RAH rules: The Neverending Saga - Page 5

rah · January 28, 2003, 19:00

Quote:

Originally posted by War4ever
on a side note i am cranky today....some $#%#$%$#% loud @$$ siren was wailing at 530 in the morning and it went on for an hour....i thought my apartment or the neighbors was on fire.....

Ahhhh, justified spam smells just as bad as freshly cooked spam.

I guess that would explain your response to "eyes" in that other thread.

I found it entertaining.

RAH
And yes Ming, I guess responding to spam is just spam also. *sigh*

ColdWizard · January 28, 2003, 19:06

/me demands 50% pcr for Ming, 20% for rah, and 5% for War4

Six Thousand Year Old Man · January 28, 2003, 19:15

Quote:

Originally posted by War4ever
on a side note i am cranky today....some $#%#$%$#% loud @$$ siren was wailing at 530 in the morning and it went on for an hour....i thought my apartment or the neighbors was on fire.....

On a related note, congratulations War4ever for passing rah

War4ever · January 28, 2003, 21:09

STYOM thanks for noticing...sorry guys...its just been a foul day, the side note is my new puter is up and running, and i debt free

last payment to the student loan people....

still cranky tho..but going out for dins.....

btw my response to eyes is justified, he has insulted everyone here the last week

Alexander's Horse · January 29, 2003, 02:52

RAH rules: all these rules, must be the German heritage.

rah · January 29, 2003, 15:43

Hmmmm. Does that mean that aussies don't have rules?
I can remember one aussie thread a while back discussing an upcoming game where someone stated, standard rah rules but no unit bribing since AH is a wuss. Ok, ok, I may have exaggerated the part about rah rules.

RAH

ColdWizard · January 29, 2003, 15:59

any more opinions on allowing the GW, and what about raising the costs of wonders?

iirc, me, War4 and Ming are in favor of allowing the GW in non-duels.

also iirc, me and War4 favor the raising of costs for HG and pyramids, with rah opposed due to paranoia

Alexander's Horse · January 29, 2003, 16:32

Quote:

Originally posted by rah
Hmmmm. Does that mean that aussies don't have rules?

RAH

We have rules - no unit bribe, no city bribe. No cheating.

That's all we need - unless deity plays, then we have to hire teams of lawyers.

War4ever · January 29, 2003, 16:37

i dont get the no unit bribe...but then again , i don't always get aussies....

Alexander's Horse · January 29, 2003, 16:40

I don't get the unit bribe thing either - that's why we don't play it.

War4ever · January 29, 2003, 16:48

is it a deity rule?

Alexander's Horse · January 29, 2003, 18:31

No, the deity rule is "I don't like what you just did." He needs no other rules.

War4ever · January 29, 2003, 23:28

thats his rule for keeping a spotless rep right

Alexander's Horse · January 29, 2003, 23:56

Spotless? If by that you mean completely black, then yes.

ColdWizard · January 30, 2003, 11:51

Flatlander Fox · January 30, 2003, 17:44

I like adding the GW in non-duel games, but not raising the price of other wonders.

ColdWizard · January 30, 2003, 17:52

For increased cost of HG, Pyramids
War4
CW

Against increased cost
rah
FF
Ming

DrSpike · January 30, 2003, 19:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse

We have rules - no unit bribe, no city bribe. No cheating.

That's all we need - unless deity plays, then we have to hire teams of lawyers.

I still think unit bribe is fine though.

rah · January 31, 2003, 09:20

Hmmmm, after listening to the discussion, I'll go along with adding GW back in, in games of 4 people or more.

I'm also up for reducing cost on MP, just to see if anyone will build it.

DrSpike · January 31, 2003, 09:29

Obviously I don't get an official vote but I think increased cost for HG should be considered further......and maybe pyramids as well.

ColdWizard · January 31, 2003, 10:05

anybody wanna speak out against letting the GW back into 4 player games?

War4ever · January 31, 2003, 10:37

THanks spike i need the support, i say bring GW back and up the cost of pyramids and HG, and lower the cost of Marcos

rah · January 31, 2003, 10:53

Even though I'll support the GW position (see, discussing it can change opinions), my initial objection to it was in four person games, the map lay out usually means you have easy access to two of your three opponents since everyone usually ends up in one of the four quandrants. If one of your easy access opponents builds gw and the other builds the war academy, it removes a lot of incentive to go to war.

But since that is only one of the possibilities, I guess I can live with it. This is why I specified in 4+ games. In a three person game, the above example is considerably more likely to occur.

RAH
More continued games would make me reconsider my opinion on a lot of different things.

Ming · January 31, 2003, 11:20

I can go along with GW for 4+ or more games. And I would really like to see MP cut in cost... like rah, to see if somebody would build it. If it were only a 100 shields, then in a four person game, it would just be a tad more expensive than building 3 diplos... and we might actually see it being built every once in a while.

rah · January 31, 2003, 11:47

Assuming a 4 person game.

Since it's possible that you will lose one diplo by chance moving up to establish an embasy, 120 cost to establish 3 embasies seems closer to reality to me. That coupled with it usually being more difficult to get to one of your three opponents, 100 shields for MP might be low. I'm thinking in the 120 range first to see if it's built. If not, I'd consider dropping it to 100.

Ming · January 31, 2003, 12:04

120 is a good starting point for me. I have no problems with that. What do other people think?

ColdWizard · January 31, 2003, 12:07

rah's reasoning sounds reasonable

Hey Ming, you're against raising the cost of HG and Pyramids yes?

Ming · January 31, 2003, 12:12

At this point... yes. While I agree HG is probably worth more... I still see it as a matter of "choices" early in the game. To build it, you are giving up on something. If indeed it is being built by 4 caravans later in the game, then everybody has the option to go for it later, so it's pretty fair. If somebody wants to give up cranking settlers out of their capital early... let them. It's a choice.

War4ever · January 31, 2003, 14:13

i have a hard time supporting a less expensive Marcos, and not increasing the two i voted for....having an embassy that early in the game without risking your diplos at identical costs is a trade off too isn't it..instead your rewarding the player for not taking a chance to get his dips in??????

seems foolish to me....i vote no now on the lower cost of marcos (even though i would like to see it built more often) without the increase in in pyramids/hg....

for the same price as three diplos???? no way, and for less ??? no way...it has to cost at least 150 shields otherwise all were doing is making it simple to get an embassy......which can be difficult at times , sometimes not...

my vote is GW in four man games only, Pyramids 300 shields, HG 300 shields, and marcos if the above applies 150 shields to compensate for the fact that reality dictates that you could easily lose i diplo trying .

rah · January 31, 2003, 15:03

Hmmm I did include the risk of losing a diplo trying to establish. hence the 120 vs 90 cost. And if you move them up with a good defensive unit early in the game, there really is no risk. And I think we should look at each issue seperately. Combining seems to encourage compromising one for another. I don't want to play those games. Each should stand on it's own merit.

On that note, if we want to try 150 for marcos, i'll agree to that, but I don't think it will be built anymore than it is now at that cost.