Proposed Rule Set

[Theoden]

2.1 -- Renaming Cities
Naming or renaming cities for trickery is forbidden.
ex: Naming a city something that can be confused with something else, such as "8 Gold" or "Theology", is not allowed.

This rule seems for me to be redundant, since it says "city of xxx" rather than just "xxx" on the trade screen.

 

[Viva_Chingon]

I think Dave already kinda got at the fact that's what the wait vote is for...in case a team needs to take a little longer for whatever reason. The request is put to a vote and if anyone agrees with them they get an extra day (+) to prepare.

Makes sense, yeah?

 

[remake20]

Yeah. I just hadn't read all the rules yet when I posted.

 

[General_W]

This rule [2.1] seems for me to be redundant, since it says "city of xxx" rather than just "xxx" on the trade screen.

Does it display that way in Multiplayer?

I've honestly never offered (or received) a city in multiplayer - but it was my understanding that once it drops into the "lower-middle" window, it isn't clear.

If you can confirm this, we can just delete that rule!

I'll put this up for a vote in a new thread in about 6 hours if there's no further comments or suggestions?

 

[dutchfire]

Does it display that way in Multiplayer?

I've honestly never offered (or received) a city in multiplayer - but it was my understanding that once it drops into the "lower-middle" window, it isn't clear.

If you can confirm this, we can just delete that rule!

I'll put this up for a vote in a new thread in about 6 hours if there's no further comments or suggestions?

It was changed in BtS IIRC. It also works in single player.

 

[General_W]

ok - awesome.
Thanks Dutchfire!

I'll strip that out when I post this for a formal vote.

I think it makes sense to have the Ruleset be voted on by individuals, rather than teams. After all, every individual person has to abide by them. Right?

 

[Viva_Chingon]

That makes sense to me.

 

[Empiremaker]

3.4 – City Gifting
Gifting a city to an ally when it is about to be taken in war, or to somehow gain an advantage is prohibited. Gifting cities are only allowed as gifts of goodwill and should not be abused to deny right of conquest or to keep a civilization alive indefinitely and out of the hands of an aggressor.

I think that gifting a city to keep a team alive is fine because it is an act of goodwill. The diplomatic repercussions should be punishment enough, but gifting a city to prevent its conquest may be more like an exploit.

 

[General_W]

@Empiremaker - I think in some situations what you describe could be ok - but if the Aggressor Civ is suffering a high level of War Weariness, then keeping the Defender Civ (that should have been eliminated) alive by gifting far-away cities is a pretty bitter pill to swallow.

I think this rule should stand - but if all the Civilizations involved agreed to let it happen, then it would be fine.
For example - the Defender Civ who is about to be eliminated could offer to go back to peace and completely abandon their old cities in exchange for a fresh start in a new location thanks to the generosity of some 3rd party Civ willing to give up a city.

But this kind of arrangement would NOT violate rule 3.4 as it is currently written anyway. (because the city swap would not be keeping a civ alive "indefinitely" and "out of the hands of the aggressor" because peace is being reinstated.)

So that was a long way of saying that I think the rule should stay, because it still allows for a team to stay alive - but prevents the abuse of War Weariness.

 

[DaveShack]

We can get the WW problem without gifted cities, in the case of a defender with an offshore city. If we're really worried about that part, then we need to bring back the rule that says a civ must make peace if N turns pass with no reasonable possibility of military action.

Doesn't WW subside if there is a prolonged period with no actual battle?

 

[General_W]

We can get the WW problem without gifted cities, in the case of a defender with an offshore city. If we're really worried about that part, then we need to bring back the rule that says a civ must make peace if N turns pass with no reasonable possibility of military action.

Doesn't WW subside if there is a prolonged period with no actual battle?

That's true - but kinda misses the point, imo.
It's one thing to have a protracted war because your enemy has taken steps (such as building an off-shore island fortress city) - it's another thing totally to be stuck with the prospect of continually chasing an enemy around the world as they get new cities in new locations at the hands of a foreign power looking to spite you.

Sure you could ignore it and wait for the WW to subside - I'm just arguing that this tactic seems a bit cheap somehow.

I'm not above employing it if it's legal mind you - I just think it might add to the fun/realism element to have it banned.

If the majority thing this sort of tactic is fair game - it won't deter me from wanting to play!

 

[Conroe]

Considering what happened last game, I surprised that there is no rule governing the procedure should a new patch be released. There really should be some sort of provision, such as after x number of turns the save gets automatically upgraded to the current patch.


Edit: Oops! Looks like I'm a day late. The vote has already started.

 

[oyzar]

If vassal states are on we really need some rules to avoid the abuse of them...

 

[General_W]

@Conroe - I guess I was kinda assuming that BtS has been out long enough that we won't see any more significant patches.

But if it does come up - don't you think a team vote on patching is probably the best way to handle something as unknown as what might change in a patch?

@Oyzar - like what kind of abuses? I can't think of a reason any team would agree to become a vassal state? Remember, there's no AI in this game.

 

[oyzar]

It can still cause false peace with the people at war with the vassal hence ejecting the units from the vassal borders.

 

[cIV_khanh93]

What if we make a rule saying that all vasslage must happen through capitulation? Capitulation can't be broken by either party, but the vassal is free when he reaches certain land/population threshholds.
Also, I think that cities can be gifted except when an enemy is within its borders, but a city cannot be regifted to its original gifter. We'd need to keep track of city gifts, but a simple thred should take care of that.
Why the restrictions on naval gifts? not aware of the related exploit.

 

[HUSch]

There was an exploit in vanilla.
civ1 are in war with civ2 and have open Borders with civ3, now there are Units of civ2 on a ship of civ3; then the ship goes in the city of civ1 and civ2 has captured the city.