17-06-2005 16:32									#1981
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

I think the reasoning for that is in MP games the unit is not abailable until next turn automaticly. When playing a PBEM there is no such limitation, so one was imposed by civ dip so that in 2000 BC you can't gift a unit to a civ that plays next, then they have imediate use of that unit in 2000BC.

That said, I do think there should be a limit of some kind. like max # units gifted per turn or something. Is there any such limit in MP?

With all evidence in light i would say to ST's self imposed limit to 1 per city.
I would also say that Kull made a good statement,("Units shall not be exchanged if the sole purpose is to achieve an exploit, i.e something outside the normal flow of the game.")
If we can't trust each other to play fairly there are alot more problems than unit gifting. All of us in this forum are well past "Newby" stage and can conduct ourselves accordingly.

	17-06-2005 16:58									#1982
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by SlowThinker Ah, we remember now ... it was Babylon who attacked the peaceful Assyrian people sneakily. We remember... Egypt protested and warned Babylon that Pharaoh couldn't tolerate that. Also Persians, Minoans, Hittites and Greeks expressed they would support Assyria - the victim of the attack. We remember... Then Babylon started a war against these four civs without warning... Therefore you are right, it is Assyria who should ask for a compensation. But bloodthirsty Babylonians will continue their attack and destroy many Assyrian cities soon.

(Zedanu sighs)

While it is true Assyria was the one to attack babylon, from Dedanu's accounts it was justifiable. But in thier greed the Babylonians sought not retribution or even compensation as suggested, instead they suggested profit. Even now while under attack from EVERYONE, any attack I make against my deadliest enemy's will be mis-construed into an intollerable act of agression. and with each battle the "PRICE" of peace increases. I offered peace, and was open to a FAIR systm of compensation, but rather than that the other nations sought out a way to increase thier power dramaticly while pigeon holding Assyria into a weak nation.

	17-06-2005 17:45									#1983
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Zedd I think the reasoning for that is in MP games the unit is not abailable until next turn automaticly.

In MP game the unit can move automatically. In a MP game with a 6-civ alliance we could send a group of Chariots II in the core of Assyrian territory within one turn . This is why we added the requirement that the unit must not move one turn with the new owner.

I can agree with any rule that would limit rehoming units , but I think rules should be clear and unambiguous. Terms 'natural flow of the game' and 'city in danger' are indefinite for me.

I have an idea:
What about this rule:
You cannot give a unit that is homed in a city that sees enemy units.

(A city sees
units with attack<>0 : 2 squares away
other units : only adjacent squares)

Edit
Maybe the rule should be harder:
You cannot give a unit if you see any enemy unit 3 squares from the home city.



The rule is unambiguos and the attacker knows when the units of the target may be rehomed and when not.

And an additional rule:
You can swap a unit back and forth within one MP session only if the unit was homed in a foreign city. (In other words this technique may be used only to stop units from not to eat a shield of support)

	17-06-2005 18:18									#1984
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

I edited the last post.

	17-06-2005 18:21									#1985
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Zedd While it is true Assyria was the one to attack babylon, from Dedanu's accounts it was justifiable.

Such an impudence! Before the Assyrian attack Dedanu never complained there should exist any debts that Babylon isn't paying. Conversely he accepted the information from our Diplomatic System and attacked sneakily in the same moment.

quote: Even now while under attack from EVERYONE, any attack I make against my deadliest enemy's will be mis-construed into an intollerable act of agression.

In our humble opinion now this is a war, we understand you are fighting. But the war itself is an intollerable act of agression that started when Assyria attacked 5 civs.

	17-06-2005 19:50									#1986
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

What I'm trying to avoid here is the necessity for players to have to consult a 50-page set of rules full of "thou shalts" and "shalt nots", all laid out in excruciating detail, before they can take their turn.

In that respect, my rule was TOO complicated - it would suffice to say "Units shall not be exchanged if the sole purpose is to achieve an exploit". So what would an exploit be? Something you do you only - or mostly - to avoid normal in-game mechanics or consequences. Here's an example of each:

1) Mechanics Avoidance: Exchanging units solely to do away with a shield support requirement. This is clearly an exploit because it seeks to avoid the "normal" civ2 requirement that units are homed to a city, and thereby consume shields, Civ2s primitive method for simulating logistics.

2) Consequences Avoidance: Gifting units that are homed to an endangered city is an exploit IF you wouldn't have given them away otherwise. Maybe that seems vague, but really, is it THAT difficult to understand? Here's a simple test. Before you give the unit away, look in the mirror and ask yourself, "would I be doing this if the city wasn't in danger"? If you can justify it to your conscience, then fine, move on.

I'm sure the occaisonal gray area will crop up, but we can always discuss it - as happened in this case.

On a somewhat related matter, I'd like to note for the record that allowing the use of both MP and Civdip to achieve the same result has "exploit" written all over it. I'm by no means an expert on either, but lets look at unit gifting as an example - MP unit exchange involves an automatic rehoming while civdip does not.

In the context of our game, you can see that CivDip is a great way to transfer units to avoid paying shield support, while MP is preferable when rehoming is advantageous (such as when the home city is in danger). Maybe I'm missing something, but this doesn't sound so great.

	18-06-2005 13:49									#1987
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Kull 1) Mechanics Avoidance: Exchanging units solely to do away with a shield support requirement.

OK ... a hypothetic example: let us say Babylonians don't have the Bronze weapons and Persians build veteran units for Babs and now Babylon has 30 vet units homed in Persia.
This way the Bab/Persian Alliance may save 20 shields per turn and it is allowed (by Kull's proposed rule). This doesn't sound good.

Another example:
With your 'simple rule' it is possible that two civs exchange caravan on a regular basis. They don't care about revenues very much, possibly they don't know the theory of caravan in detail. By accident they double or triple their revenue, but they don't know about it and therefore it is legal (by Kull's proposed rule).

I know rules are long, but they are well organized. About trading units there is one paragraph only, and it is not so hard to read it.

quote: Gifting units that are homed to an endangered city is an exploit IF you wouldn't have given them away otherwise. ... Before you give the unit away, look in the mirror and ask yourself, "would I be doing this if the city wasn't in danger"? If you can justify it to your conscience, then fine, move on.

I don't see how should I deduce this paragraph from your simple one-sentence rule("Units shall not be exchanged if the sole purpose is to achieve an exploit"). There is nothing about 'endangered city' in your rule.

How shall I know what is an exploit and what is not?
I consider it is natural units get rehomed if passed to another civ, also it is natural I don't want they are destructed.

Imagine a city building a Granary, then the city gets in a danger and I switch the Granary to City Walls. I wouldn't be doing this if the city wasn't in danger. Is it an exploit?

Compare the case of units gifted to another civ and the example with Granary/Walls. Is there any diference?
The game allows to give units without any penalization, and similarly to change production to walls without a penalization. It might be better if there was some penalization, but there isn't.
(What I consider to be questionable is if the gifted unit would be given back, and so the only purpose of the swap would be to rehome the unit to another city.)

quote: I'm by no means an expert on either, but lets look at unit gifting as an example - MP unit exchange involves an automatic rehoming while civdip does not.

I agree.
IMO 2 rules would suffice to deal with it. One to limit the MP gifting, another one to control the CivDip gifting.

	18-06-2005 19:08									#1988
	Put an end to popups!

I was going to debate you, point-by-point, but it turns out that the "Normal" civ2 method for Single Player unit swapping (i.e. through the foreign minister) automatically turns all gifted units into "None" for support. Which means the game INTENDED that gifted units not be supported. In which case, it's not an exploit that gifted units don't have to pay shield support.

So my simple rule doesn't work.

Go ahead and come up with pages of rules, ST - just don't expect me to remember them all!

I'd still like to have a discussion about whether we should allow both MP and CivDip, since each method provides a different outcome for the same action (to me, this is rife with exploit potential) . I now know about the differences in unit gifting - what are the others?

	18-06-2005 21:41									#1989
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Kull, I hope the idea of my last post is clear: I wanted to say that the interpretation of "natural flow of the game" will change from one player to another one. Threfore such a simple rule can't work IMHO.

quote: Go ahead and come up with pages of rules, ST - just don't expect me to remember them all!

I think we were always permissive concerning the rules and they are half-official.
And I think if you don't trade unit massively you needn't care about this part of the rules.

quote: the "Normal" civ2 method for Single Player unit swapping (i.e. through the foreign minister) automatically turns all gifted units into "None" for support. Which means the game INTENDED that gifted units not be supported.

IMO that means there is another bug in the game rather that it was intended.
I never used the foreign minister swap because I knew it needn't work. THerefore I didn't know about that.
But I think creating NONE units by foreign minister swap should be forbidden.

	19-06-2005 08:45									#1990
	Tired of ads?

I guess both sides have a point - we'd all like to keep the rules simple, but we don't want excessive exploitation. Maybe ST can write some rules to cover all these cases. Maybe he can include a grace rule - that players who don't gift/trade very often can ignore the other new rules.

IMO the main rule in this game is the 72 hour rule. It is about time to PM our I.N.G.

....Straybow?

	20-06-2005 00:46									#1991
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

:LOL: what a complicated mess :LOL:

I think ST's intentions are well placed, and like I said all of us are capable of looking at the situation and determining wheather it is an exploit or not. I don't think anyone would intentionaly use something they felt was an exploit. just as ST brought this to our attention rather than devising a new strategy arround gifting units by the hundreds.

If creating a "Rule" will to ambiguous (spell??) then lets make it a rule of conduct between gentlemen gamers. "no IM's in all caps, and don't take advantage of the unit gifting by back-gifting multiple units."

Personally I think its part of the game and not an exploit, but a limit of 1 per city would be acceptable.

	20-06-2005 00:56									#1992
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by SlowThinker Such an impudence! Before the Assyrian attack Dedanu never complained there should exist any debts that Babylon isn't paying. Conversely he accepted the information from our Diplomatic System and attacked sneakily in the same moment.

I am mostly ignorant of those preceedings, I accept your account as factual but add also that Dedanu was very upset with the babylonians, for what reasons no one knows. to be honest I need to go back and look at previous saves becouse I can't even remember what citys or units may have been attacked.

quote: In our humble opinion now this is a war, we understand you are fighting. But the war itself is an intollerable act of agression that started when Assyria attacked 5 civs.

Point taken, and despite my tirade at the seemingly impossible odds and unending hatred expressed by our adversaries, I know that there will only be one conclusion to this conflict, someone must loose. Likely assyria will be withered to a shadow of its former self, remotely possible we may convince our enemies to fall back to thier strongholds and concentrate on thier own properity as we wish to do. But we are too proud to conceed what we have worked to gain.

Enough Chit-Chat, lets begin the ending.

	20-06-2005 03:02									#1993
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Zedd Personally I think its part of the game and not an exploit, but a limit of 1 per city would be acceptable.

I think Zedd's opinion is most weighty, since he is the main person that should protest against exploits around unit giving.
I would only suggest the 3-squares rule rather than 1 per city.
One reason is that '1-per city' rule is quite soft (a city homes about 3 units and the city is usually in a danger during several turns. So there would be enough of time to give all units out.)

quote: "no IM's in all caps, and don't take advantage of the unit gifting by back-gifting multiple units."

What is IM?

	20-06-2005 07:39									#1994
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

RL interfered the last few days. I need an answer from some allies who are currently asleep in Europe. Will play and post as soon as possible thereafter.

	20-06-2005 07:50									#1995
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Good to hear it, I just finished doing the "Control N" and was about to post the save......looks like you are just in time

* Sparrowhawk

	20-06-2005 17:33									#1996
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

IM = Instant Messaging

I was just trying to use a well known rule of conduct.

In many battles where a city is under seige, there have been "defectors" who later join with thier larger forces or an allies forces. So the idea of gifting a unit (and in essence simulating this act) is not one I am opposed to. However, these types of defections don't usually happen in large quantities, so the rule of 1 would keep the number of "defectors" within reason.

quote: I would only suggest the 3-squares rule rather than 1 per city. One reason is that '1-per city' rule is quite soft (a city homes about 3 units and the city is usually in a danger during several turns. So there would be enough of time to give all units out.)

True, but if I have such an overwelming force that you feel you have to evacuate the city rather than attempt a defense, then I should be able to empty the city in the next turn anyway.

Likewise, if you have enough forces to hold off an attack for a couple turns why evacuate the city rather than try to hold it? Even if you do get 2 or 3 units out, the city still falls to the agressor.

	20-06-2005 23:46									#1997
	Almost forgot to Ctrl-N! Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

A band of Assyrian Skirmishers harassed some peaceful merchant plying the Western River Road. Valiant Charioteers ran them down on the floodplain. Let none defile Anatolia except they pay with their blood!

Attachment: hittites_b2790.net
This has been downloaded 4 time(s).

	22-06-2005 01:40									#1998
	bab 2790 (before hexediting the save) Got spare money?

An Assyrian city of er has been found and destroyed.
A cheeky Assyrian boat on the Euphrat at Kish has been destroyed.

The only Babylonian city accessible to Assyrian caravans is Kish. Therefore we continue to supervise guilds of Kish so that they don't help Assyrian traders.

Edit:
Before er was burned down, our soldiers hunted for the last unchastened killer of the three that killed our custom officers at the start of the war. No track was found yet.
Didanu (the recent maniacal and bloody ruler of Assyria) found er just before his abdication and we think this city had some special significance for him. A special inquisitional group is trying to locate the current residence of Didanu. But no indication so far, we don't know if he is still alive. A recompense of 500 gold carts is announced for information that would lead to his arrest . And a subsequent torture .
A special group of 2000 priests is praying unceasingly that Didanu doesn't die before he will be captured.
A gigantic statue of Didanu was found on the central square of er. The statue was embarked on a sail and will be destroyed in Ur ceremoniously during a celebration of er destruction. The techniques of torture prepared for Didanu will be demonstrated on the statue. Relatives of victims of war and allied ambassadors will participate the celebration.

_____________
(I have no time to hexedit the save so that the lost unit is created and I will do it on Wen or Thu. I am posting this so that Zedd can prepare his plans.
Zedd, but if you will be busy on Thu and prefer to play now then go on and play. I will create the unit next turn.)

Attachment: bab_b2790.net
This has been downloaded 1 time(s).

Last edited by SlowThinker on 26-06-2005 at 03:01

	22-06-2005 01:54									#1999
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

I can wait until thursday night, friday nights and weekends I am out of town.

sounds like my boys took a beating

	23-06-2005 02:14									#2000
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

In my original save I forgot to change production to a unit that shall be "created". So first I loaded the original save in MP mode and "continued my turn": I changed the production in the said city and re-saved.
Here is the save #2:

Attachment: bab_b2790 production changed.net
This has been downloaded 1 time(s).

	23-06-2005 02:16									#2001
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Then my program hexedited the save #2 and raised number of shields in the said city. This way the final save was created. If you binary compare the save #2 and the final save you'll see only one byte changed: this is number of shields.
I am prepared to say the city name to SparrowHawk so that he checks everything is OK.

Next turns I want to recreate the original type of production and the original number of shields.

Attachment: the final save for Zedd

Attachment: bab_b2790 final save (after hexedit).net
This has been downloaded 1 time(s).

	23-06-2005 02:31									#2002
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Zedd True, but if I have such an overwelming force that you feel you have to evacuate the city rather than attempt a defense, then I should be able to empty the city in the next turn anyway. Likewise, if you have enough forces to hold off an attack for a couple turns why evacuate the city rather than try to hold it? Even if you do get 2 or 3 units out, the city still falls to the agressor.

Zedd, don't forget the case is not about units in the city but about units homed in the city. These units may be far away from the city in danger.

quote: Originally posted by Kull I'd still like to have a discussion about whether we should allow both MP and CivDip, since each method provides a different outcome for the same action (to me, this is rife with exploit potential) . I now know about the differences in unit gifting - what are the others?

I think we need CivDip because it is comfortable and time-saving for us.
Unfortunately sometimes CivDip doesn't manage the support corectly, but we have MP connection which can solve this problem.
IMO the exploit potential is limited to problems we are talking about.

'what are the others?' ... what do you mean?

	23-06-2005 04:21									#2003
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I think he is asking what are the other differences between the two methods (MP and CivDip).

As for me checking out the file for differences I will do so, but it sounds like looking for a needle in a haystack when you suspect the needle isn't there in the first place.

I will agree to try but not sure I will put a lot of time into checking something out by trying to prove a negative.

* Sparrowhawk

	23-06-2005 16:20									#2004
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

SparrowHawk,

IMO it is not necessary for you to check the save, I will dl and play tonight.

Slowthinker,

quote: Zedd, don't forget the case is not about units in the city but about units homed in the city. These units may be far away from the city in danger.

Again, I think 1 or two units traded in this way would be acceptable in that situation. It would symbolize troops away from home that might return to a burned village or town. It happens many times in war.

A french soldier in germany didn't drop dead becouse his hometown was captured.

Any trade like this outside the scenerio of a city under siege would simply be a normal gift. As I understand it the problem is that these units would then be essentialy NON units for the allied civ, and could then be traded back as support-free units. If that is correct, then IMO we would simply need to set a limit to how often it can be done.
I admit I am not quite clear if the problem is with gifting in general or just gifting units from a city under attack. If the problem is with cities under attack then a set limit of "1 per turn while under attack" would be OK with me, . (and even add an interesting new approach to the game )

But if the problem is with gifting in general then we SHOULD review the gifting policies. I myself have been focused on the former and may have totally missed your suggestions about the later.

	23-06-2005 20:55									#2005
	Support Apolyton

The glorious Kingdom of the Hatte was, up until recently, disdainful of the sea. Our noble ally King Minos gave us some "ships" to facilitate trade. These vessels were known to us only on a smaller scale, plying rivers and lakes.

We Hatte would not spend our careers tossed on angry seas in these leaky buckets (as we see them). We have only one port city to receive ships. It is far to the East. A few brave Hatte have received from us the title Captain of the Seas and received from King Minos training that befits one who is to command a ship.

The crews, however, remain the subjects of King Minos, and by their hand these vessels are maintained and supplied. What city of Hatte, so many leagues from the shores of the Great Sea, can even know the needs of a ship and crew?

We hear tales that the Minoan crews joke about the Hatte Captains spending more time "bent over the rails" than standing at the tiller. In due time these vessels shall be returned to King Minos, much to the sailors' relief.

	24-06-2005 22:12									#2007
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

The previous comments from Zedanu were in apreciation of the humor in the Hatta King's story, however they have become sadly ironic, as history repeats itself and Tarsis falls to the Chariots of Assyria.

Likewise on the newly named Isle of Anu, the city of Milla has been removed, and a babylonian intruder destroyed.

In the west, where the defenders of er are mourned, defenses have been strengthened and all forces alerted to further babylonian intrusions. For those men the future is very bleak.

In the north a persian scout has been cornered, his fate yet decided.

Attachment: ze_b2790.net
This has been downloaded 3 time(s).

	25-06-2005 09:34									#2008
	Increase Your PM Length

The brightly colored banners adorning the walls of Memphis, displayed in joy following word of Egyptian military triumphs and the Babylonian destruction of Er, have been furled in mourning. The loss of two allied cities is a serious blow, but the alliance will endure.

The Chariots of Egypt leave more Assyrian corpses in their wake, as the march on Nineveh continues.

Attachment: egypt_b2790.net
This has been downloaded 1 time(s).

	25-06-2005 18:19									#2009
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Assyrian skirmishers with a battering ram thought they had cornered Persian horsemen in the mountains north of Tushpa, but Persians easily escaped into the darkness.

A rebel faction led by Cyrus ambushed Perseat's chariot as it passed through Behistun. But Sinbad and his loyal men fought them off and saved the Steward's life. Perseat easily persuaded the assembly that it was time for Persia to have a real King again. Of course, they chose Almighty Sinbad in recognition of his heroism against barbarians and the vile traitors in Behistun.

Perseat retired to study the mysteries of Hittite procreation methods. A rapidly growing village was re-named "Persepolis" in his honor.

Sinbad vows to double both the royal treasury and the Persian army. Long live King Sinbad!

Attachment: pe_b2790.net
This has been downloaded 4 time(s).

	26-06-2005 02:59									#2010
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

The Bab headquarters got a detailed report from Er. Therefore the brief Bab report in the thread has been edited.