20-06-2005 08:55									#1
	UN Amendment #2: City Trading Increase Your PM Length

quote: Option 1 (as proposed by CGN): Description: No team is permitted to barter, gift, or otherwise trade a city or cities, unless to return the city or cities to a previous owner or to divide up the territory of a conquered civ. Definition: For all reasons, aside from those listed below, cities may NOT be traded or gifted to another team Reason 1: Returning ownership - If a team was previously in possession of a city or cities, the current owner can return it to that team's possession. Reason 2: Spoils of War - After concluding a war and either signing a peace treaty or conquering a third party, the cities of a third party can be gifted or traded between the parties who were at war with the third party. Purpose: To prevent the use of city trading to break the spirit of the game by allowing early contact or denial of conquest. Option 2 (as proposed by a member of Apolyton): Option 2 is identical to option 1, except for the fact that cities may also be gifted "to exchange land as part of a border treaty." Option 3: Do not amend this rule at all. Vote now!

	20-06-2005 09:47									#2
	Increase Your PM Length

I'm not sure I understand why option 2 would be better than option 1. Can someone please explain?

	20-06-2005 09:54									#3
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Option 2 simply allows you to exchange cities to take in to account a new border treaty. Partially covered already by the "dividing the spoils of war" part. I proposed what MRex picked up as Option 2, and I was imagining the scenario of two civs getting a border by default as settlements are built, but then later negotiating a new border. In that situation, with option 1, it would be illegal to gift cities to fulfill the border agreement; the two sides would have to disband their cities so that the other could build new ones, which seems an unnecessary thing to force them to do. Or let's say a one-sided trade, with one civ trading land to the other for something else.

If two sides are exchanging cities permanently as part of a trade of land, I think that should be allowed. It's temporary city gifting and all the exploits that opens that we should be wary of.

	20-06-2005 09:55									#4
	Increase Your PM Length

I see. It's similar to what GoW and ND did in the PTWDG1 with Darekill's city. Okay. Option #2 it is then.

	20-06-2005 10:11									#5
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Number 2 works Thanks Klo

	20-06-2005 11:14									#6
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Trading of cities to allow for upgrades of units, to allow for Naval units to heal. the sharing of Wonders and things like that should not be allowed.

	20-06-2005 13:52									#7
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by BigFree Trading of cities to allow for upgrades of units, to allow for Naval units to heal. the sharing of Wonders and things like that should not be allowed.

agree

otherwise voted option 2

	20-06-2005 14:26									#8
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

2

	20-06-2005 15:19									#9
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

2

	21-06-2005 02:04									#10
	Support Apolyton

I'm against any city trading or sharing outside a peace-agreement

	21-06-2005 05:58									#11
	Tired of ads?

2

	21-06-2005 08:15									#12
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Rhothaerill I see. It's similar to what GoW and ND did in the PTWDG1 with Darekill's city. Okay. Option #2 it is then.

Another interesting tidbit:

On the breakthrough turn in the Lego War, GS gifted their Lego cities to GoW so that we could go through them. I.e. a tactical move. Does this count?

And how about RP's gifting of cities to GS as our stacks approached? It was a defensive move.

Personally I find both of these acceptable.

	21-06-2005 08:50									#13
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Niether would be acceptable with this amendment.

	21-06-2005 08:51									#14
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

bleh

	21-06-2005 11:46									#15
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

If the makers of the game wanted Civ's to be able to share harbors and barracks then they would have allowed for a mechanism in which to do that without having to gift a city.

	21-06-2005 11:56									#16
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

If the makers of Conquests had wanted us to be able to trade maps at Map Making they would have made it so, but here we are modding it anyway.

	21-06-2005 12:10									#17
	Increase Your PM Length

Yes, but, we are not voting to allow a mod for Civs to share barracks and harbors for healing/upgrading purposes; only on whether or not they should share cities.

Back in Civ 2, I believe, you could share a barracks with an ally. Maybe in Civ 4 it will be that way...

	21-06-2005 13:01									#18
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

What has barracks sharing to do with the two points I mentioned?

	21-06-2005 13:51									#19
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

It's a benefit you'd get from having any units in a gifted city; along with benefits you'd get from whatever other buildings they had.

To address your specific concerns:

1: If you need to travel through another team's territory, then all you need is a ROP. Not being able to move through another Civ's city center tile is just something you and the rest of the teams will have to deal with. If you really need to move through on that tile, then the otehr team could disband the city and build a road there for you. :P

2: Magically transporting troops out of harms way and/or denying conquest of a city to another Civ by gifting that city is wrong for many reasons. I'll give one example. Let's say Civ A attacked Civ B in Civ B's territory. Civ A gets a happiness boost for a bit. Then Civ B retaliates and comes into Civ A's territory only to find that the city they were about to attack is under control of a 3rd Civ. Now, if they go throuh with the conquest of that city, then they will have to attack that 3rd Civ, in the other Civ's territroy, effectively givng them a negative in the War Weariness computation; something I'm sure that GoW thought about when GS had taken over RP's cities. It was wrong for RP and GS to do it, now IMO.

	23-06-2005 04:40									#20
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Option 2 seems best.