PB27 Signup Thread

[Tasunke]

Personally I think it would be a worthwhile experiment to see what would happen.

Sounds like a fun idea for a PBEM, but not a good one for such a large PitBoss.

That is most likely correct.

[Krill]

Confirming.

Also, what about city gifting. I'd suggest "don't be a jerk" extended from double-moving into this.
War-time only. Only gift to someone you are at war with. (Don't declare war on C because you wish to gift him your cities because B declared on you and ruined your game and you don't want B to win - cause that is a jerk move)
Purpose is to end a war (because you are hit from multiple fronts and need one side clear? because you want need to tech just 10 more turns? Because you never wanted that stupid island anyway?)
I'll still play if "absolutely no city offers" rule is in like pb18, but I'll reserve the right to grumble (more) about it in my thread.
(Insert smiley if appropriate)

This doesn't so much need discussing but enforcing. 4

[Mardoc]

This doesn't so much need discussing but enforcing. 4

So who are you making dictator-referee of the game?

Not it!

[Krill]

Frankly other than the really fucking obvious city trades in peace deals my view is that city trading is stupid and shouldn't occur. Like, giving up cities that are immediately threatened and at risk of being captured in the next few turns is the only stuff that should be given up, and at that point only "traded" for peace.

[GermanJoey]

I had suggested the city trades rule in PB25. I thought "lurker-judged city trades" might be ok, but it really didn't work out the way I intended. For example, players gave away cities to third parties for free, sold cities almost for free, etc, and in every case except for my selling Burning Spears to HAK, the players did not wait for lurker approval for the city transaction. So, I think that even "city trades allowed in peace deals," which is like, the one thing you'd want to have, turn out to be highly abuseable, which really sucks because there are some circumstances where city trades make a lot of sense.

Like, maybe a rule like this would work: "City trades are allowed via peace deals, and then only to return cities that you captured from that player and that the other player either originally settled or has kept for at least 50 turns. All other city trades are banned." That would allow players to return conqured cities to desperately sue for peace and to return cities flipped by culture, and would be an explicit enough rule that it wouldn't need lurker review. What do you guys think? If not this, I strongly urge you all to just ban city trading all together.

[GermanJoey]

This doesn't so much need discussing but enforcing. 4

So who are you making dictator-referee of the game?

Not it!

I think it's pretty much Brick once the game starts, although IMHO its up to y'all to argue the rules out yourselves before then.

[Krill]

I have no issues with just banning city trades FWIW.

[plako]

I have no issues with just banning city trades FWIW.

By far the best solution.

[Tasunke]

One thing I don't like about peace-deals during wartime is that only one side can contribute.

After the Mexican-American war, the US paid 10 million dollars for a relatively small chunk of mexican land. While gifting cities for peace is certainly acceptable for threatened cities, the only time it seems feasible to Sell-off cities is precisely when they are *not* threatened. I think it would be nice if war-time deals could be more complex than "give me stuff because I can kill u."

I have no problem with Banning city trades, but I think that, if a mod could somehow alter how in-game diplomacy works, it could do some real good.

And now I've said my piece,
-Tasunke

[Haram]

I resign. Sorry if any inconvenience caused to mapmakers.