First, the workers would not be "free", they would still cost the production of ten shields, one population point, and at least one turn of production in a city. A worker must be produced before it can be traded; and there is a cost associated with that production.
Second, not all of the other teams would be forced to "pay for their own" workers. Any team that traded workers with us would receive a similar benefit.
Finally, I don't see the difference between buying a worker for a lump sum of gold and trading a worker for a worker. A trade is a trade.

if the other civs are too stupid to see the benefit, ce la vie. It feels like we're being "dumbed down" so the others can keep up.

how's that for an ironic post ?

 

[Tubby Rower]

If the admins are reading this, then PLEASE treat my post as a protest to reconsider.....

There are issues such as say "jumping a palace" that a team could benefit from but, not all teams have done such. Does that mean that the palace jumping team, replace their original palace location? No. The ability to trade slaves is a function of the game.

We are treating our slaves as payment for their slaves. Do you really think that paying 120G for an AI slave is worth the price? It's a trade that's always available in a SP game. But the slave is worth much more than 120G. Any good player knows that.

RegentMan, Ginger_Ale, If you have not responded to this post in a day or so, I'll formally send you a PM. But I presume that you are reading this so, I decided to allow debate to be in the open since I'll just c&p your response here.

 

[Whomp]

You're getting free workers while the other teams are forced to pay for their own.

Nothing's for free. The other teams are getting our free workers in exchange for their free workers.

Both teams benefit from lowering costs but accept the downside of reduced worker efficiency. Where's the exploit?

 

[scoutsout]

@Whomp: What's the latest in the negotiations with MIA? They've got a settler pair headed for the coast. It's probably too late to do anything about it.... I settle Nincompoopi city on the advice of a player...opting out of the chance to make a site down there.

We are two turns from having 8 Gallic Swords outside Carpetbomb. We really need the diplomats here...

 

[Daghdha]

@Scout
The negotiations with MIA is Right Here, and I believe fe3333au is waiting for our clarifications on the points noted. I'd love to drive this baby home but I haven't updated myself on all the tile picking stuff and do not know which of the maps and lines we're discussing. I've totally stayed out of this I'm afraid. I understood your following post as if you would do the clarifications needed and then ship it. This Idiot gives you free hands to close the deal as you see fit, as long as it is done in time . The spice/fish tile may be important, but not important enough to ruin our chance to TNT before they have muskets.

 

[Tubby Rower]

Agreed... sign peace even if giving up spices is needed to be done. They already have one spice.

oh and scout, it's Furbomb. Carpetbomb is the old TNT capital that has been destroyed twice (once by TNT and once by D'nut). Maybe we could jump in on that action!!

 

[Whomp]

Fe sounds like he is having serious problems with his allergies again since he asked for a week hiatus in GMA01. I will pm a few of the MIA'ers to see where we are at and whether we can finalize the document.

 

[Whomp]

As anarchists, we need to figure out how to take advantage of these stinkin' democracies. Vote schmote.

We apologize for the delay. Feaurius' illness has left the Foreign Offices temporarily in disarray. Although nothing has been finalized yet, I will tell you that it looks as if a consensus is forming around your proposal 2 with some minor clarifications.

In Feaurius' absence, we have hired 1000 monkeys to bang away at 1000 keyboards in the expectation that one of them will soon produce something that Feaurius will find acceptable to sign and forward to you ASAP.

Chamnix

 

[Tubby Rower]

tell them that we need an answer by our next turn... enough delays!!!!

 

[gmaharriet]

tell them that we need an answer by our next turn...

or else!.....what???