 |
| |
|
|
-Jrabbit
|
 |
of the Electronic Egyptians
Feb 2002
time: 23:30
|
|
quote:
Each player may only build one city and capture one city. The goal is conquest. In other words, all other AI cities must be razed - may can do this with Spy-poisoning or simply attacking the city until it is destroyed, or by capturing a size 1 city (destroying it, but still getting pillage). |
Then, under "Clarifications"
quote:
- If the city you founded is somehow destroyed, you may not found another, but you may capture a second city from the AI. If the city you captured is destroyed... well... too bad |
Not to be a bastard, but if we're playing the rules game, have a look at Stu's log and tell me it's OK to (a) capture the same AI city twice and (b) kill through engineer build, not spy poison or razing.
I could've taken Troy much earlier and more easily, but (foolishly) adhered to the above rules...
{not that I'm bitter, Stu...}
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Six Thousand Year Old Man
|
 |
Ad Rock
Aug 2000
time: 00:30
|
|
Okay. I'm going to try to think about this and be fair.
Ok, done. Took all of 30 seconds. 
Point 1. Jrabbit's Palace. While Jrabbit did put the shields in the box, he foolishly entrusted a RAR with those shields...  In a way, I'm surprised a Colosseum appeared, instead of a Crook! 
If the Palace had been actually built, no harm, no foul. The main point of this rule is to force us to allocate 100 shields to a Palace every turnset, which is a mild drag on our overall production. If it was permissible to add 100 shields towards a Palace and then convert to something else, the 'drag' effect would be lost, or diminished at least. We'd all build Palaces on our last turn, and the next player would change to a Factory/Market/Aqueduct/whatever. So... while I understand Jrabbit's intentions were good, the intention was thwarted by a vicious RAR, and the spirit of the rule was violated.
Point 2. Capturing, abandoning, and razing. This is a tougher call. Again, I'm going to try to look to the spirit of the rules.
quote:
quote:
Each player may only build one city and capture one city. The goal is conquest. In other words, all other AI cities must be razed - may can do this with Spy-poisoning or simply attacking the city until it is destroyed, or by capturing a size 1 city (destroying it, but still getting pillage).
Then, under "Clarifications"
quote:
- If the city you founded is somehow destroyed, you may not found another, but you may capture a second city from the AI. If the city you captured is destroyed... well... too bad
|
What I had originally intended was that each player could build one city and capture (and hold) an AI city. That was my intention with SixT. 
Stu has come up with a loophole which DOES violate the letter of the rules. However, he's plainly indicated that he doesn't intend to hold the city he's captured - he wants to raze it, as required in the rules. This does allow for faster razing, and as Jrabbit pointed out, he could have destroyed Troy faster if he wasn't adhering to the letter of the rules - well, the letter of some of the rules, anyway. 
Stu's trick has a couple of downsides, though. If you're capturing/abandoning/razing cities, you can only do that to one city at a time - you can't capture and abandon 2, 3 or 15 cities in a turn as that's clearly contrary to the letter AND spirit of the rules. And, perhaps more importantly, anyone employing this technique can't capture and hold an AI city (say, one with a lot of wonders in it), because they would be holding 2 AI cities at once.
Trouble is, how is capture-and-abandon policed? How long can one hold a city - for example, a 'beachhead' city for landing spies/howies in - before abandoning it? What happens if the AI never bothers recapturing it? What if another player wants to claim it? There's the potential for a rules exploit here... claim a city until a better one appears, then abandon the old city, wait for it to be captured, and grab a new one. 
Bottom line is... in the spirit of the rules (destroying AI cities) I was tempted to allow this. But also, the spirit of the rules is to make the game harder. So, it's ok this time (because I hadn't really thought it all through when I previously posted on this, a couple of days ago), but henceforth, this technique will not be allowed. 
Point 3. Destroying the city by building a Settler. A definite no-no, I should have noticed that before.  To the Institute with him! 
(Was the Settler destroyed? If so, fine. If not, please disband him, and let us never speak of this again. )
And now, a request: Please don't make me try to be logical at 1:00 AM again. 
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Six Thousand Year Old Man
|
|
Ad Rock
Aug 2000
time: 00:30
|
|
@ Monk - we can wait for Spies, or destroy the city walls with Dips and knock the AI cities down to size that way. Either/or.
Yes, it's a hard game... but if La Fayette is watching, he's probably thinking: "Rush to Espionage, switch to Communism, build several dozen vet Spies, start poisoning." I suspect that when the end comes, it'll be swift. 50 cities is not all that many.
quote:
Originally posted by Scouse Gits
Seriously guys, now I'm confused - it seems clear that I am a malefactor, but can we have some agreement as to what it is that I have transgressed.
Stu - en route to Sticky Mouse (which is currently in Egyptian hands and temporarily known as Memphis) |
The transgression is the violation of the rule stating that you may only capture one AI city. Technically, if you capture and abandon cities, you're breaking that rule, as was pointed out by Jrabbit. Yes, I earlier said it was ok (which is why you don't have to replay the turns), but on further review... it strays too far from what was intended in the rules.
Also, building Settlers/Engineers to destroy a city isn't allowed.
Sorry to be raining on so many peoples' parades. The next succession game I start will have no confusing rules! 
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
-Jrabbit
|
|
of the Electronic Egyptians
Feb 2002
time: 23:30
|
|
quote:
So... while I understand Jrabbit's intentions were good, the intention was thwarted by a vicious RAR, and the spirit of the rule was violated. |
[ ]
So let me get this straight...
1. I obey the spirit of the rule, dedicate the resources for the required Palace in the 8th turn of my set.
2. SG [1] misappropriates the resources, builds an unneeded, unwanted resource in my city, then uses the gold I kindly left for his use to build the required palace in Git's Hole.
3. But I am judged in violation of the rules and need to build TWO palaces during my next turnset, while the wastrel Git gets a slap on the wrist and wanders free??????????
Oh yeah, that's fair...
In my view, I'm guilty only of taking too few turns, while Stu fell to temptation, stole my resources to put me in technical violation of the rules, and then used a, uh. "workaround" to avoid the razing rule.
So tell me again,
 who was it that moved outside the intent of the ruleset, and who is paying the penalty?
It's only a game and I don't really care. I, for one, will abide by the rules, and their interpretation by game's sponsor.
[/ ]
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Six Thousand Year Old Man
|
|
Ad Rock
Aug 2000
time: 00:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bloody Monk
Careful Six. This dumb and dumber act could easily end up with all four white goods in SixPak being dumped. Not that that would help win this thing.
Contemplate the line between not funny and lame.
One might think you were trying to sabotage the game or something. 
Monk |
Ahh, but that's the beauty of succession games... one can't help what happens during someone else's turns.
[serious]
For the record, I'm not trying to sabotage the game. I was trying to make a ruling that was fair (someone's got to build an extra Palace, or why have that stipulation at all?!), and keep things moving.
I'll confess to having not thought the conquer-and-abandon tactic through when it first came up. It's not what I originally intended to be allowed, and it's not fair to the other players who were adhering to the letter of the rules as well as the spirit. So, it's belatedly disallowed.
 Perhaps I should have just said "work it out amongst yourselves" to Jrabbit and SG[1], but a rule was broken, and as I started this game, that had to be addressed. If one or both of them proposed a compromise re: Palace, we'd do that. But they didn't.
[/serious]
This is all much too dramatic... can we play some Civ now? 
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:30.
Apolyton Time is 00:30. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
10-12-2003 23:35
You got him. Given how the turns began I wonder if it was an accident that you left it with a rushed aquaduct in Lag BUT no food surplus (so it won't grow). Very 
Bulking up the core cities is a beautiful thing.
You guys are giving me a headache! 
|