Posts: 2,313
Threads: 16
Joined: May 2010
(March 18th, 2013, 15:06)kjn Wrote: They are still a fair bit away from Calendar… no Sailing yet, as far as I know.
Which is why we make the deal able to be canceled when we connect our own furs. Its a win-win for us. Basically like getting furs connected 15-20 turns early, and if they have dyes available then, great. If not, by then it is far more likely another Civ has an excess happy to trade.
Completed: SG2-Wonders or Else!; SG3-Monarch Can't Hold Me; WW3-Surviving Wolf; PBEM3-Replacement for Timmy of Khmer; PBEM11-Screwed Up Huayna Capac of Zulu; PBEM19-GES, Roland & Friends (Mansa of Egypt); SG4-Immortality Scares Me
March 18th, 2013, 16:02
(This post was last modified: March 18th, 2013, 16:02 by Ruff_Hi.)
Posts: 6,126
Threads: 130
Joined: Apr 2006
Why don't we auction the gems? Contact the civs that don't have gems and say they are for sale at gold per turn ... then take the highest value.
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.
March 18th, 2013, 16:07
(This post was last modified: March 18th, 2013, 16:08 by scooter.)
Posts: 15,298
Threads: 112
Joined: Apr 2007
I think I'd rather straight gift the gems to WPC than have them do nothing while everyone keeps offering us health we don't need. Propping WPC up a bit gets us goodwill & it likely results in them having more units available when we invade the German team. I tend to think that's a positive thing. Thoughts? I'm on the fence about this.
quickedit: of course we would let them know we reserve the right to yank the gift if it becomes an asset we could use for trade, but a short-term gift sounds fine to me.
Posts: 2,585
Threads: 43
Joined: Apr 2008
(March 18th, 2013, 16:07)scooter Wrote: I think I'd rather straight gift the gems to WPC than have them do nothing while everyone keeps offering us health we don't need. Propping WPC up a bit gets us goodwill & it likely results in them having more units available when we invade the German team. I tend to think that's a positive thing. Thoughts? I'm on the fence about this.
quickedit: of course we would let them know we reserve the right to yank the gift if it becomes an asset we could use for trade, but a short-term gift sounds fine to me.
I tend to agree. It doesn't seem like any team can offer us anythign we really need right now (unless we can get Marble somehow). So, let's just offer it for goodwill (with the caveat Scooter mentions). I don't even care who to. WPC or anyone really. Just get it gone so people stop asking. Being asked and having to say no (especially repeatedly) is the worst case scenario for us, imho.
Posts: 1,075
Threads: 14
Joined: Oct 2010
I know it's good to have a civ like us, but I just don't understand why we're bending over so much for WPC. It's not about being arrogant, but they just have so utterly little to offer us. It's not even like we're propping them up against a rival civ- we're just propping them up... If we feel like we can't get anything useful out of the gems I suppose giving them to WPC seems like a good idea, but we seem to have a monopoly on them at the moment. Is using them to help a mediocre team become less mediocre really the best thing we can do with them?
Posts: 6,664
Threads: 246
Joined: Aug 2004
FYI, I canceled the proposed sheep for gems trade with UniversCiv in-game. If we want to send them a message, feel free to do so. They didn't type anything to us, so I didn't type anything back to them.
While I can see the logical argument, I'm also skeptical of whether we should really give gems away to WPC for absolutely nothing back in return. We will have our own furs by the time they can send it to us, and sheep does nothing at all. If we're going to trade an important resource away, shouldn't we be able to get something back in return, rather than... nothing?
I am fine with the proposed email to CivFr, which seems to have gone overlooked in this thread.
Posts: 2,788
Threads: 10
Joined: Oct 2009
(March 18th, 2013, 17:02)Sullla Wrote: FYI, I canceled the proposed sheep for gems trade with UniversCiv in-game. If we want to send them a message, feel free to do so. They didn't type anything to us, so I didn't type anything back to them.
While I can see the logical argument, I'm also skeptical of whether we should really give gems away to WPC for absolutely nothing back in return. We will have our own furs by the time they can send it to us, and sheep does nothing at all. If we're going to trade an important resource away, shouldn't we be able to get something back in return, rather than... nothing?
I am fine with the proposed email to CivFr, which seems to have gone overlooked in this thread.
I agree, but it seems doubtful to me that we'll be able to get anything meaningful for our team for the gems in the next 10t anyway. Maybe shoot them an email saying something along the lines of "sheep won't be useful to us at the moment, but we're willing to simply gift you gems at least until someone makes us an offer for them otherwise and we'll make sure to give you a heads up if we do cancel the gift."
March 18th, 2013, 17:45
(This post was last modified: March 18th, 2013, 17:45 by Fintourist.)
Posts: 2,995
Threads: 7
Joined: Apr 2012
I think we could ask for a nominal price of 1 or 2 gpt until they get furs online. It's still better than nothing (or sheep which is nothing)..
Posts: 5,455
Threads: 18
Joined: Jul 2011
@scooter: send your draft. Looks good to me.
Let's not nickel and dime with the 1/2gpt again. Either send it, or, better IMO, keep it until we can get a real trade for it. We can always mention that we have done what we can to alleviate their happiness issues with the gift of missionaries.
March 18th, 2013, 19:24
(This post was last modified: March 18th, 2013, 19:25 by SevenSpirits.)
Posts: 7,766
Threads: 94
Joined: Oct 2009
If there's a choice between sending the gems for nothing or keeping it, I'd rather keep it. I think it's actually positive that we keep getting trade proposals from other teams. We may find it annoying, and it's work to decline them, but it gives us a better idea of how the other teams are thinking of us, and will probably result in a trade at some point.
|
