[PB81] New Variant Game: A Tale of Two Continents

[The Black Sword]

Hey Nauf, just wanted to check if you forgot to click end turn? No worries if you've still stuff to do.

[naufragar]

Sorry! Yes I did! (I think.) Feel free to play and if an admin can end my turn remotely, that’s smooth.

Edit: “click end turn”?! I use enter because I’m not a masochist.

[naufragar]

Could I get some lurker eyes on a question in my thread? Edit: Nevermind. Figured it out.

[The Black Sword]

Guess the spoiler isn't really a problem here: are liberating cities allowed? Happy not to do it if it's a problem.

[Mjmd]

ITs a question I brought up at the end of PB74 because Gav had asked that question during and no definitive answer was ever given. Even at end of game there wasn't a lot of discussion even after I asked.

[xist10]

As Mjmd wrote, this question was asked in PB74 and PB75. And in both cases there was no big discussion.

In general, I'm in favour of treating this like city trading (gifting). To be honest, I don't know what the difference is in terms of game mechanics. In this respect, I think there was no arguing against this take ?

As such, liberating would be allowed in general in this game.
But "no abusive trades" means in my opinion it's not allowed, if there is a possible influence on third parties (generally if player C is at war with the giver but not with the recipient).

[Hitru]

I'm ok with that, but it would be clearer to discuss it in advance in settings for the next game.

[Dreylin]

Fully aware of likely conflict of interest here, but I’m generally in favour of the option being available.

The obvious scenario is that it’s a city that belonged to one ally, was taken by the enemy in a mutual war and recaptured by the other ally for logistical reasons. Weakening so the ally can take it is not always practical, so this is the only way to hand it over cleanly - otherwise it’s leave empty, war declaration and blow up all existing deals. Biggest factors to consider are whether the recipient can then defend it, but the benefit for the “giver” is that returning it to a previous owner will pop culture back immediately, which can be a huge deal both defensively and offensively.

[The Black Sword]

The two problematic elements of city gifting are IMO - kingmaking and weird incentives in extortion deals. I think it's pretty unlikely that liberating a city falls foul of either of these.

Th argument that you shouldn't be able to liberate a city to someone who is locked in a peace deal with previous conqueror is a good one though. In general I think liberating cities with that caveat should probably be allowed.

But not really fair to make these decisions mid-game, so I won't do any here.

[Dreylin]

But not really fair to make these decisions mid-game, so I won't do any here.

Aw.