PBEM 7 - Team Contest (4 x 2) - discussion

[Emperor K]

I have not tried that yet.

The bigger question I guess is what is the time frame that cities can be gifted, It really hinders any plans of conquest if whomever takes a city has to keep it , and this will possibly in some cases (with Germany and Russia in specific) cause a city to get either a border pop or extra district.

[Japper007]

No unit gifting in civ 6, only cities.

[Cornflakes]

My 2-cents is that one-time city gifting (between team mates only) is fine, back-and-forth gifting is too far. You want England to get a free unit at that city? Sure, trade it away and get the unit but keep the city with England don't trade it back. You want free border expansion? Sure, found city as Russia and gift to Germany but keep it with Germany. The opposite cases would also be true of course ... found as England to get the free unit and then trade away, or found as Germany and trade away for the border pop. This also works to transfer war spoils to the other teammate as desired.

The only case I'd have a problem with is gifting a city for the purpose of keeping a teammate alive. If in doubt in a situation where one teammate is losing territory, ask the lurkers first to confirm.

[Woden]

I am split here. I always have thought it was cheesy to gift cities in the previous PBEMs. I even said I won't accept a city when I was getting my ass kicked by Russia back in PBEM2. I also thought it was cheesy in PBEM4, hence why I razed the gifted city.

But, this is a team game and we are all playing against 2 civs with all the benefits they provide. Strategy-wise, there may be times when trading cities are strategically beneficial. As examples, we may want cities on both sides of our continent but it maybe easier for your teammate to build and place a city and then gift it to you; or, as previously said, split the spoils of war; or if you are getting invaded, gifting a city to keep your teammate alive.

I don't think an all out ban on city gifting is necessary, maybe ban re-gifting where one civ gifts the city to another to get the benefit and then immediately re-gifts it back.

Edit: Cornflakes posted as I was writing. I would be fine with banning gifting cities to teammates about to be eliminated. I will say as a consequence, when a civ is eliminated their army vanishes.
Edit2: No need for a replay!

[Singaboy]

No unit trading is possible! And that is a good thing.

I would agree on a city trade as Cornflakes pointed it out. Let's say, you have a war but the 'wrong' civ captures the city and immediately trades it to the team mate. However, I have a real problem if Russia builds a Lavra and then gifts the city to Germany for a cheap Holy Site. Or England building a harbor and then gifting it to Nubia etc etc. It should be in the right spirit. Trading a city twice for the mere benefit of free border expansions is not ok.
Emperor K, you assumed that China would gift 7 charge builders to Rome and hence assumed your tactic is a clever one. Maybe you could have posted it here just to clarify. As you can see, this isn't even possible. I would have also never thought about building a wonder in a city and then gift the city to Rome.

I hope we can agree on Cornflakes' suggestion of a one time gift of a city during wars. Not too sure about founding a city and gifting it.

[TheArchduke]

If it is seen as an exploit, I insist on a replay. Not taking any charity here, sorry.

I incorrectly assumed with the PBEM #4 superchesse - Yes, Singaboy, that is what is was - any option that is possible will be done.

I was flabbergasted myself at that time, but assumed I was the insane here, thanks for pointing out that you felt the same way Woden.

So, I want a replay or a punishment.

But next time if something like PBEM #4 happens, do not expect me to play one more turn, right. 

[Emperor K]

Since city trading is in the game the idea of Russia trading for extra district placements, and Germany trading for extra border pops, just seemed a excellent way to get the most out of our civs. Like I said though as long as we come up with a concrete rule on trading I am fine with it.

So the new strategic element would be when if desired to trade a city that can never be traded back, is that how I am understanding cornflakes? I am not trying to be difficult, I just want to know how to plan from here on out.

[Singaboy]

TheArchduke, we all prefer not to replay because of the extra knowledge one has for 3-4 turns. Replays are inherently bad in such a game.

If you want me to think of a punishment, I would suggest not to use the extra tiles your cities gained for, say 30 turns? Does that sound good? Or in a staggered way, not using any additional 2 ring tile for 10 turns, then the next 20, 30, 40 turns?

[Alhambram]

The suggestion of Singaboy don't sound bad.
Alternative TheArchduke can check how it cost to purchase tile (2nd ring) and multiply with 8 (gained tiles from Russia's ability) which results in certain amount of gold. Then delete that amount gold by purchasing unit(s) and deleting it. Till that amount of gold is paid, no use of that extra tiles?

[TheArchduke]

TheArchduke, we all prefer not to replay because of the extra knowledge one has for 3-4 turns. Replays are inherently bad in such a game.

If you want me to think of a punishment, I would suggest not to use the extra tiles your cities gained for, say 30 turns? Does that sound good? Or in a staggered way, not using any additional 2 ring tile for 10 turns, then the next 20, 30, 40 turns?

I will agree to it very easily.

If you finally admit that the silly business in PBEM #4 was not okay.

Else, I won´t.

The suggestion of Singaboy don't sound bad.
Alternative TheArchduke can check how it cost to purchase tile (2nd ring) and multiply with 8 (gained tiles from Russia's ability) which results in certain amount of gold. Then delete that amount gold by purchasing unit and deleting it. Till that amount of gold is paid, no use of that extra tiles?

Unfeasible to the extreme, do you buy all tiles? You get them by culture.