Pitboss 18 Organizing Thread (RB Mod 34 Civs)

[Fintourist]

* No using trade window to communicate (e.g. using letters or numbers in a way that could be interpreted something else than a real trade offer)

How about "useless trades" fish-for-fish, iron-for-iron? I guess one can always signal friendliness with some kind of half-meaningful offers so I don't know if its worth banning.

[plako]

By no using the trade window to communicate, would fish/fish or other things be not kosher?

This is borderline. I would suggest not doing it, but I also think the info value coming from this is low enough for me to really care so I don't mind.

btw. I've also asked Caledorn, if he could set up a test game of 34 people using the 2.0.6.1 version of the mod so that everyone could check out their systems compatibility.

[plako]

Commodore can you say anything about map status and when do you estimate it would be ready? Are you planning to say anything else about it before we start to make keep/pass desicions concerning the leaders? Do you need some further input from the players at this point?

[Krill]

The "problem" with those is that they actually make sense, as a guarantee that should someone come along, invade you and try to cut resources, you will still be able to fight.

Really, I'd be less concerned about the actual resource for resource trades, because anyone can see them in F4, but trades that only take place in the screen, rejected, and then re-offered as confirmation can't be seen by others. Same problem with countdowns, they aren't visible.

Also, with no map trading resource deals are actually harder to work out anyway.

[Catwalk]

I'd prefer both city gifting and trade window communication be allowed. City gifting because cheese can happen anyway, and because city trading is an interesting mechanic IMO. Trade communication because it's useless most of the time, and hilarious to read about misinterpretations after the fact.

Not strongly against either one being banned, though.

[Old Harry]

Anyone totally against these additions to ruleset?
* No city gifting or trading

If you're not allowed to gift cities as part of a peace deal it will make warfare more of a slog, I'm not particularly keen on that, but as long as it's the same for everyone I'll put up with it.

Thanks for all the work Plako! (And Commodore, and Krill, and T-Hawk, and everybody else...)

(Just don't start next to us)

[spacetyrantxenu]

Taking cities as part of a peace deal can be beneficial to both sides. Attacker saves army, defender probably staves off utter annihilation (situation has to be bad for someone to even consider giving away cities in a situation like this). I think it's a valid diplomacy tool, but if we're trying to keep things simple given the massive scope of the game I can understand that.

[scooter]

Plako - an alternative city rule that I think does a neater job:

* No peacetime city deals

Meaning the only valid way of getting a city from another player is to buy 10T of peace. I think this prevents the especially questionable things without the drawback of removing a valid strategy.


(That said, your call is 100% final and I won't complain if you'd rather stick with what you've said.)

[Whosit]

Wait, fish-for-fish trades are considered bad? I thought doing stuff like that is a way to secure peace, or do I have that mechanic wrong?

[Dhalphir]

I don't think fish for fish enforces 10T peace. I do remember thinking that at some point during PB13, but then it didn't actually give me the peace, or maybe I'm remembering wrong.