(April 15th, 2014, 04:06)mackoti Wrote: This is one of thisngs which i considerering to do,in my coastal cities with 150% water units buildings at 40 base production i can get 2 turns destroyers so i will try to sell some of those to WLP for like 500 gold.I think is a prety good deal for him and for me as well as i will can reasearch at full steam just using 2-3 cities to build this units and sell to him.And another davantage would be if he gets like 10-15 destroyers from he could defend agains comodore agresion.
I do like this idea of fighting via proxy. But it makes me wonder why he didn't built some cannons/rifles and sold them to Lewwyn?
But what had a bigger effect on the game, certain players rolling over and giving Scooter and Mack their whole empires without a real fight, including wonders they built instead of making units, or Bachhus pillaging (some!) of his land and whipping the cities? Last I checked Plako has biology so it is easier to regrow the cities than in earlier ages, some of the buildings are still intact and especially the later cities still have most/all of their improvements. Scooter wouldn't be in the position he is now if Nakor had not decided to be unsporting to all other players by offering up no real resistance.
If problem A is worse than problem B, and you can't enforce a solution to problem A but you can enforce a solution to problem B, does that mean you should ignore problem B?
I think Krill has the right idea. If there is no consensus, then an executive decision is the only possible answer.
(April 12th, 2014, 12:16)scooter Wrote: An interesting side-discussion here is the value of upgrading units in RBMod. When tech costs are as enormous as they are now, upgrading units becomes a relatively better use of commerce than normal. Given that commerce has always been something we have a lot of, we've done it a LOT in this game (remember, we haven't been in slavery since BEFORE we built up for the Nakor war - we've whipped like 6 units all game), and I think in the end it's been immensely valuable.
This was a really interesting point from Scooter a few days back. I think he's spot on, and we've seen way more unit upgrades from many players in this game that would appear odd in base bts. However, this seems a bit overboard:
(April 14th, 2014, 21:58)WilliamLP Wrote: I'm nearly finished modernizing my cavalry. I think the count is about 45 cavs, 24 rifles, with 16 Cuirs left to upgrade, a cost of 1280 gold.
I understand that William always feels like death is around the corner (I blame Mindy!) but surely there's better uses for 1200g than preventative upgrades.
Hey! I'm not even ded-lurking that game anymore.
If you're saying that I instilled that sense into him,....well WLP's still has an empire and his neighbours don't. So whereever it came from it's done him some good. And with Master Commodore's power on the rise, I'd say that it's a fair move right now as well.
Althought he'd probably want to keep the money if he knew about Mackoti's offer.
I've nowhere said that I speak for the RB Community or for anyone other than myself, except on occasion for one of my sock puppet accounts. Every sentiment that I have expressed is solely my opinion.
(April 14th, 2014, 18:53)Barry Lyndon Wrote:
[My responses in brackets/bold --BGN]
I do not understand at all why pillaging your own improvements is bad, but turning them all into workshops is legit, and deleting your own workers is bad, but deleting defenders is okay if they have odds below an unspecified threshold, and whipping cities down to size 1 is spite, but whipping all of your cities to produce units which you later delete because they can't win and you don't want to feed your opponent XP is cool [Factual statement regarding your lack of understanding]. All of these informal "rules" of defender conduct, which were heretofore unknown to me, are completely arbitrary and transparently dependent on who you are rooting for in a particular game [Your lack of knowledge of what constitutes good sportsmanship is acknowledged. These are not tied to an arbitrary standard or based on "rooting" interests, but rather a generally, though not uniformly, accepted notion of what constitutes fair play].
Perhaps this is the FFH talking, where nobody whips their cities down to nothing and you can't earn GG points, but I have never cared about what defending players do as long as they A: defend (even if this means simply whipping units and ending turn) and B: don't gift away threatened cities. I completely agree with whoever posted that the aggressor is being a jerk by virtue of attacking [Are you likewise upset by a goalie keeping the ball out of the net or a defensive lineman sacking the QB? Competition is the essence of gaming, just as it is in sport. If you'd prefer to sandbox, play against the AI, it won't mind]. Don't tell me that this is just a game- people get attached to their civs, and when you invade somebody you're stomping on their sandcastle. As a defender, I owe the person trying to wreck the empire I've invested many hours building absolutely nothing [You owe your fellow competitors a good effort for the sake of game balance and competitiveness. This includes the aggressor; some standard of fair play in defense is required too]. I'll pillage & whip whatever I want, if I want, and fuck you if you think you're entitled to capture large cities and mature towns [Ok, fuck you too, thought that's not my preferred route. I can choose to just not play in a game with you in this case, and I suspect I'm not alone. (Right? If I'm given that choice to not play with you in a game because I know who is playing in the game and my opponents are not hiding behind a false name?) I'm entitled to what I can fairly capture through game mechanics and a community-derived notion of fair play. If either you or I cannot adhere to what is generally recognized as appropriate behavior, we can be excluded from future games by the community.]
Not to mention that the mentality of many RB vets rewards defenders acting like dicks. Commodore has floated through the pitboss on the back of a reputation as an easily provoked psychopath who will ruin the game of anyone who messes with him, out of sheer spite [That is one way to look at it. I'm guessing, though, that you haven't actually asked scooter or pindicator why they never warred with Commodore, choosing instead to make an easier false assumption]. But apparently now it's illegitimate for newer RB players to try to establish similar reps? [Play hard, but play fair. Bacchus was across the line.] Complete bullshit. This argument:
Xenu Wrote:What does it gain you, a few XP in your RB metagame reputation? "Don't fight Bacchus, he pillages everything, not worth attacking!" FALSE. Now I know to just kill you all at once if we ever fight a war. Or attack you in sufficient force to initiate your self-destruct sequence, then withdraw and watch you pillage all of your own tiles. Or whatever.
Is disingenuous nonsense [As is this tirade]. Your response to someone making conquest less attractive is to conquer them harder? What the heck were you doing in the first place, intentionally half-assing things out of a sense of martial nobility? [Are you aware that not all conflicts in Civ result in elimination? Build enough units for your limited objectives and then go back to economy to try to win the game. But since Bacchus is apparently going to go as far as the line of sportsmanship allows, once he has an understanding of where that line is, perhaps you better bring more units than you had anticipated, or juts plan on wiping him out entirely. This is a difference with a distinction.] If pillaging my own tiles causes you to withdraw, then it was a good defense. It's not particularly hard to rebuild farms and workshops, which are apparently totally okay to replace towns with. [It is highly unlikely that anyone withdraws because you've reconfigured your tiles. If you pave over your cottages to build workshops for units that you need to defend, then good play! If you pave over your cottages and make your cities worthless to your invader, good for you, I guess, just good luck surviving when he comes back later with a technologically stronger army. But the fact of you changing a tile from a cottage to a workshop is very unlikely to cause someone to retreat a stack of its own accord. A massive influx of troops might induce that reaction.]
Personally I think a much more serious issue is when players abandon all of their outlying cities, essentially gifting them (along with their improvements and pop) to their attacker, and retreat all of their units into their capitals to await death [Not all buildings survive in a city capture, as opposed to a true city gifting through the diplomacy window. Whether this is more damaging to the outcome of the game is not in doubt, nor should it have any bearing whatsoever on whether you exhibit good sportsmanship in your defense.] But I guess that's cool with the hand-wringing Miss Manners crowd, as long as the lurkers get a big battle at the end and the attacker has to bring a lot of units for it [I'm sure this is aimed at me, or really whoever disagrees with you, so whatever random internet guy with your disparaging comments. You don't know me.]
Kind of sad that the RB community is beginning to Balkanize, but I guess self-indulgent invitational games are the wave of the future if you're such a prima donna that you aren't willing to play with someone because they're too frustrating to conquer [Or perhaps too annoying and angry to be able to enjoy your recreation time with. For reference, if it wasn't clear yet, for me this now includes you].
Bob, I have serious doubts about your right to be an Admin in this community if this is how you operate and I would appreciate some discussion about this. This is not because I disagree with you on the issue of sportsmanship, but because you clearly do not respect others with different opinions, and you do not even attempt to engage in respectful dialogue in doing so. I've made rude/inappropriate comments at points during this discussion and that is regrettable, but I'm not an admin and have no interest in being one. I expect those who are empowered with those responsibilities to exhibit more character than you have shown, and not just in regards to this specific debate but regarding another issue that you have surely not missed.
Anyway, I believe in signing my name to my work and not misleading people.
(April 15th, 2014, 11:50)Brick Wrote: you clearly do not respect others with different opinions, and you do not even attempt to engage in respectful dialogue in doing so.
...and you, by contrast, have demonstrated an exempalry respect to opinions of others.
? What the heck were you doing in the first place, intentionally half-assing things out of a sense of martial nobility? [
