RAH rules: Description and Origination of - Page 4

DrSpike · May 19, 2002, 18:46

Quote:

Originally posted by DrSpike
Selling improvements in a doomed city is clearly acceptable. The analogy with disbanding the bribed unit seems flawed. If you could sell improvements after the city had been conquered doing that would be wrong, as disbanding the bribed unit is wrong. Similarly, preemptively disbanding a unit you believe will soon be bribed would also be fine.

In a duel with Makeo the other night I managed to bribe a vet trireme. He had another in range, but disbanded it straight away (on my turn). As the post above would suggest I think this is ok, but I can see why people might object to preemptive disbanding on their own turn. Is there a Rah rules position on this? And did you sell that temple preemptively on your own turn or, say, after you saw an enemy unit approach with it's first move? The comments seem to suggest the latter, and of course the timing in the second case is analagous to that in my bribing question.

It strikes me this might sometimes give the host an advantage even in turn based mode.

rah · May 20, 2002, 08:56

My thoughts are reasonably straight forward on this. It's OK to disband or sell improvements as long as it's PRIOR to the event in question. Holding the improvement sell screen open and waiting for the city to fall before pressing ok IS NOT. The same with bribing, as long as you don't wait for the unit to be bribed before disbanding it, no problem.

RAH
Unless lots of people have a problem with this policy, I say add it to the rules.

Ming · May 20, 2002, 10:22

I agree with rah... (no surprise here)

Doing something in anticipation of a forgone conclusion is still OK.
But doing it because the event has now happened is a different story. I know, a fine line... but it has to be drawn somewhere.

DrSpike · May 20, 2002, 10:27

Yeah I thought most would agree this is ok, but it's good to check, because most players must come across the bribing issue fairly often. To me the clincher is the risk involoved. My opponent disbanded at least a couple of triremes in this game, and there was actually no way I could bribe the first one.

rah · May 20, 2002, 10:38

Yes, sometimes I must admit that I disbanded a unit only to find out later that the person didn't have the money available to bribe it. But that's the chance you take.

RAH

ColdWizard · May 24, 2002, 20:33

updated to include improvement selling, unit disbanding

+1

rah · May 25, 2002, 18:29

Good work,
We've started using 3 Billion to soften up the rock. (I haven't really seen much difference though)

markusf · May 25, 2002, 20:07

Quote:

Originally posted by rah
Good work,
We've started using 3 Billion to soften up the rock. (I haven't really seen much difference though)

oh i dunno... my troops do a lot more damage

rah · May 26, 2002, 02:37

Naw, i got careless once. You notice it hasn't worked since.

I still haven't seen that much difference land wise, and I've tried those settings for almost a dozen games.

Rich

rah · May 28, 2002, 17:55

CW, could you modify the rules for 3 Billion?

Thanks,

RAH

And if anyone wants to discuss maximizing cities for trade, this would be a good place.

markusf · May 28, 2002, 18:27

Quote:

Originally posted by rah
Naw, i got careless once. You notice it hasn't worked since.

I still haven't seen that much difference land wise, and I've tried those settings for almost a dozen games.

Rich

Thats because i am to busy killing other people first.. Its to hard to fight a war on many fronts.

rah · May 28, 2002, 19:31

Yes, you've gone on to EASIER targets

markusf · May 28, 2002, 19:33

Quote:

Originally posted by rah
Yes, you've gone on to EASIER targets

Naw, your just to easy. I was looking for more challenging players to kill first.

rah · May 28, 2002, 22:37

It's always wise to pick on someone else

rah · June 7, 2002, 11:47

CW, thanks for updating the AGE to 3 Billion.

RAH
Ok, I admit it, a shameless bump.

But I was hoping to hear more on city maximizing/reducing for trade purposes.

DrSpike · June 7, 2002, 11:49

IMO both fine.

War4ever · June 10, 2002, 10:33

well i have another proposal for rules......we always debate, though rarely get there, the topic of nukes.....

if were going to play without nukes, then i propose in the official rules that we play without suitcase bombs as well...

spies are nearly impossible to stop and the suitcase bomb works way to often IMO.

so i propose no nukes at all, or we leave it how it is and if i get there first.....well you all know what can happen

rah · June 10, 2002, 11:15

The games where we actually get that far, end quickly.

While I lean towards eliminating them, I don't feel so strongly that I would argue it if most people dissagree.

RAH

I'd rather discuss informal alliances for tech stealing and trading. But how would you enforce a ban of either?

War4ever · June 10, 2002, 11:21

Quote:

Originally posted by rah

I'd rather discuss informal alliances for tech stealing and trading. But how would you enforce a ban of either?

the same way we play with other rules......honor system........ it won't eliminate all the cheaters..but i think our group is very honorable and will adhere to changes so long as they are discussed ahead of time so we don't run into any snags....

besides trying things out spices up the game and if we don't like it we can always change back.

rah · June 10, 2002, 11:49

Ok, ITEMS UP FOR DISCUSSION
topic............................................. .......... my opinion
1. Nukes............................................. ........ /ban
2. unofficial tech stealing treaties.............../ban
3. unofficial trade pacts............................../ban
On two or three i don't want to elimiate trading or tech stealing, just make it harder and almost an act of war
4. GW................................................ ........../ban in all games

Ok, register your votes and reasons. Majority of regular players will get their way.

ANy other issues to discuss?

RAH

markusf · June 10, 2002, 13:45

Quote:

Originally posted by rah
Ok, ITEMS UP FOR DISCUSSION
topic............................................. .......... my opinion
1. Nukes............................................. ........ /ban
2. unofficial tech stealing treaties.............../ban
3. unofficial trade pacts............................../ban
On two or three i don't want to elimiate trading or tech stealing, just make it harder and almost an act of war
4. GW................................................ ........../ban in all games

Ok, register your votes and reasons. Majority of regular players will get their way.

ANy other issues to discuss?

RAH

building the great wall in the games, effectively stops all forms of attack against that player. It makes the game kind of lame. One player has complete domination for the night.
Nukes. not as if we ever get that far...
Tech stealing... people who are behind will always work together..
I say allow tech trading, but you can only trade that tech as long as another player already has that tech. So if player 1 and 2 have the tech, player 3 can buy the tech or trade for it.

rah · June 10, 2002, 13:56

"building the great wall in the games, effectively stops all forms of attack against that player. It makes the game kind of lame. One player has complete domination for the night. "

Somewhat agree, but not 100%, I have taken cities that were gw protected.
but I agree enough for me to want to ban it also.

"Nukes. not as if we ever get that far... "

"Tech stealing... people who are behind will always work together.. "

That's the point, make it a little harder. If you're going to steal techs, at least you can put something at risk instead of just waltzing up. Really, when a diplo fails and isn't killed the next turn................

"I say allow tech trading, but you can only trade that tech as long as another player already has that tech. So if player 1 and 2 have the tech, player 3 can buy the tech or trade for it."

Heresy. No allance/tech trading was the primary reason for starting a standard rules set. NEVER
(unless everyone else wants to)

But I highly doubt that.

But thanks for the opinions.

RAH

markusf · June 10, 2002, 14:08

Quote:

Originally posted by rah

Heresy. No allance/tech trading was the primary reason for starting a standard rules set. NEVER
(unless everyone else wants to)

But I highly doubt that.

But thanks for the opinions.

RAH

Good idea, the problem is your games never go anywhere. Same old routine every single game

Ming · June 10, 2002, 14:23

Quote:

Originally posted by markusf
Same old routine every single game

But it was worse when we allowed tech trading. The first two players that met won... it was that simple. And it happened every single game... yawn... So it all came down to luck...

rah · June 10, 2002, 14:29

Quote:

Originally posted by markusf
Good idea, the problem is your games never go anywhere. Same old routine every single game

Actually I have seen more combat early the last few weeks. It's fun. Even when your Cap gets trashed

I'd like to encourage that trend.
(the war part, not the CAP part)

RAH

markusf · June 10, 2002, 15:01

Quote:

Originally posted by rah

Actually I have seen more combat early the last few weeks. It's fun. Even when your Cap gets trashed

I'd like to encourage that trend.
(the war part, not the CAP part)

RAH

I thought you where yellow at the start, built up a mass of knights.. Then poof yellow builds GW... All these units and nowhere to go, so i sent them over to your cities.. your cap was the closest city, i didn't want to attack a hill city or a river city.. I wanted to get a foot hold. I never thought there would be 6 damn units in your cap.. Good thing i trashed both your cap and mikes

rah · June 10, 2002, 15:23

Yes you certainly did. Tips hat. But the price you paid was a civ worse than the one I had even after you trashed those two cities. Heck you didn't even get trade (stole it anyway) till after 1000. If we had both turned on berz, it would have been more fun.

RAH

markusf · June 10, 2002, 15:58

Quote:

Originally posted by rah
Yes you certainly did. Tips hat. But the price you paid was a civ worse than the one I had even after you trashed those two cities. Heck you didn't even get trade (stole it anyway) till after 1000. If we had both turned on berz, it would have been more fun.

RAH

I was screwed from the start that is why i went war.. Something like 29 turns a tech at 2000 bc..

Deity Dude · June 10, 2002, 16:01

Quote:

Originally posted by rah
Ok, ITEMS UP FOR DISCUSSION
topic............................................. .......... my opinion
1. Nukes............................................. ........ /ban
2. unofficial tech stealing treaties.............../ban
3. unofficial trade pacts............................../ban
On two or three i don't want to elimiate trading or tech stealing, just make it harder and almost an act of war
4. GW................................................ ........../ban in all games

RAH

1. Nukes............................................. ......allow all nukes
2. Unofficial Tech stealing treaties............ban
3. Unofficial Trade pacts...........................ban
4. GW................................................ .......ban

RAH for wanting to ban GW - you sure do seem to build it alot

Straybow · June 10, 2002, 16:30

Hey, if it isn't banned ya might as well beat the other guy to it.