Ruleset Discussion

[donsig]

I'm not so sure I even like the idea of refugees. If a team is eliminated what's wrong with restricting their posts to the UN (public treads) without placing restrictions on what they say. Anything they could contribute would be in the past anyway.

One big problem with the last game was the silly restrictions on trying to fool other teams. Deception is a big part of the game. If a team can fool another team than so be it.

 

[lost_civantares]

No, I definitely want to allow refugees in the game, potentially having new blood in the middle-end of the game gives the potential for a fresh start for the refugees, and for helping the people from the recieving team who otherwise might be getting board or simply need a break.

 

[Ginger_Ale]

Yeah, I think refugees are crucial to keeping a steady interest in this game. I think teams always could use more active participants.

I agree with letting deception and honor be up to the teams, not the admins, this game, as has been stated by many people in this thread.

 

[aluka]

Yes there should not be any "artificial" punishment for breaking treaties in the ruleset. Let it be handled between the teams through action (or inaction) in the way they interact.

 

[fe3333au]

Any thoughts about Gifting cities rules?

It has been raised in our forum.

I know that both KISS and MIA were frustrated by this in the previous game.

KISS wanted to allow Nuts access to the Green Continent and MIA wanted to gain the Lux city that was on the boarder of Nut territory ... however because of teams being at war it was disallowed.

 

[fe3333au]

I'm unsure as to the 2.3 Zoom Loading Rule ... is there any further information revealed if you get a 'zoomed view' save or if you get a normal view and 'zoom out' later

I understand that you can get additional city population info when zoomed out ... but as far as i know everyone did zoom out to grab and post screenies for their respective forums.

 

[gmaharriet]

I think this needs to be clarified then. How many is too many?

On workers...I think worker trades should be for something of value, like gold or a tech or even for a peace treaty. Trading 1 worker for 1 worker is the exploit...the only thing gained is the free maintenance.

 

[DaveShack]

I'm unsure as to the 2.3 Zoom Loading Rule ... is there any further information revealed if you get a 'zoomed view' save or if you get a normal view and 'zoom out' later

If you open a different game, zoom out, and then load the PBEM with ctrl-L while still zoomed out, you get a view of what the other (previous??) civ can see (their FOW, and maybe centered over their territory), instead of what your player should be able to see.

 

[DaveShack]

On workers...I think worker trades should be for something of value, like gold or a tech or even for a peace treaty. Trading 1 worker for 1 worker is the exploit...the only thing gained is the free maintenance.

Hmm, don't you get a 1/2 speed worker? Then the tradeoff is saved gold for slower workers, and it's not a 100% beneficial arrangement. I could actually see wanting the reverse, a sort of POW exchange if both sides of a conflict have captured and kept workers, to get the full-speed ones back, or to be able to join them and keep the citizenship pure. Let's think this one all the way through before calling it an exploit.

 

[Niklas]

I agree with DaveShack on the issue of workers. It is not at all clear to me how this would be an exploit, as I would in many cases rather have the fullspeed worker and pay the upkeep than the slower slave who is free.

 

[Chamnix]

On workers...I think worker trades should be for something of value, like gold or a tech or even for a peace treaty. Trading 1 worker for 1 worker is the exploit...the only thing gained is the free maintenance.

Would it be OK for Team 1 to trade a tech to Team 2 for 10 slaves, then the next turn Team 2 sends a different tech to Team 1 for 10 slaves?

I agree with the others who have posted that it is not an exploit in general - if a team prefers extra income to faster workers, then I think they should be able to have it.

 

[Ginger_Ale]

Personally, I think we should allow gifting cities - if a team wants to give away one of their cities, fine with me. Better make sure that team doesn't use it to attack you.

Regarding workers, I agree with DS and Niklas: you can pay for full-speed or get a half-efficient worker free. Your call.

 

[DaveShack]

The cities rule should be "no gifting or trading of cities for the purpose of teleportation".

 

[Chamnix]

I don't really like the idea of a quitting team deciding who wins by giving someone lots of cities.

 

[Kickbooti]

I don't really like the idea of a quitting team deciding who wins by giving someone lots of cities.

What about allowing for city trading but putting a population cap on it? For example, a pop cap of 12 would allow one size 12 city to be traded or two size 6, etc.

Then have timer, the cap is in effect for 'X' turns (20, 30, 50, whatever).

So, if you have a thirty turn timer, a team could trade a city of five, the clock starts running, and within that 30 turns the team could also trade a city of four and a city of three.

It would allow for stratigic trading and would limit the complete switch over of a quitting team.

 

[zyxy]

I think the sections 4.1 and 4.2 on official treaties can be dropped. The signees of a treaty should watch for treaty violations themselves, this is not for the admins to decide IMO.

Rule 3.5 on ship chaining can go as it does not tell us anything.

Rule 6.4 on passwords can go.

I agree with GA on simply listing exploits without coded "penalties".

Refugees: by locking down the forum I suppose you mean that they lose read access to it. I don't see why it helps, it is quite easy to keep a local copy of your team's forum if you wish. And turnplayers would generally have a large store of screenies and saves, diplomats would have copies of chats and treaties, etc.
So I think we'll have either
- refugees can say whatever they want.
- refugees cannot speak of the past.
- joining a new team is not allowed, and refugees can read (but not post) all the forums.
I don't mind much either way, but I prefer the second or third, because the first option could easily tear a losing team apart before its final defeat.

EDIT: I agree with Chamnix on city trading.

As for "no fooling rule": exploiting weaknesses of the game interface (e.g. naming a city to "Steam Power" and trading it as if it were the tech) should not be allowed IMO.

 

[CommandoBob]

I think the sections 4.1 and 4.2 on official treaties can be dropped. The signees of a treaty should watch for treaty violations themselves, this is not for the admins to decide IMO.

I think this still has a purpose and would like to keep 4.1 (send the treaties to the Admins). 4.2 (all treaties are private) is sorta gray.

In MTDG I:
Team KISS had a question about a treaty and instead of getting into a shouting match with the other team called upon the Admins to declare a treaty violation.

Perhaps this section needs to be amended to include the steps needed to have the Admins adjudicate on a possible treaty violation.

 

[Niklas]

Why should the admins adjudicate anything? If you break a treaty, you break a treaty, and the other team is free to act accordingly. Admins shouldn't be involved in treaties IMO.

 

[Robi D]

As far as city trading goes the simplest thing to do is to only allow it in peace time (i.e. when both civs involved with the trade are at peace with everyone). The expection would be that a trade occurs between 2 teams at war as part of a peace treaty. Some may think this is a bit draconian but this is the only way that takes away all possiblity of arguing whether or not a trade was to deny another team winning a war ect.

I would rather have a hard and fast rule then have the game stopped by arguments and bickering

 

[aluka]

Yes that is my view of things Niklas. It should be up to the teams in the game to react to the breaking of treaty terms.

As for "no fooling rule": exploiting weaknesses of the game interface (e.g. naming a city to "Steam Power" and trading it as if it were the tech) should not be allowed IMO.

I think this should definitely not be allowed.