[pb72 spoilers]: the esteemed gentleman's literature and book club

[xist10]

Cataphracts got you the first 4 cities.
And crossbows are terrible as attacking force in most cases. Macemen could be possible, but there would be the problem of one movers. I would like to think that I could stop a macemen invasion before Neapolis.
Cataphracts were the correct choice I think. I needed ~ 500 gold from Bing to research engineering to get something where I could threaten the cataphracts in the field.

[greenline]

That's the second time a gold gift bit me in the ass for one of these games. If I play another one I might want those turned off... well, it doesn't seem a common setting.

[xist10]

It wasn't a gift. I wanted (and could) paid back something.
I offered something like 60 GpT and Velitrae and Bing wanted 2 cities. - And later a third, useless city (Arretium was unhappy at size 1). And I got back Iron later when you pillaged my 2nd source.
And why do you want to forbid nearly all possibilitys to support another (without declaring war) ?

[Mjmd]

So I don't think it was abused in this game, but it is something with abuse potential. In general I'm ok with gold flowing from powerful to weak. The abuse is usually it flowing the other way from weak to powerful. And what is "ok / fair" for a transaction is highly subjective.

[greenline]

It wasn't a gift. I wanted (and could) paid back something.
I offered something like 60 GpT and Velitrae and Bing wanted 2 cities. - And later a third, useless city  (Arretium was unhappy at size 1). And I got back Iron later when you pillaged my 2nd source.
And why do you want to forbid nearly all possibilitys to support another (without declaring war) ?

I didn't realize it was a loan, that makes it more palatable.

But I think support in civ games should come from direct war and unit support, not gold and resource trading. The latter tends to feel very low investment compared to the gains it can offer.

[civac2]

Imo, unit trading is way worse than resources and gold.

I didn't like the deal either at the time as it seemed to me that xist gave away cities to a third party for some gold, die anyway and deprive the invader of his rightful bounty. But looking back it seems it was fair as xist managed to survive for a long time thanks in part to that trade.

[BING_XI_LAO]

So I don't think it was abused in this game, but it is something with abuse potential. In general I'm ok with gold flowing from powerful to weak. The abuse is usually it flowing the other way from weak to powerful. And what is "ok / fair" for a transaction is highly subjective.

In my opinion even kingmaking behaviour of a losing player gifting 1,000 gold should be allowed in the name of player freedom and trusting players to have good sportsmanship
In a FFA game setting, it's not easy to draw the line where exactly kingmaking behaviour starts

Anyway in this case, gifting 500 gold or so to fund someone's pike tech was fun (though xist reminds me it was an implicit trade)

[BING_XI_LAO]

Maybe it's lame that you can't raze someone's resources because someone else can always supply them, though. Player with 2 iron doesn't suffer at all from gifting one

[greenline]

another thing Civ 6 fixed by making extra copies of strategic resources that much more valuable

[BING_XI_LAO]

Cartoonoid graphics utterly repel me from all post-civ4 entries in the franchise, but that's good to hear, I was considered whether resource requirements shouldn't be replaced with a partially-stacking production discount.
For example, copper requirement for axes-spears is so harsh that all MP maps end up giving everyone secure copper anyway, so what's the point?