2v2v2v2 team pitboss anyone?

[WarriorKnight]

I just realized we now have 2 "no" votes for "can strike". I don't know what a "no" actually means there. Sorry if this seems pedantic, but could you guys clarify?

For the record we currently have 2 votes for "only if not currently gifting gpt to partner", to compete with the 2 "no" votes.

Well, no striking means no striking I'd assume. If you want a formal definition, neither civ can be in strike at any time, so avoid going into it either by fixing your fiances yourself or your teammate covers your gold expenses, assuming that doesn't make him go into strike either, before the strike is achieved.

Is everyone happy with that definition?

[Krill]

just for clarification but is it illegal for one player to settle a city, offer it to the other civ, end turn, then the orher civ accept the trade?

[SevenSpirits]

Well, no striking means no striking I'd assume. If you want a formal definition, neither civ can be in strike at any time, so avoid going into it either by fixing your fiances yourself or your teammate covers your gold expenses, assuming that doesn't make him go into strike either, before the strike is achieved.

Is everyone happy with that definition?

I don't understand how you can enforce that. It's possible to be in a situation where you can't prevent a strike. And what's supposed to happen if someone does strike?

[SevenSpirits]

just for clarification but is it illegal for one player to settle a city, offer it to the other civ, end turn, then the orher civ accept the trade?

Yes, it's illegal.

For two reasons. One, if you ended turn with it still in your possession, it's no longer the first turn of the city's existence, so it's not eligible to be gifted. Two, we currently have three teams voting that no trades can be accepted or canceled if one partner has ended turn and the other hasn't.

Thanks for bringing it up!

[WarriorKnight]

Well, no striking means no striking I'd assume. If you want a formal definition, neither civ can be in strike at any time, so avoid going into it either by fixing your fiances yourself or your teammate covers your gold expenses, assuming that doesn't make him go into strike either, before the strike is achieved.

Is everyone happy with that definition?

I don't understand how you can enforce that. It's possible to be in a situation where you can't prevent a strike. And what's supposed to happen if someone does strike?

I don't know. That's why our team voted no gpt trading, so there's nothing to gain by being in a strike.

That said, I can't think of a scenario where being on strike and not having a teammate able to cover the costs is a good thing, as that would mean that both teammates are on strike. That only works post-currency though, but pre-currency again there's nothing to gain by going on strike.

[SevenSpirits]

I don't know. That's why our team voted no gpt trading, so there's nothing to gain by being in a strike.

That said, I can't think of a scenario where being on strike and not having a teammate able to cover the costs is a good thing, as that would mean that both teammates are on strike. That only works post-currency though, but pre-currency again there's nothing to gain by going on strike.

I'm not saying that would necessarily be a good situation. Just that if you make a rule against it, the game has to be able to continue if someone gets themselves into that situation and can't get out.

[HitAnyKey]

just for clarification but is it illegal for one player to settle a city, offer it to the other civ, end turn, then the orher civ accept the trade?

Yes, it's illegal.

For two reasons. One, if you ended turn with it still in your possession, it's no longer the first turn of the city's existence, so it's not eligible to be gifted. Two, we currently have three teams voting that no trades can be accepted or canceled if one partner has ended turn and the other hasn't.

Thanks for bringing it up!

So what you're saying, is in order to settle a city to be gifted to your partner you have to settle the city, gift it over, log out, have your partner log in to accept it, and then you have to log in again later to finally end your turn? That sounds kind of annoying to have to log back in a second time to end your turn.
This will also possibly make turns last longer than they would need to. For example:
I log in before work to play my turn. I settle a city, gift it over to my partner and head off to work without ending turn.
During the day, teammate logs in an hour later and accepts the city and ends his turn.
However, we now have to wait another 8+ hours before the turn can roll to the next team for when I can log in again after work.

To me it just seems like it will cause unnecessary delays in turns.

[TheHumanHydra]

The biggest issue is that it makes every turn more impactful ...

This is why I think it's great - every turn is very interesting, because there's a lot happening and it's all very important.

About the strike vote, two of the votes on my team were "No, agree with Seven," if that helps clarify what is meant. As for me, I would say just play a normal game of Civ where you don't go into strike because you just don't do that. Seriously, I've never seen it before in my life.

[SevenSpirits]

A few options:

* You and your partner log in at the same time.
* Your partner logs in as you after ending their turn and ends your turn too.
* Don't gift cities.

Basically if you want to perform shenanigans you should be willing to spend an extra minute logging in as your partner.

[Shoot the Moon]

A few options:

* You and your partner log in at the same time.
* Your partner logs in as you after ending their turn and ends your turn too.
* Don't gift cities.

Basically if you want to perform shenanigans you should be willing to spend an extra minute logging in as your partner.

Yeah, it's really quite simple to leave your partner a note saying "I've done everything for my turn after you've accepted the trade could you log into my civ and end turn for me?". I remember that happening quite frequently in PB 6.