PB27 Signup Thread

[Commodore]

I resign. Sorry if any inconvenience caused to mapmakers.

Fair enough, but just out of curiosity, are you out because of 3.0.0.1? If the standard 2.7.0.4 or its 2.7.0.6 branch were used, would you still be interested?

[Molach]

I have no issues with just banning city trades FWIW.

I have.
I want "city for peace" as valid trade option.
Combine with "only real offers" (to shut off 'AI-diplo-messenging-system v 1.1) and "don't be a jerk" (to shut off jerk moves) and it should be okay.

City for cease-fire would be banned, I see no problem with this.

"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." (Krill)

I agree with this. 'Natural' is a good word, and not allowing this at all definately feels unnatural.

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.

* players gave away cities to third parties for free = This is not allowed. Just those you are in war with. You can't declare just to be able to gift cities, that is a jerk move. If you're attacked on two fronts by A and B, and decide to offer 'too much' to B because he is your pal, that is a jerk move. Grey area is how much is' too much'?
* sold cities almost for free = No selling. Just to conclude wars 'naturally'.
* 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 = How is it highly abusable? I think I need an example here. One that is not a jerk move.

And I don't see the point of alternate rule in quote above - why can't one do the same to a pink-dot city after declaring and moving an overwhelming force next to it?

I just think we can make it work. This is a more clean and natural way to end a war, message from attacker being "This is my (final) target, I'll take it anyway, but then you shall have peace...in our time...."
Defender loses opportunity to kill some attackers on defense, but saves his defenders to fight another day and has his peace.

While it could be abused a bit, there is nothing stopping players from buying an extra source of wheat for 150 GPT if he wants to help his buddy too.

I'll play anyway, though.

[plako]

I'm out, if city gifting is in. Keep it simple is the way to go.

[Krill]

In a game with so many people its never going to be able to get everyone or even a majority to rukes. Which is why the most extreme yet simple rules tend to be the ones used, because they function.

City trading is easier to enforce with total banning than the idea of only banning its abuse as people never seem to agree on what is abuse and what isn't.

[Tasunke]

I favor an outright ban as well.

[GermanJoey]

I resign. Sorry if any inconvenience caused to mapmakers.

Fair enough, but just out of curiosity, are you out because of 3.0.0.1? If the standard 2.7.0.4 or its 2.7.0.6 branch were used, would you still be interested?

No, I asked him about that; he's out because he's involved in a 40-person game offsite with its own mod, and doesn't want to get confused on the differences between RtR mod and their Dyplo mod.

[GermanJoey]

* 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 = How is it highly abusable? I think I need an example here. One that is not a jerk move.

Well, have you read any of PB25? Several examples in that game.

[Tasunke]

* 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 = How is it highly abusable? I think I need an example here. One that is not a jerk move.

Well, have you read any of PB25? Several examples in that game.

I suppose I cannot really comment on this, as I am an active participant of the Pitboss, but I really, really want to.

Here is the Pitboss 25 subforum http://realmsbeyond.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=227

check my thread for a response (if ur not an active participant in the game)

[GermanJoey]

There's more comment in the lurkers thread. There's been more city trades in this game than your most recent one.

[Serdoa]

Ban it. If you want a city, take it by force. Else players will have issues with it. Imagine being attacked on two fronts and both attackers ask for a city-gift. Whoever gets it, the other one will feel cheated. Arguments about who did what when and why the defender should have chosen differently start and in the end no one is happy.

Also, most of the time you will gift to the player who is stronger. Which will tip the scales of the game even more in his favor as he has 10 turns peace on your front and an army to harass someone else.