(April 22nd, 2013, 17:09)Sullla Wrote: Our scouting axe was trapped by the borders of CivPlayer cities that they placed down behind him. We moved immediately through to the other side; we most definitely have not been scouting around in their territory. Short of deleting a very valuable Woodsman II axe, I'm not sure what else we could have done.
Quite aside from all the AP shenanigans, CivPlayers gains all sorts of espionage benefits by spreading religion in our territory. If they don't agree to move back their missionary, then we're canceling the Open Borders at the start of next turn. I want a diplo promise from them that they won't be converting our cities.
Agreed.
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.
(April 22nd, 2013, 17:09)Sullla Wrote: Our scouting axe was trapped by the borders of CivPlayer cities that they placed down behind him. We moved immediately through to the other side; we most definitely have not been scouting around in their territory. Short of deleting a very valuable Woodsman II axe, I'm not sure what else we could have done.
Quite aside from all the AP shenanigans, CivPlayers gains all sorts of espionage benefits by spreading religion in our territory. If they don't agree to move back their missionary, then we're canceling the Open Borders at the start of next turn. I want a diplo promise from them that they won't be converting our cities.
Agreed.
Seconded. There is (almost) no reason to accept the spread.
(April 22nd, 2013, 17:19)Dp101 Wrote: Seconded. There is (almost) no reason to accept the spread.
"Not accepting" the spread would require taking a hardball line with CivPlayers when we seem to have a thawing relationship. It might well poison our relationship, since CivPlayers may claim that the OB is tied to the NAP.
I think people are acting close-minded about this - the only thing we're really worried about is AP cheese - why not work for a guarantee against that and get some goodwill from CP in the process. Closing borders won't even insure us against AP cheese, we can pick up a buddhist city at any point from a random spread.
I know I'm not very active in this game, nor really up to everything that's happening in it, but I have a question to make. Why don't we attack CivPlayers instead of the Germans? They like us less than the Germans, apparently. They have a territory that fits best with our own, if it's taken (in my opinion). They are in better state than the Germans, but that doesn't seem to translate itself into better military. And we wouldn't have to trust WPC as a warring partner.
I'm not sure how much we have already commited in regards to a war with the germans, though I think most of it wouldn't mind if we change targets.
Just curious about what others, more informed than me, feel about this.
I think there's no reason to play hardball with CPers yet. It's just a missionary, they're not being actively hostile. And as for AP? Well, we're going to be picking up a Buddhist city eventually anyway. No point ruining relationships over that.
So I say bide our time. Again, we want to delay the dogpile for as long as possible. Yes, CPers are a strong rival, but at the same time we want them to think they have a safe and defended front to hurt someone else.
Are there currently any Buddhist cities in the German cities? If so, AP-cheese shit is a moot point, unless we raze the offending German city, which I would not necessarily encourage just for this. However, I'm in some agreement with Ichabod: why not put the fight to these guys instead? To my knowledge, they also lack Feudalism right now. What's the difference? Other than the glaring issue of the sacrificial alters, of course. They can whip and whip defense as they want. At the end of the day, the limiting factor is population, not happiness or recovery from whip unhappiness.
Well, we did already sign an agreement with WPC to attack the Germans. They also make an extremely attractive target by virtue of having a lot of land and resources and almost no technology at all. CivPlayers has much better infrastructure and a lot more military tech. I do not think they would be a good choice to attack.
I fail to see how telling another team not to spread their religion in our territory with a missionary is taking a "hardball line." It's our territory and our cities. We are well within our rights to tell a team we don't want them moving missionaries inside and spreading their religion around. Considering that the religion in question is the AP religion, that makes it even more understandable.
I honestly don't get some of these comments. We see one missionary show up, and suddenly our whole game plan for the last 100 turns is supposed to change? Just tell them we don't want their religion.
I largely agree with Sullla. We have to honor the agreement we made with WPC. We may not commit 100% to the war if we are not ready but I think it should be relatively easy for us to take on the Germans for the reasons stated above.
What would we expect from our relationship with CP anyway? Can anybody really see us as friends? I am supporting the line of "firm but polite warning".
Don't get me wrong. I prefer a firm rejection of the missionary over fighting them. In a is obviously the preferred target for conquest. My view was more a worst-case point of view. Anyway, if we can get them to turn the missionary around we do that and keep up our veneer of friendship.
(April 22nd, 2013, 21:22)kalin Wrote: What would we expect from our relationship with CP anyway? Can anybody really see us as friends? I am supporting the line of "firm but polite warning".
Kalin
Let's say you own a house and have two neighbors. One of your neighbors is a noted hooligan and menace to the neighborhood. The other neighbor has a big dog who routinely shits in your yard but otherwise you have little contact with him. I'd say CP is much more the second neighbor than the first. I'm not saying we have a neighbor like the first, but CP sounds like the second to me. I could care less about that guy most of the time and we usually coexist just fine. We make much better neighbors when he keeps his dog in his yard.
Oh, and in this story you obviously have to kill the hooligan neighbor with fire once he is revealed. But that is off topic.
Played: Pitboss 18 - Kublai Khan of Germany Somalia | Pitboss 11 - De Gaulle of Byzantium | Pitboss 8 - Churchill of Portugal | PB7 - Mao of Native America | PBEM29 Greens - Mao of Babylon
