Accounts e-mail HP

tech-city trading

tech-city trading

Postby el_perdedor » Tue Sep 30, 2014 3:16 pm

please no tech traiding in any form, nor stealing or traiding.
and please no city traiding.
"bla bla blabla bla blaaa blabla!"
-el perdedor!!! 12.04.2014
el_perdedor
 
Posts: 66
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 6:50 pm

Re: tech-city trading

Postby Corbeau » Tue Sep 30, 2014 3:28 pm

Tech stealing can't be prevented, but can be sanctioned by losing bulbs or techs. Not a perfect solution, but it's the best available. I'm in favour of putting conquercost (or whatever the name is) at 100%.


However, I'm actually more inclined toward "yes" city trading.

The main objection to this is that "one player can get Democracy and all cities on the front to prevent revolts", while the other one can build army in the background. I don't see any other abuses. (Apart from one player quitting and giving away his cities which, technically, isn't even an abuse).

However:
1. This includes logistic difficulties with territory, corruption and stuff
2. I'm personally more and more sickened by the "revolt" option; it's unrealistic, destabilising and insane. I would be willing to support *anything* that decreases its power, including massive giving cities to a democratic ally, no matter how remote those things are.
3. Trading cities is a realistic feature and simplifies things very much; you can still trade cities, but require some technical nuisance with breaking alliance, breaking peace, conquering a city, reforming the alliance. Since it can't be prevented, but only made a nuisance, I'd be against banning it.
User avatar
Corbeau
 
Posts: 505
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2014 1:23 am

Re: tech-city trading

Postby thegrime » Tue Sep 30, 2014 3:40 pm

I actually don't like city trading, mainly because it transfers all units in the city (and even wonders) to the receiving player. I know it's been used in the past to grant wonder effects to players that didn't build them.
--= the Grime =--

That is all.
User avatar
thegrime
 
Posts: 128
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:55 am
Location: Chile

Re: tech-city trading

Postby Corbeau » Tue Sep 30, 2014 7:03 pm

I can understand how it constitutes potential weird consequences, but still not an abuse.

Still, if wonders are a problem, then we could add an additional rule. I'm not a fan of non-mechanical rules, but this one would be pretty easily observed: simply forbid passing of cities or put a limit to it, if a player was given a wonder, he can't pass it on or return in the next 10, 15, 20 whatever turns.

Sound reasonable?
User avatar
Corbeau
 
Posts: 505
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2014 1:23 am

Re: tech-city trading

Postby el_perdedor » Tue Sep 30, 2014 8:37 pm

sorry not for me, city traiding is unfair... as techtraiding...
i mean in techtraiding we can still discuss
but citytraiding isnt an option for me.

sorry
"bla bla blabla bla blaaa blabla!"
-el perdedor!!! 12.04.2014
el_perdedor
 
Posts: 66
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 6:50 pm

Re: tech-city trading

Postby Major Nimrod » Tue Sep 30, 2014 8:41 pm

I'm currently playing a ladder wars game on LT which has disabled tech transfers of all kind, including from conquest. That's pretty neat. I'm all in favour of trying that out.

As for city trading, in my humble opinion, I think it's just wrong. No objections from me about disabling that as well.
"Big Brother is watching you" - George Orwell
"Shh! I'm Hunting Wabbits" - Elmer Fudd
"What a Nimrod" - Bugs Bunny

NIMMY
User avatar
Major Nimrod
Contributor & Co-Admin
 
Posts: 505
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 5:24 pm
Location: Montreal, Canada

Re: tech-city trading

Postby Corbeau » Wed Oct 01, 2014 12:01 am

Ok, anybody want to elaborate *why*? (city trading?)

BTW, how exactly did they disable conquering techs?
User avatar
Corbeau
 
Posts: 505
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2014 1:23 am

Re: tech-city trading

Postby thegrime » Wed Oct 01, 2014 12:19 am

A common strategy that I use against AI players is to offer them some crap (but "useful") tech in exchange for strategically important cities. For example, refrigeration in exchange for a city on their island. I then use that city to generate lucrative trade routes (especially after the advent of air travel) and to build an invasion force. Very few AIs resist such a strategy.

In GT10 Africa, I used the same idea with other player, offering lucrative trade routes through the exchange of cities.

In general play, it can be abused as well.. as you say - to prevent the bribing of opposing cities.

In GT7 (WWI), there was an incident where one alliance worked to bring about the downfall of the dominant player by capturing his capital and splitting the country. One of his allies rushed in, captured many of the lost cities, then transferred them back to the original player... effectively nullifying the action. One may argue that this had a cost to both players, it was viewed as many as an undesirable situation.

That's why I feel it should be disabled.. But I doubt I'll take part in this game, so it's up to the players to decide.
--= the Grime =--

That is all.
User avatar
thegrime
 
Posts: 128
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:55 am
Location: Chile

Re: tech-city trading

Postby Corbeau » Wed Oct 01, 2014 12:29 am

Regarding trade routes, I'm all for disabling the annual revenue part, as I said in the main post.

As for what happened in GT7, I don't see the problem. That's what allies are for, this is exactly why I'm *in favour* of being able to switch ownership of cities.

Suppose you are helping an ally beat off an invasion and return cities he lost. You want the liberated cities to go to him, not you, because they don't suit you, too far from your capital and so on. It seems like the most sane thing to do: if it happens that your units are in better position to liberate the city, you take it and then transfer it to him.

Imagine WWI scenario where Britain retakes Paris from Germans. What happens? Weird stuff, no?
User avatar
Corbeau
 
Posts: 505
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2014 1:23 am

Re: tech-city trading

Postby thegrime » Wed Oct 01, 2014 1:42 am

Actually, in GT7 the annual part of the trade route wasn't the problem -- it was the one time bonus. The map was so large that anyone allied (or friendly) with Russia could move freights from, say, Sweden, to Iran in one turn, and earn over 1000 gold per freight. In one turn, Russia gained over 18000 in gold and science. With city trading, Sweden could swap a city with Iran, for example, and avoid Russia altogether (especially with air transport). Anyway, these I think are all long term issues that need to be solved with the game. I'm in favor of something simple to start with (at least until I figure out how to make the changes necessary).
--= the Grime =--

That is all.
User avatar
thegrime
 
Posts: 128
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:55 am
Location: Chile

Next

Return to Polls

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron