[ NO PLAYERS ] French Vanilla is the best Vanilla Icecream

[Charriu]

From where is that first quote, GKC?

[Ichabod]

Having some kind of soft/public diplo enabled in these games would be an interesting experiment.

We tried that in PB7 and it led to a lot of bad blood.

Without getting into the merit of the situation in this game, I think this "what RB has become" thing looks like old people talking about how it used to be better in their time. We always had problem in games here and it mostly comes down to very competitive personalities sharing games with more casual oriented gamers, IMO. I think we had games that worked without much drama when the players were separated between these lines, but that might just be selective memory.

Perhaps what Noble means is that the lurkers choose some favorite players and think that everything they do is right, while the others are villains and are always wrong. If that's the case, I don't think it's a new thing as well.

Finally, I can't see a point in playing a game where you think one of your opponents is a cheater, or even that your opponents have malicious intents. It must not be a very pleasant experience.

[Kaiser]

Because I'm not losing anything gifting the luxuries and strategic resources to vanrober, and those are all duplicates. It benefits my chances of winning very directly for me to slow down my opponents' conquest of him while not costing me anything in return.

I gifted vanrober 20 gold total when he asked me, not 20 gold per turn, and that was the amount of the interest that I previously got in the loan to him. I would not have gifted vanrober 20 gold per turn, but even if I had that's actually under 6% of my economic output right now.

Laz is losing almost all his economic output and gifting it to Amica, if what I see is correct. I do not see how that can possibly improve his position in the game more than having the gold himself. If you really think the two are remotely comparable then I don't know what to say, and I recoil at what RB has become.

As I said, I do not play CIV4 MP, but his argument seems wrong to me.
It basically boils down to I can interfere with other players because I have a stronger economy/have duplicate luxuries and a shsot at winning
Weak players cannot because it does not help them winning and they cannot spare the resources/gold.

I think the last part is also a key point, the motivation of players participating in games might be different that "win".
Noble does not take into account that Lazetuqs motivation could be survive as long as possible, at least he does not accept it as a valid motivation.
If you accept that some players adopt their motivation to different targets, then you can also see the benefit of gifting away your whole economy or whatever to achieve this new target.

That said, I do not know why Lazetuq gifts his money to Amicalola, but I assume that he thinks he can survive longer by bolstering Noble's other neighbor so he has to leave part of his army as defense on that front.

It looks to be a decent strategy, but even if it is not, I find it questionable to allow some players to interfere by trading while you deny this to other players, independent of their situation. I suggest considering to discuss before game if gifting of resources / gold and loaning is allowed.
Both change the dynamic from the CIV4 sandbox to the human interaction in the game (even as limited as it is) and I can follow the idea that this might not be in the spirit of the game he wants to play.

[Charriu]

I suggest considering to discuss before game if gifting of resources / gold and loaning is allowed.

Well there is a simple solution to those that want no diplo action between players and it is called the 'Always war' game option.

[superdeath]

I see nothing wrong with a dying civ trying to help out his enemies-enemy. Its only kingmaking in my book when they arent a "dying" civ, just a civ that hasnt a chance in hell of winning and then decides to be a kingmaker. BUT, again, I think Noble is just bitching to bitch imo. Or maybe its really just the old-player mentality or something.

[Charriu]

So about that dogpile vs Noble. I'm reading civacs German thread and it doesn't look like he wants to start a dogpile. Rather he wants to make Noble nervous, because civac himself tries to land Taj before Noble does.

I could ask civac about any upcoming plans of war, but that way I might spoiler him. I would let play continue

[superdeath]

So about that dogpile vs Noble. I'm reading civacs German thread and it doesn't look like he wants to start a dogpile. Rather he wants to make Noble, because civac himself tries to land Taj before Noble does.

I could ask civac about any upcoming plans of war, but that way I might spoiler him. I would let play continue

having trouble understanding how this was suppose to be worded.

[Charriu]

Ah sorry. I somehow mised the word nervous there. Should have been:

Rather he wants to make Noble nervous, because civac himself tries to land Taj before Noble does.

I've edited my post for better readability

[superdeath]

would just an easy "hey, remember when at war with someone if there are multiple people involved to keep that turn split" suffice, or is Noble asking for something extensive... If he is trying to hold Civic to a turn split even if Civic isnt actually going to declare... then i think he is asking too much.

[The Black Sword]

I think Noble's asking, that if civac intends war, he keeps a turn split with the other two. So as he says, civac - Laz - Gira - Noble could be the fixed turn order, as opposed to civac, Laz and Gira playing in any order and then Noble plays when all 3 are done.

My first impressions are that it seems a bit excessive, I don't remember a previous game where that was necessary. Certainly playing that way would mirror a sequential game, and to reduce the restrictions would disadvantage Noble. But I'm not sure how big that disadvantage is, and it could come at a serious cost to the turn pace.

Of course if there was any backstabbing going on amongst the trio, they'd have to ensure they do so without double-moving, but he doesn't seem to be referring to that.