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

[TheArchduke]

Hmm, I do not mind banning something exploitative.

Would love to have input from everyone else as well. If everyone feels that way away it goes.

Quick explanation, nothing too spoilerish, German settled cities were gifted to Russia for a turn for border expansion.

Shall we turn back the last 3 or 4 turns?

I apologize if this irked someone the wrong way, but I did not feel that good when I saw that in the AI Diplo games there is "Diplo" as well, which I found exploitative. (Like 20 gold to show 20 turns...) So I thought if you can do something in the game, you can do it.

Same goes for Oledavy preventing Singaboy from being destroyed in PBEM #4 and getting a trading partner by gifting away a city in the middle of nowhere to exploit the "still at war" system of keeping cities unproductive. Did not see a massive cryout there.

EDIT:

Hmm, I get your point, a whole box of Pandora is opened here. Still please feel free to comment on your gifted city in PBEM #4.

[Singaboy]

PBEM4 gifting was borderline exploitative and bad actually. Likewise gifting a remote city to prevent player A from eliminating player B is equally cheesy and bad. However, to help someone survive is not exploitative in my mind.

I would say, we continue the game but stop using city swapping and the like between players. In future, would be good to consult the lurkers or other players before doing something like this.

[Chevalier Mal Fet]

Woden and I have also discussed it several times in our own thread and we likewise feel that it's pretty cheesy. We were talking about countering potential Russian/German city trades (to pop borders) by using some of our cities on foreign continents to pump out endless melee units via trading back and forth, or China's ability to borrow a city, crank out a wonder for Rome, and trade it back.

(also, note that oledavy's city gift in PBEM4 was explicitly NOT to keep Singaboy alive, but to give Japan a safe trading partner after Toronto was razed - Japan's economy would have collapsed under the weight of all those ships otherwise. It's nitpicky and maybe you see no difference, but the intention was not to abuse the dumb occupation mechanic).

[Singaboy]

Good to see your team from abstaining to use it, Chevalier. I actually didn't think about it as I felt it's just too much against the spirit of them game. In my mind, these games are not meant to abuse the civ 6 system but to enjoy and bring out the best of the mechanics by using them in a smart way.

By the way, I read that the whole occupation penalty thing is changed in the expansion.

[rho21]

Might be a good idea to allow gifting of cities from one teammate to another immediately as they are captured from an opponent. Might avoid some silly situations in wartime.

[TheArchduke]

PBEM4 gifting was borderline exploitative and bad actually. Likewise gifting a remote city to prevent player A from eliminating player B is equally cheesy and bad. However, to help someone survive is not exploitative in my mind.

I would say, we continue the game but stop using city swapping and the like between players. In future, would be good to consult the lurkers or other players before doing something like this.

"Helping someone survive is not exploitative in my mind." God I wish that Oledavy gifted Norway a city one turn before you conquered it as a whole. Let´s see your reaction then.
Sorry to bring this back up, but I still think this was not ok and you probably did not ask other players or lurkers back then.

   Woden and I have also discussed it several times in our own thread and we likewise feel that it's pretty cheesy. We were talking about countering potential Russian/German city trades (to pop borders) by using some of our cities on foreign continents to pump out endless melee units via trading back and forth, or China's ability to borrow a city, crank out a wonder for Rome, and trade it back.

   (also, note that oledavy's city gift in PBEM4 was explicitly NOT to keep Singaboy alive, but to give Japan a safe trading partner after Toronto was razed - Japan's economy would have collapsed under the weight of all those ships otherwise. It's nitpicky and maybe you see no difference, but the intention was not to abuse the dumb occupation mechanic).

Right. First I doubt this was the only reason.

And second, how is this less exploitative.

I am a bit annoyed at everyone getting high and mighty.

EDIT:

I apologize for ranting a bit, but I have been stumped by something I found exploitative 2 times before and everyone was more then happy to ignore it.

We can ban city swapping from now on except very extraordinary circumstances. Although I do not mind a replay of 3 turns before this haunts or impairs the perception of our performance in the future.

[Singaboy]

This is not a ranting thread about PBEM4 but I fail to see where oledavy gifted me a city to survive. Maybe I am missing something but I kept some cities in German's core which were not captured.

Anyway, gifting cities back and forth for the benefit of border expansion is an exploit in my mind. Let's see how the rest feels. A replay is not necessary in my mind too.

[TheArchduke]

Oledavy said so himself in his thread, just checked it.

Starting to actually get angry here by now. Will end this discussion before I do.

Feel free to decide whatever you guys seem fit.

[Emperor K]

Ok so are we making a rule no trading of any units or cities between players? I think this is an all or nothing rule, no "this situation allows for this" or anything.

TheArchduke and I can refrain from trading cities, but with no forward knowledge of this I assumed that trades were fair game. Not sure why it would be an exploit if one teamed focused on Military gifting units to the other.

Not sure why it would be "unfair" to lets say gift my teammate a settler, but would be ok to just give him the money to buy one. Same goes for warriors, archer, ext...

Either way I think it is vital we come up with a "line in the sand" decision and either no trades what so ever or all trades are open game.

EDIT:

Does this apply to captured cities, now each team when on the offensive has to make sure the right person conquers? I mean so I can't say attack a city and get it then gift it to TheArchduke because that was the plan, I was just fortunate enough to be able to take the city? This decision in a team game is very confusing to me. There seems to be to many gifts that can happen. Now turn order becomes perplexing. Woden and Chevalier have a clear advantage due to them attacking right after one another. However me the duke have 4 people which plan in between us.

The game allows trade, concesion and liberation of cities, and each team could have picked Russia. We are playing a game as a team. I already assumed for instance that china would get 7 charge builders and gift them to Rome, why not, builder charges is one of the best parts of being china. Are you guys saying it is ok for the rest of us to gift builders, but china and Rome cannot? Building wonders and gifting the city, why not? This is a team game so each team is set to use there strengths. Germany has a bonus vs City States, so I see no reason why our team would not use that to OUR advantage. This rule would be less of an issue if team order was Team1, Team2, ext, but with the snake turn pace which I think is fair it is hard to Justify that I have to take a city or run the risk of two players turns happening before TheArchdukes.

Well just to be clear if the consensus of everyone is that there should be no city trading then me and the duke will plan the rest of the game accordingly, but I would really prefer we come to a concrete decision on all trades before something else comes up.

[rho21]

Is it even possible to gift units between civs?