Renting Leo's

Zylka · October 22, 2000, 19:09

Fresh out of the Eurodip game, I must say I am quite impressed with how much fun that was. Thanks again to Kent-Jo for letting me sub for the Russians. Yet I did run into some controversy near the end of the game, which I need oppinions on simply out of curiosity.

When I entered the game as Russia I was one of the smallest civs, with priority on building settlers, Mikes or Bachs, and growing from WLTKD. After my allies (Hungary and Germany) both beat me to the above, I lucked out on a path to invention and went straight for Leos before anyone else discovered it. As one of the weakest civs and with absolutely no military, Leos was virtually worthless to me in the conventional sense. But the plan was to lend it out to each civ and then back to me within my turn to give them the benefits as well. When this idea was mentioned to the other nations, my ally Hungary was quick to accept while adding that "by the terms of our alliance, you must not lend it out to France, Italy and Spain our enemies.". But when I mentioned that there would be a hefty pricetag of gifting Leo's even to my allies, the tone quickly changed to "you can't do that it's not realistic!". It would be trite to argue that a lot of things in this game are not realistic, but that's a fact.

When I had entered the game I had specifically asked and was specifically told that city and unit trading was ok, but there was no UNIT trading back and forfth to gain extra movement. Since Moscow would not have gained any extra production in a mid turn trade, this is not any sort of a bug. Bottom line is I was looking to use Leo's as a tool for for expansion, and if I could have squeezed 2 or maybe 3 small island cities out of each nation in return for it's use, an extra 12 small cities would have increased my power drastically. In a sense the sudden condeming of the idea from others made it seem as if the rules were being altered around my strategy. For future reference, what do you think of the idea?

Either way thx for the game today guys, and I'd love to sub for anyone again next weekend if you'll actually have me back

Matthew · October 22, 2000, 20:56

In most games I play in wonder sharing is banned, but that's just the taste of the people I play with, and is also about time constraints. In a diplo game not only do I think it should be allowed, but a small civ who gets it should certainly be able to take utmost advantage of it. It would allow a small civ to play a much more important role in the game, and allow the civ to gain the resources to grow and improve itself.

Smash · October 22, 2000, 22:40

I agree 100% with Matt.I think wonder sharing is perfect for the diplo type game.SoL is another good one.

However,I think it should be limited to certain wonders and it hasto be discussed in pre game set up.

As far as cost to use,that should be completely up to the builder.

It may not be overly realistic but nothing in the game is.I can say from personal experience that sharing the SoL can go a LONG way in keeping interest levels high thus greatly increasing the odds of completion.It adds alot of "diplomatic" options to a game.

The ones I like for this are:Leo's-Sol-and maybe Marco's.Thats it though.

OzzyKP · October 23, 2000, 01:29

Zylka had asked me before what the policy was about trading cities and units. I told him that it was allowed as long as it was part of a treaty or deal and they were of a permanent nature. I explictly told him this, and that switching back and forth was not allowed. I did not specify units or cities, i said it for both.

Plus trading cities back and forth for advantage is historically unrealistic.

I am against the idea.

------------------
Alex Koroknay-Palicz
President of the National Youth Rights Association
www.youth-rights.org

Zylka · October 23, 2000, 02:13

Actually Ozzy someone told me that yes you could trade cities and units, but units were not to be traded back and forfth for double movement, and that was all. You said nothing concerning permanent trading for cities; I believe you are mixing up what you actually told me with what you think you should have said.

Historically unrealistic? I suppose when Leonardo's workshop (for example) was built in real life, Italy's military magically upgraded to a new technological standard in a puff of smoke?(or was it San Marino, Venice, the Vatican.... I'm clueless of renassaince history

) Well since we know that is unrealistic I suppose it's unanimous that that wonder must be outlawed, so unanimous that we need not specify that in game rules from now on.

KhanMan · October 23, 2000, 06:18

My take on this is:

1. It would be fun, under certain situations, but it needs restrictions, such as: not to trade-trade-back in consecutive turns, or no trading happiness wonders.

2. It definately needs to be decided and agreed to, one way or the other, by everyone involved, preferably in the pre-game...if you can't agree on terms, don't do it.

That said, best of luck, and enjoy the game

-KhanMan of Sayen