20-06-2003 04:38									#1
	Important: Team Policy Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

We had some discussion on this @ MZO and I wanna carry the topic onto here.

What kind of stance should we take on deforestation?

-Should we be rigid/compromisable? enforce policy from begining? Only demand cutting down / mandatory planatation of forests? etc.

My vision of Forestation policy is this: (if you do not like any of this speak up so we can decide as a group)

- Deforestation is evil (therefore must be prevented)
- Deforestation commited by other team is worse diplomatic hit for us than some serious hits such as espionage agst us etc.
- Deforestation can be negotiated
- Most agreed deforestation will require forestation of at least 1 or 2 times the tile that team will deforest. (Doesnt matter what tile, but tundra will count as 0.5 tile)
- Deforestation of 5 tile radius from capitol is automatically tolerated
- Since we dont have immediate contact with all teams, we will not be able to protect the world's garden for sometime. Team may try to get away with deforesting since we wont know about it, but if we catch them doing it (either thru 3rd party telling us or whatever) It is treated as any other deforestation.
- We may give deforestation as diplomatic bargain or gift
- But we will not overuse granting the team the priviledge to cut down our homes
- Forestation is always welcomed
- Cutting Jungles count as cutting forests too!
- We will also limit ourselves from deforesting too much tiles.
- We will also obey the 1 deforest for 2 forest as best as we can.

Obviously, it will look as we will be more able to work things more with mountainous, dry hilled team more so than someone whos near lots of forest or jungle. But thats what will make the game interesting. Im hoping that people who have very little access to trees will easily ally with us because we wont be difficult on them while those who live in jungle... we may need to have heavy duty diplomacy to negotiate the matter.

Im even hoping other teams will join our cause of forestation (moutainous dry regioned teams can technically use it to their own political advantage if they can cooperate with us)

Last edited by Zero on 20-06-2003 at 04:50

	20-06-2003 05:20									#2
	Increase the size of your Attachments

I like it.

Suggestions:

The 5 tile perimter is a bit excessive. 3 would be fine.

Also - that excessive deforestation by a team may be seen as a hostile act towards the environment, and may trigger equally hostile acts from team monkety - the protectors of the earth.

	20-06-2003 18:44									#3
	Suffering from ads?

I think we must be very careful with this.
Although all the teams are theme based, we are the only team that is going to play the game with a policy that may restrict our game play.

I think we can role-play the deforestation, but keep the rules reasonably relaxed upon ourselves. Certainly, no needless deforestation must occur, however setting up strict rules now should be avoided until we can see the layout of the land.

How we dictate our no deforestation policy on the other teams however, is going to be very interesting.

Announcing outright, that deforestation is unacceptable, will quickly see us targeted for elimination. I certainly do not have the answers, but we need to announce that deforestation will dictate our foreign policy, but still not jam it down their throats. Make our policy statement obscure enough to say we take it serious, but they have no idea of consequences if they do start chopping.

This way, we can relax the rules with allies, but keep it hard and fast for enemies. We will need no other reason to declare war, other than they chopped down the forest where my Uncle Magilla the Gorilla lived.

Perhaps...

"Team Monkey take deforestation very serious, and it will dictate our foreign policy, however we understand that some human tribes will need to chop forests & jungle for banana plantations (Fruit of the Gods)"

	21-06-2003 00:27									#4
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Hot_Enamel I think we must be very careful with this. Although all the teams are theme based, we are the only team that is going to play the game with a policy that may restrict our game play.

The goal of the team was to create something more than just team thats oriented toward winning. It could be seen as a handicap, but its also an advantage (read below)

quote: How we dictate our no deforestation policy on the other teams however, is going to be very interesting. Announcing outright, that deforestation is unacceptable, will quickly see us targeted for elimination. I certainly do not have the answers, but we need to announce that deforestation will dictate our foreign policy, but still not jam it down their throats. Make our policy statement obscure enough to say we take it serious, but they have no idea of consequences if they do start chopping.

No not target for elimination. Say if I was Monthy Phyton and I lived in a region vast with just open spaces and no forest, Our rambling and preaching about forestation will hav ABSOLUTELY no effect on me. Therefore Team monkey will be seen as with VERY LITTLE THREAT, especially if we propagandize that all we really care about is forestation. And the truth is that we WILL get along real well with people we have to negotitate forestation the least with.

Also bear in mind most of the teasm dont have an agenda that will directly affect the course of the game. Tabemono team has an agenda, but that coincides with winning and the only team that is closest to our style of play will be sunshine. So most of them will be out to kill each other. Our forestation policy could be used as a tool to ally ourselves agst 2 fighting sides. For example, if team living in a jungle fought with a mountainous team, we can LEGITLLY and JUSTIFIABLY join the cause because supposedly forestation is ALL WE CARE ABOUT. I do understand the notion that taking forestation too seriously would be impractical, but if we do put some weight into the issue, we could make an effective political, diplomatical tool out of it. (and have fun with the challenge)

quote: This way, we can relax the rules with allies, but keep it hard and fast for enemies. We will need no other reason to declare war, other than they chopped down the forest where my Uncle Magilla the Gorilla lived.

	21-06-2003 01:36									#5
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

I think we should keep our policy relatively obscure until the start of the game and wait to see our starting position. If Panzer put us in the middle of an immense jungle, we could put the rules a little softer (I'd still like to have a shot at winning... ) but I agree with Zero here...

We should have something rather strict, enforce it in our diplomacy, and have fun with it. On the other hand, having something too strict may prompt a gigantic alliance against us...

--Kon--

	21-06-2003 04:50									#6
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

The way I see it - is that we have to have some principles. I understand H_E's points completely, but maybe I just care more for the environment than winning.

And Zero raises some interesting points about how it might play out in the game.

	21-06-2003 22:54									#7
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

if everyone is ok with it, im gonna post the statements on the public forum so that we can show the world just how important frestation is.

	19-10-2003 03:10									#8
	Suffering from ads?

I have been reading up on our policy and I have one way we can prove that we are serious about it that will help our play in the long run.

Forestation of the tundra! Below our capitol.

Thats the only way I have ever gotten any use out of tundra. Non of the cities we found there will ever be worth much without forests anyway.

We can keep a picture now of the how it was, and possibly use that in the future as we improve the tundra.

(I sure hope we have oil down there to power our automated banana pickers!)

Thoughts?

	19-10-2003 03:44									#9
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

yep, a forest tile will be more productive than a tundra tile until railroads. However, I'm not sure that building those tundra cities will be profitable right now... I think we should build north before to adventure in the tundra.

--Kon--

	23-10-2003 07:22									#10
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I like it as a longer term objective. Some coastal cities with sea and forest tiles to draw on will work.

	23-10-2003 07:25									#11
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

And maybe we need to touch up the policy - and get it topped, so that we always know our guiding principles.

	23-10-2003 09:53									#12
	Put an end to popups!

Ya, I was talking in the long term. What I want to do is get a screen shot now after we have done all the exploring. Then get a screen shot Hundreds of years from now When the cities are built and we have done forestation. That way we can always "prove we a have actually done something to add forests as Monkeys. And it benefits us too. So if one of the other teams says "OH you guys are full with your deforestation nonense. " We can say, "Look here dude, we are serious about it."

Thats my whole point here, and if we do have to whack jungle up north at least we can say BUT we are reforesting the south.

Just looking for angles guys thats all.

	25-10-2003 20:08									#13
	Tired of ads?

OK - a more immediate opeartional question related to this policy:

I was looking at potential city sites, and where we may place them to define our northen border. Should we favour a non-forest/jungle site over a forested one, or does building a city on a junle/forest tile necessarily imply the complete deforestation of that tile. I am sure our towns and cities involve numerous tree houses etc.

(say - does anyone have any pictures of tree town - similar to the LOTR. We could use it in a public forum announcement.)

So - any thoughts on the building philosophy. We should update our deforestation policy with whatever we decide.

	26-10-2003 21:30									#14
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I say building a town on a forest or jungle square is OK since it really isn't a town just a bunch of tree houses. (Where else would monkeys want to live?)

Policy should also be changed in this way: Right now we allow deforestation within 5 hexes of a palace. I say we add Forbiden palace as well.

It just makes sense to me and seeing how our FP will probably be near Jungle, it wil only help our position.

	21-11-2003 00:31									#15
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

What about forestation policy? We really should discuss.

If we are going to be hardcore about no cutting of trees including jungle then we may have to look at the second pennisula to the west for a sceond core.

But before we go dwon that road keep in mind all those Luxuries in the Jungle up north and Beta's affinity for a northern core.

It is not critical yet but we need to talk about it sooner or later......

	21-11-2003 05:00									#16
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

I agree con,

At the moment, it has not hurt us too much.

I'd like to see the map first. If the other peninsula contains good land, we could have our second core there and have no real need to change our current policy.

If we decide on a second core up north, then the jungle may need to fall. Monkeys can be relocated to the tundra forests that we plan on planting in the south.

Certainly, CoD will be going full steam to hack down the jungle which sits within their core. This was a definate concern for them, because we advertised on the main forum, that we would not accept deforestation from other teams.



Also remember, most PBEM's have already been decided before railroads. Claiming jungle for coal is not always necessary.

	21-11-2003 05:53									#17
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Hot_Enamel I agree con, f we decide on a second core up north, then the jungle may need to fall. Monkeys can be relocated to the tundra forests that we plan on planting in the south.

Alright thats TWO for choping down jungle, Beta, Im staging a coup here!

	21-11-2003 06:50									#18
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Not a coup, a debate.

I think we need to be specific as to how the policy works. I think cutting a tile, as long as it is replaced with aforested tile elsewhere is OK.

I expect we will not have an extensive city set-up in the jungle. This will likely be CoD territory. In which case we still need to discuss how we apply the policy.