Agreed with Sullla here. We're war partners with them already, so we've achieved what we wanted in basically vassalizing them. After that war is over, I don't see us really caring about them very much.
Perhaps we could ask them if they have any marble in range they'd be willing to settle and gift to us. I know that's a longshot, but it seems some teams have better access to marble than others.
I've been getting screenshots of diplo window messages from your team over the last couple days. In the future, would you mind passing those onto our official email as well? Only reason I ask is that I know diplo window chat can be flaky sometimes, and we don't want to miss an important message from you guys.
On the gems front, we're going to hang onto the gems for now. We don't need health, and we'll have our own source of furs hooked up pretty soon, so we're going to hang onto it for now in case something opens up elsewhere. I hope you can understand this. If we can find another way to make a deal we would of course consider it, but for now we will have to decline. By any chance, do you have any marble near your borders that you could settle? That's one particular resource we'd really like to get our hands on, so if you have some near your borders we would happily trade for that.
Yeah, seems fine to me, assuming you're not using formal grammar (I believe you've mentioned something about that in the past).
Merovech's Mapmaking Guidelines:
0. Player Requests: The player's requests take precedence, even if they contradict the following guidelines.
1. Balance: The map must be balanced, both in regards to land quality and availability and in regards to special civilization features. A map may be wonderfully unique and surprising, but, if it is unbalanced, the game will suffer and the player's enjoyment will not be as high as it could be.
2. Identity and Enjoyment: The map should be interesting to play at all levels, from city placement and management to the border-created interactions between civilizations, and should include varied terrain. Flavor should enhance the inherent pleasure resulting from the underlying tile arrangements. The map should not be exceedingly lush, but it is better to err on the lush side than on the poor side when placing terrain.
3. Feel (Avoiding Gimmicks): The map should not be overwhelmed or dominated by the mapmaker's flavor. Embellishment of the map through the use of special improvements, barbarian units, and abnormal terrain can enhance the identity and enjoyment of the map, but should take a backseat to the more normal aspects of the map. The game should usually not revolve around the flavor, but merely be accented by it.
4. Realism: Where possible, the terrain of the map should be realistic. Jungles on desert tiles, or even next to desert tiles, should therefore have a very specific reason for existing. Rivers should run downhill or across level ground into bodies of water. Irrigated terrain should have a higher grassland to plains ratio than dry terrain. Mountain chains should cast rain shadows. Islands, mountains, and peninsulas should follow logical plate tectonics.
Draft looks good. And I wish you could push harder that they put diplo messages through channels. The in-game diplo system sucks, and should only be used when necessary (ie when finalising the deals).
Furthermore, I consider that forum views should be fluid in width
Extra gems is doing nothing for us. Nothing. Why don't we sell them for 5gpt (or something!) for 10 turns?
I have finally decided to put down some cash and register a website. It is www.ruffhi.com. Now I remain free to move the hosting options without having to change the name of the site.
(October 22nd, 2014, 10:52)Caledorn Wrote: And ruff is officially banned from playing in my games as a reward for ruining my big surprise by posting silly and correct theories in the PB18 tech thread.
Because 5gpt does barely more than nothing, while possibly just marking us a nickle and dimeing scrooge? At the point where it'd actually be useful, it's much more than most teams have to spend.
(March 19th, 2013, 18:58)Ruff_Hi Wrote: Extra gems is doing nothing for us. Nothing. Why don't we sell them for 5gpt (or something!) for 10 turns?
At this point I'd take good will over 5 gpt. That being said, I don't think in the next 10t we're going to get anything useful out of gems from anyone, so I'd say tell WPC we can gift them but only for 10t if scooter can come up with a way to make that sound like a real concession/gift to them . I'd rather get the goodwill there while gems are useful nowhere else and then reevaluate in 10t when someone else might have something useful hooked up.
Edit: crossposted with Tyrmith. Pretty much agree with what he said as well.
I agree that we're making things too complicated.
The extra Gems are doing us no good and it doesn't look like anyone else has anything to trade for them.
So why don't we ask WPC for some Archers in exchange for Gems?
Three 6XP Archers for Gems, plus a promise to trade us Dyes when they're hooked up.
I'm sure we can find a use for extra MP units. Even if it's freeing up some Axes for scouting.
Edit: We have a NAP and a military alliance with WPC. What good does even more goodwill do us?
I would point out we didn't snipe "their" gems, we captured a barb city. I wouldn't give them the gems but I also feel we are doing nothing with them. Gifting them for 10 turns seems like a good idea to me.
