Chaos and Civility II -- Game Rules

[Capsavian Hopewell]

I'm hoping that the following rule makes the cost for city gifting sufficient so swapping as a loophole abuse may be prevented:

4.3 - Gifting of cities to another nation is permitted, however the city may not be re-gifted for a minimum of 10 turns following.

[oyzar]

I'm hoping that the following rule makes the cost for city gifting sufficient so swapping as a loophole abuse may be prevented:

4.3 - Gifting of cities to another nation is permitted, however the city may not be re-gifted for a minimum of 10 turns following.

It is talk about a city you would lose anyways so i don't see why the heck it would...

[Capsavian Hopewell]

So you are saying...a nation about to lose his city would just gift it to another civ, in hopes of securing it from the invader?  What's to stop the invader from answering that abuse by simply declaring war on the city recipient and taking it anyway?

Though I suppose doing so would kick the invader out of the borders, making for some potentially annoying situations.

OK, please give me some wording as to how you think 4.4 should read, to prevent this sort of situation.

[oyzar]

So you are saying...a nation about to lose his city would just gift it to another civ, in hopes of securing it from the invader?  What's to stop the invader from answering that abuse by simply declaring war on the city recipient and taking it anyway?

Though I suppose doing so would kick the invader out of the borders, making for some potentially annoying situations.

OK, please give me some wording as to how you think 4.4 should read, to prevent this sort of situation.

Just add an additional rule as you would still need to cirumvect the other abuse..

"It is not allowed to gift a city a city to a party you are not in war with while at war" Or something to dhtat efect...

[Bernout]

So you are saying...a nation about to lose his city would just gift it to another civ, in hopes of securing it from the invader?  What's to stop the invader from answering that abuse by simply declaring war on the city recipient and taking it anyway?

Though I suppose doing so would kick the invader out of the borders, making for some potentially annoying situations.

OK, please give me some wording as to how you think 4.4 should read, to prevent this sort of situation.

Just add an additional rule as you would still need to cirumvect the other abuse..

"It is not allowed to gift a city a city to a party you are not in war with while at war" Or something to dhtat efect...

Personally I don't see the need for another rule.  As has been stated, the only real benefit gained is a bit of time when your units are potentially kicked out of the borders.   And in the meantime, the person receiving the city risks a DoW assuming they weren't at war already.  Plus gifting the city loses all culture.  Plus you can't do anything with it for 10 turns as per the rule.  So what's the point?

Bernout

[whiplash]

You may also find it useful to create a shortcut to load the mod directly instead of having to load the normal game and then switch to the 40 civs mod.

You can do it by using the "-mod" switch. So if you have just unzipped the mod into your "Beyond the Sword/mods" directory then make a copy of your Civ4 BTS shortcut and change it to:

C:\Program Files\Firaxis\Civilization IV\Beyond the Sword\Civ4BeyondSword.exe -mod="mods/40Civs"

Moderator Edit:  some of us have found that the shortcut path should actually be:

"C:\Program Files\Firaxis Games\Sid Meier's Civilization 4\Beyond the Sword\Civ4BeyondSword.exe" -mod="mods/40Civs"

Note the placement of quotation marks.  Your folder names should remain as you currently have, though (notice that Drib's and mine are different).

Is this for "start in", or "target"?

Edit:  Never Mind!

[DribNairb]

So you are saying...a nation about to lose his city would just gift it to another civ, in hopes of securing it from the invader?  What's to stop the invader from answering that abuse by simply declaring war on the city recipient and taking it anyway?

Though I suppose doing so would kick the invader out of the borders, making for some potentially annoying situations.

OK, please give me some wording as to how you think 4.4 should read, to prevent this sort of situation.

Just add an additional rule as you would still need to cirumvect the other abuse..

"It is not allowed to gift a city a city to a party you are not in war with while at war" Or something to dhtat efect...

Personally I don't see the need for another rule.  As has been stated, the only real benefit gained is a bit of time when your units are potentially kicked out of the borders.   And in the meantime, the person receiving the city risks a DoW assuming they weren't at war already.  Plus gifting the city loses all culture.  Plus you can't do anything with it for 10 turns as per the rule.  So what's the point?

Bernout

The point is it is gains you an extra turn or two which you shouldn't have. We already have a rule that states you cannot accept a vassal unless you are at war with anyone the vassal is at war with (to prevent just such a scenario). I'd suggest replacing all those rules with a more simple - "you must not cause any enemy units to be displaced from your borders (or from another civ's borders) with Vassal states or trading cities".
In this case 'enemy' units are units for which you or your trading partner are at war.

[oyzar]

So you are saying...a nation about to lose his city would just gift it to another civ, in hopes of securing it from the invader?  What's to stop the invader from answering that abuse by simply declaring war on the city recipient and taking it anyway?

Though I suppose doing so would kick the invader out of the borders, making for some potentially annoying situations.

OK, please give me some wording as to how you think 4.4 should read, to prevent this sort of situation.

Just add an additional rule as you would still need to cirumvect the other abuse..

"It is not allowed to gift a city a city to a party you are not in war with while at war" Or something to dhtat efect...

Personally I don't see the need for another rule.  As has been stated, the only real benefit gained is a bit of time when your units are potentially kicked out of the borders.   And in the meantime, the person receiving the city risks a DoW assuming they weren't at war already.  Plus gifting the city loses all culture.  Plus you can't do anything with it for 10 turns as per the rule.  So what's the point?

Bernout

The point is to avoid the bouncing out of borders in the first place.

[Capsavian Hopewell]

How about a simple addition:

4.4 When at war, a nation may not gift any of its cities to another nation. Nor may a nation act upon any game loophole which would cause a "false peace" by ejecting units from cultural borders without a mutually-agreed peace treaty or cease-fire.

Make sense, or no?

[oyzar]

Sure. Although i still don't like vassal states .

[Capsavian Hopewell]

Since we haven't started the game yet, I'm going to add this to the rules even without a formal vote.  If anyone objects, let me know and we can certainly bring this to a vote (though I think this is a fairly nonpartisan amendment!).

After the game starts, there won't be any rule changes without a formal vote.

[Elkad]

the only issue I see with that gifting rule is war allies.

Something like:  A city may be transfered to a war ally if both giver and reciever have identical warring status, open borders with each other (to avoid "bouncing" allied units to a more advantageous position) and the false-peace rule is not otherwise violated.

This allows allies to capture (or re-capture) cities and then transfer them to the intended owners.

Example.  I declare on you.  You call in an ally, who declares on me and rushes troops thru your land to your aid.  Unfortunately his main stack is too late, and you lose a city.  Once his stack arrives he retakes the city from me.  He should be able to gift it back to you.  You and your ally then switch to the offensive and invade me, taking several cities.  Since you both are at war with me, those cities can be gifted between each other in whatever manner you feel is equitable.


There should also be a gentleman's rule about abuse of opening and closing borders, phony wars, or gifting cities, to bounce allied units across the map in a hurry.  There are a lot of creative ways to help your ally quickly move his troops long distances that shouldn't be used, regardless of if he's actually in a war at the time.  If its better than walking, you shouldn't do it.

[Capsavian Hopewell]

True, true...certainly the scenario you describe in exchanging cities which were just conquered wouldn't be an issue, normally.  Though I'm unsure how that could be formed into an enforceable rule.

Definitely, kicking an ally's units by closing borders would be gaming of the system and unscrupulous.

We fortunately didn't have to deal with these types of scenarios in Chaos and Civility I, but I recognize that it's better to address these situations beforehand.  A simple blanket rule of "no gaming the system" is probably too open-ended and subject to interpretation, however.

[Elkad]

trying to think of a different wording.

How about this.. stricter than it actually needs to be.

In order to gift a city, the gifting and recieving parties must have identical policies of open borders, war, and peace with all other civilizations. 

The "Nor may a nation act upon any game loophole which would cause a "false peace" by ejecting units from cultural borders without a mutually-agreed peace treaty or cease-fire." clause would still apply, which should cover cases of one party has met a civ, but the other hasn't.

[da_Vinci]

trying to think of a different wording.

How about this.. stricter than it actually needs to be.

In order to gift a city, the gifting and recieving parties must have identical policies of open borders, war, and peace with all other civilizations. 

The "Nor may a nation act upon any game loophole which would cause a "false peace" by ejecting units from cultural borders without a mutually-agreed peace treaty or cease-fire." clause would still apply, which should cover cases of one party has met a civ, but the other hasn't.

This is great for RP ... we could set up an international court in the Hague, to hear the cases of all of these rules disputes ... and as in reality, the decision could come years after it makes any difference ... 

dV

[DribNairb]

This is great for RP ... we could set up an international court in the Hague, to hear the cases of all of these rules disputes ... and as in reality, the decision could come years after it makes any difference ... 
[/quote]

What a cool idea. I actually think a RP game when every exploit is technically 'allowed' (with the exception of actually hacking the game or server!) but anyone who has a complaint may raise it and let the world discuss a sensible punishment. Not sure how you could enforce a punishment though, if the guilty party is a very powerful civ!

However, I don't think it's the point of C&C2 which tends to be more of a "if it isn't in the spirit of the rules it's not allowed"

[da_Vinci]

Here is a new issue on the city gifting front ...

We currently have 4.4 - When at war, a nation may not gift any of its cities to another nation. Nor may a nation act upon any game loophole which would cause a "false peace" by ejecting units from cultural borders without a mutually-agreed peace treaty or cease-fire.

Mostly, this is designed to prevent players stopping the capture or razing of a city by gifting it.  But as stated, it prevents a feature that we may or may not want to allow ... "government in exile"

Scenario: A and B are at war with C and D.  A is making progress against C, but B is getting pummeled by D.  As B is making its last stand in its last city, A gifts one of its smaller cities to B, setting B up as a "goverment in exile" in that city, which preserves the civ of B in anticipation of recapturing the territory originally belonging to B, and re-establishing B there.

I think this adds a really interesting RP twist, and makes cultivating friendships even more important, and also potentially prevents the early elimination of some participants.  Also adds some tactical diversity, as one might make a strategic retreat, rather than a hopeless stand.  It also keeps the war weariness and motherland yearning going on ... which may be good or bad depending on one's warmonger nature.

So, is "government in exile" something we want to allow, or not?  Discuss ...


dV

[DribNairb]

I think "require complete kills" is on in this game, which means even if you lose all your cities you can still keep playing (in the hopes someone gifts you a city or settler as you describe). Therefore in your example, B simply has to move one unit somewhere safe inside A's borders until he can get peace and that still falls within the rules.

[Viktor Ahriman]

I agree with Drib.

Viktor

[da_Vinci]

That is a more realistic government in exile, so yeah, I agree too! 

Didn't think of the complete kills issue ...

dV

[Capsavian Hopewell]

yep, that was what was intended (what Drib described).  In fact, that's what kept Phabuk alive in CC1, if I remember correctly.

[IanDC]

Clarification on a DM situation please.

New turn
Player A plays & finishes turn
Player B plays & finishes turn - declaring war on player A during the turn
Player A logs in again presumably making changes
Turn changes

Who should be playing first ? By my reading it should be player B ?

[oyzar]

Sounds like a reload to me.. Although no matter it'll be problematic as player A will have knowledge of the dow...

[IanDC]

Well I don't have a problem if it means I move first in the following turn, makes little odds that way.

Which is what I've now done so I guess they'll need to be a reload if no moves were made during that 2nd login (although what if no moves but build changes ?).

[bjarkekr]

I assume im player A in this situation, and i dont believe I have double moved since I couldnt have known the war had started when I logged in the second time. Also I offcause didnt move anything, I made a diplomatic proposal to oyzar and that was it.

I really believe a reload is in order here. I havent logged in yet this turn, but it seems to me a town is lost and that is too serious to sit over.

[IanDC]

I assume im player A in this situation, and i dont believe I have double moved since I couldnt have known the war had started when I logged in the second time. Also I offcause didnt move anything, I made a diplomatic proposal to oyzar and that was it.

I really believe a reload is in order here. I havent logged in yet this turn, but it seems to me a town is lost and that is too serious to sit over.

Yes - if no moves were made then a reload is definitely needed   
The auto from my login should do it.

[bjarkekr]

Yes agree.. And if its done within the next hour I can take my turn now.. Otherwise I have to take it after a nights sleep.. (8 hours from now)

[oyzar]

The auto from your loggin would only leave 12 hours left on the timer though.. not sure that will be enough for everyone...

[IanDC]

The auto from your loggin would only leave 12 hours left on the timer though.. not sure that will be enough for everyone...

14 hours by my count - but any other save back to the turn change is fine. Mine just inconveniences least people 

[Capsavian Hopewell]

Alright, just getting back in the office now.

Please clarify:  a reload request to Ian's latest autosave from this turn sequence is requested?  Please let me know and I'll get the reload done right away.