1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Ruleset Discussion

Discussion in 'Civ4 -ISDG 2012' started by Lord Parkin, Jun 1, 2012.

  1. mzprox

    mzprox Prince

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2003
    Messages:
    430
    Location:
    Hungary
    I'm also not worry about resource denial. running counterespionage, keeping a spy unit on rthe resource can make the sabotage mission quite risky and expensive. and worst case the one who is denied just build pre-industry units and upgrade them with money (he can have oil in his own turn if he constantly rebuilds the improvement).
    I'm much more worried about possible superalliances, 3/4 vs 1 fights etc.
    and i still don't like that we don't ban civic change missions (especially seeing that the biggest supporter chooses a spi leader :) )
     
  2. nabaxo

    nabaxo King

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2010
    Messages:
    657
    Location:
    Malmö, Sweden
    Just gonna go ahead and ask a question, do not take it as critique or anything, I'm genuinely curious. Please answer my question.

    Say Team A has 1 (one) oil resource. They get declared on by Team B and Team A get's assigned the first slot.

    Team B sends bombers to destroy Team A's oil well and on their side of the timer Team A, on the new turn, sends over 15 (fifteen) (I'm exaggerating so you can get the point) workers to fix the improvement in one turn. This is crucial for Team A to build defenses against the bombers.

    Go to Team B, they bomb the new oil well that Team A build, thus denying the resource so Team A cannot build anything that requires oil on new turn.

    My question: Does the mod allow Team A to log in to fix the improvements on any side of the turn?

    Please answer my question and don't just say "You can fix it with diplomacy". I'm asking a very specific question, answer that if you're going to bother answer me.
     
  3. talonschild

    talonschild Drive-By NESer

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2011
    Messages:
    1,946
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC, Canada
    I do not believe so, no. I don't imagine it's so sophisticated it can tell when you only have one resource, and furthermore when it gets destroyed, and furthermore permits specific unit actions as described only.

    My solution would be to make damn sure you build fighters PDQ.
     
  4. nabaxo

    nabaxo King

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2010
    Messages:
    657
    Location:
    Malmö, Sweden
    Thank you for your answer talonschild. :)
     
  5. talonschild

    talonschild Drive-By NESer

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2011
    Messages:
    1,946
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Oh please don't take me as authoritative. I replied because I thought I understood from various posts, and because it's a slow day chez moi. Manolo65 or Magno_uy, this is really your bailiwick.

    Still, that's my understanding
     
  6. 2metraninja

    2metraninja Defender of Nabaxica

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2007
    Messages:
    5,663
    Location:
    Plovdiv, BG
    Those who neglected the defense of their skies till now if they do insisted on this much can be angry on themselves. Of course, everyone could build a fort instead of Oil Well, decreasing the chance of successful bombing few times and also he can get there handful of MGs or Anti-Tanks or even better SAMs. Good luck bombarding oil fort defended by SAMs with bombers if you dont have anything better to do with your hammers than to put them in bombers to be shot down.

    To answer your specific question, from what I have read, no, the mod dont allow anyone to log in not his half of the timer for any reason. Not to rebuild wells, not to lay or lift blockades, not to promote your units, not to slave units or change research or whatever. And this exactly is the beauty in it :)
     
  7. Hercules90

    Hercules90 Deity

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2007
    Messages:
    2,557
    Just an observation.

    DNK comes as a rep from Apolyton to address the issue and possible consequences about a subset ESP rule being quietly removed from an earlier ruleset proposal. What happens shortly after is a dogpile of refutations/challenges from mostly CFC members.

    I would welcome comments from other teams on this specific issue because I think most other issues are easily resolved.
     
  8. talonschild

    talonschild Drive-By NESer

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2011
    Messages:
    1,946
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC, Canada
    We too would welcome input. We've made our opinion abundantly clear. Apolyton and RB seem to disagree, but three teams do not a nine-team match make.
     
  9. nabaxo

    nabaxo King

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2010
    Messages:
    657
    Location:
    Malmö, Sweden
    @2metra: A simple "no" would have sufficed.
     
  10. DNK

    DNK Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2007
    Messages:
    3,562
    Location:
    Saigon
    Except "any economic model" will not be effective with those spies used against an ESP economy as the ratio of total ESP spent by both teams is a very major component of the likelihood of success, detection, and the cost of the missions. And, didn't Sommers warn you I was as prescient as I am verbose?

    Look back in the thread to Lord Parkin's previous rulesets. I mean, come on, both you and Talonschild both commented on that, you specifically commented on the rule in question. Can't you guys put 2 and 2 together on this to figure out what I meant?



    Anyway, the rule can be enforced easily. You just say "you cannot sabotage/bombard an improvement that was added on the current/last turn (depending on order)". It doesn't matter if your team or another sabotaged it before. Easy fix... if you're actually trying to fix it ;) Or "IMPOSSIBLE" as you insist.

    And now comes the complaining that we're damaging a "hypothetical planned economy that was in no way an espionage economy by altering rules" ;) ;) Well, I believe Parkin's ruleset was already out in public view well before CFC picked its picks, so there's that. Hardly "locked up in his head".


    DaveShack, with an ESP ratio of like 100:1, the espionage economy civ is never going to get a spy caught basically.
     
  11. 2metraninja

    2metraninja Defender of Nabaxica

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2007
    Messages:
    5,663
    Location:
    Plovdiv, BG
    Last time we asked do DNK speaks on behalf of team Apolyton, we were answered "NO". So if something is changed since then, we might need to know it before think otherwise.

    If just speaking as one of the teams of the team, then I can see that Mzprox - the undisputed champion of Apolyton does not seems to worry at all about perpetual denial of resources.

    Of course, you are free to convince Team Apolyton to propose this as official rule and then it will be voted and eventually be made official rule if gets enough votes. Way better than play offended that Lord Parkin's ruleset proposal is not accepted at once as the Holy Truth and Only Possible Fair Game. (You can count this as a demonstration of my verbal skills for managing to put "Lord Parkin" and "Fair Game" together in a meaningful sentence ;)
     
  12. talonschild

    talonschild Drive-By NESer

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2011
    Messages:
    1,946
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC, Canada
    What if two allies take it in turns to sabotage/bomb? The rule is neatly circumvented.

    And any civ has the option of running an espionage economy. If you think it's broken, prove it. Run one.
     
  13. azzaman333

    azzaman333 meh

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2005
    Messages:
    22,877
    Location:
    Melbourne, AUS Reputation:131^(9/2)
    My interpretation of DNK's post is the rule would apply as follows...

    Turn 1a. Civ A destroys Civ B's oil fort.
    Turn 1b. Civ B reconnects oil fort.
    Turn 2a. No civ is permitted to destroy the oil fort.

    Or...

    Turn 1b. Civ A destroys Civ B's oil fort.
    Turn 2a. Civ B reconnects oil fort.
    Turn 2b. No civ is permitted to destroy the oil fort.

    The rule is not circumvented by coordinated sabotage, because it doesn't specify which civ is allowed or not allowed to destroy the resource. The resource must not be disconnected by anyone for a full turn.

    Is this right DNK?
     
  14. 2metraninja

    2metraninja Defender of Nabaxica

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2007
    Messages:
    5,663
    Location:
    Plovdiv, BG
    Thats cool, but how civ in Turn 2a. will know if the well was sabotaged or not in Turn 1a. or it was rebuild in Turn 1b. ? Are they obliged to keep record of other's nations all domestic actions?
     
  15. DaveShack

    DaveShack Inventor Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2003
    Messages:
    13,108
    Location:
    Arizona, USA (it's a dry heat)
    If you want to remove resource denial as a possible tactic, why not just ask the mapmaker to include 5x of every resource for every team? :rolleyes:

    This is civ, not debate club. Denying resources is an essential part of the game. :ar15:
     
  16. azzaman333

    azzaman333 meh

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2005
    Messages:
    22,877
    Location:
    Melbourne, AUS Reputation:131^(9/2)
    The proposal as I understand it does not remove resource denial as a tactic.
     
  17. tobiasn

    tobiasn Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2003
    Messages:
    265
    Location:
    Norway
    This is incredible.

    Team A makes settings proposal.

    Team A loses settings vote.

    Team A makes rules proposal.

    Team B makes conterproposal.

    Team A is flabbergasted.

    I'm just waiting for the ending here and I'll sell the rights to HBO.

    Seriously guys. Respectfully disagree, let old dogs lie, get the f4ck over it and move on. Put the two rule proposals up for a vote, it's obvious where the disagreements lie.

    Get on with it.
     
  18. plako

    plako Emperor

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2008
    Messages:
    1,009
    My compromise rule suggestion concerning indefinite resource denial is this:
    * Single team can disconnect a improvement above resource at max every third turn

    This would still allow indefinite disconnection, if you've 2 willing allies. In a game of 9, if there are 3 nations against you and you don't have any allies providing you the resource you're probably doomed no matter what.
     
  19. DaveShack

    DaveShack Inventor Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2003
    Messages:
    13,108
    Location:
    Arizona, USA (it's a dry heat)
    This proposal is even worse than the original. Why would we agree to leaving a resource connected for 3 turns when we object to leaving it connected at all? :crazyeye:
     
  20. plako

    plako Emperor

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2008
    Messages:
    1,009
    Ok so we need a vote. I think it should be between these:
    * No disconnected resources (Votes: CFC)
    * Resource Bombing/Sabotage: Resources cannot be disconnected by spies or bombs the turn they are connected. Resources cannot be connected the turn they are disconnected by spies or bombs. (Votes: Apolyton). I don't belive 2 teams unknowingly and not spotting the sabotaging the same tile is very realistic case.

    I've assumed 3 evident votes, but please correct me, if I'm wrong. Votes are counted in 48h after this post. Sorry for acting like an Admin, but I don't see this game launching in reasonable time frame unless someone starts to force desicions out of you ;).
     

Share This Page