City gifting on departure: Rules and Balance

[Fosse]

I know from browsing forums from C&C I and the rules fro C&C II that the broad topic of city gifting has been talked about before.  Please refer me to any posts that deal with the issue at hand.  Also, please read this thread to see the spawning point of this topic.

Sometimes players leave games like this.  When their empire is healthy and it's early in the game, a sub can be found rather easily.  If it's later on, and the empire they are playing doesn't appear to be particularly fun (way behind in tech, very small, in a losing war, or otherwise in a bad way), finding a replacement is harder.

My own opinion is that it's preferable for players to play out their civs as long as possible.  That aside, the point of this thread is to talk about what such civs do in their "death throes" when the decision has reasonably been made to leave the civ without a human player, how those actions can impact the continuing game, and at what point those actions should not be allowed to be taken by the rules.

Here's a few things I've seen so far, over the years and in several games:
Turning over to AI
Sometimes this can be horribly unbalancing and game changing.  Other times, not really at all.  I think it depends on whether the the remaining civilization is truly such that it cannot contribute meaningfully to the state of the game. 

My thought is that this is that the point at which a civ becomes "unfun" is usually long before it becomes inconsequential.  Not always; the first game I mentioned, the inconsequential player seemed to have a very good time.  Sportsmanship dictates that we truly play out these games until we become inconsequential, and not merely jump ship when it stops being fun.  The problem is that there isn't a hard and fast rule to indicate when this is. 

When you quit to AI it becomes trivial for most human players to take what they wish from your civ.  This can change the game considerably.  Players will descend on your former holdings to take whatever they can.  They will pay a much smaller cost for that land than they would have if you'd been there, fighting the losing battle and making decisions about scorched earth strategies and tile by tile unit tactics.  (or, ifyou're a rubbish player, a much higher cost.    In either case the outcome is dramatically changed unless you play EXACTLY like the AI.)

Turning over to an ally
You want to leave, but you don't want to screw over your allies or your friends by leaving an AI spot on the map.  So you arrange a takeover.  You give away most of your cities and units, and perhaps allow the "capture" of your capital as well.

The actions involved in this are all normal actions that are permissible by game rules anyway.  I could strike up a deal to trade a tech for a city, for example.  Or I could arrange to give most of my army to another player.  But taken as a whole this could have very serious consequences.

Just stopping
You just vanish, stop playing, and don't turn over to AI.  This is the worst case scenario.   

I think that the guiding principles for C&C should be more potentially lenient than sticking to whether the action in question is balanced, to give us room to roleplay in a way that isn't strictly related to game play.  But they should be strict enough to stop them being too impactful.  It's entirely possible that a case by case basis is the most reasonable way to handle these questions.

The last three "departures" we've seen in C&C are a fair place to begin looking at actual potential consequences. I'm stripping these descriptions of their various roleplay flavorings.

1. WarningU2 turned his remaining cities (excluding his capital) over to DribNairb after Fosse conquered all of his mainland holdings.  Since then WU2 has seldom logged in to manage his single remaining city.  The in-game results were that Drib now has two tiny northern island cities that are very near my own holdings, giving him LOS into one of my cities.  WU2 could have told him what was in those cities anyhow, so I don't see the LOS as a big deal.  Drib pays to maintain these two small cities that might be adding a tiny amount to his economy....

WU2 hasn't (I don't think) left entirely, and is still, potentially, a part of the game.  But even if he never returns, I don't think we're going to see a huge impact from this.  The cities that changed hands appear to be relatively inconsequential, and except for adding beakers to Drib and SLOWLY building more advanced units than WU2 could have, I don't see what they are going to change.

2. Hoplosternum posted that he would soon retire to AI, after turning over his front line holdings to his allies, unless there were objections.  Nobody objected, and two
weeks later (just two turns ago, I think) he did just that. 

The changing hands of front line cities in a multi national alliance strikes me as fair game, so I don't see that this matters so much in this case.  The retiring to AI does mean that his remaining cities could easily be taken by one of his former allies to strengthen their empires at very little cost.  This has the potential to be mechanically unbalancing, as an AI would not defend itself the same way as a betrayed human would, probably.  If the whole thing were reasonably roleplayed, it need not necessarily be politically unbalancing.

Even though there's lots of potential, given the current state of war on the continent he was on, let's be honest:  We had our chance to object and we must all live happily with the results.

3.  Rennald's intention to leave the game and have Drib "take over" was posted by Drib.  The details of what this would mean in game terms are still speculative, but it is what has led us to this thread.    If he gifts all of his cities to Drib, as I interpreted the message to mean, then Drib's industrial and economic base is substantially increased at no cost.  I'm afraid I'd object to that one.   


So... I'll let the rest of you join the discussion. 
 

[Munro]

I think it's bad form to do anything on quitting that you wouldn't have done if you weren't leaving.  In particular, I think that gifting away all your cities to an ally just because you are leaving is unfair.

I think a much fairer solution is for the leaving player to become a vassal of that ally instead.  That helps to limit the amount of meddling that the remaining human players can do with the AI that is left behind, and help to preserve the intent of the original human alliance (i.e. they still go to war together).  However, I think just giving all your cities away when you leave is unreasonable.

[da_Vinci]

It seems that the really unbalancing thing in all of this is is converting low technology cities into high technology cities.  Munro's AI as vassal is one approach that solves this ... another option might be to have one of the other allies manage the departed ally (play two civs), rather than absorb it into the most advanced member of the alliance.  Or, if a less advanced ally (than the civ being abandoned) absorbs the civ, it does remove the technology leapfrog problem.

dV

[Capsavian Hopewell]

From a gameplay, roleplay, and sportsmanship perspective each, I think the most reasonable solution in this situation would be as Munro and dV have described:  either capitulate and then turn to AI, or (ideally) any of the allied nations (in this case, Drib, Bjarkekr, Ian, or Grenlock) would begin running Rennald's nation, taking his turns and RPing as though they were him (or a new leader--even a puppet government).

I would even be amenable to Rennald gifting part or all of his army to Drib and then allowing Drib to declare war on Rennald and capture his undefended cities, one at a time.  That could be RPed, I think, as the Skarsgardian army defecting and organizing a rebellion under the guidance and direction of Drib.  Though the end result might still be a slight imbalance, it "feels" better to me than simple wholesale gifting of cities.

There are certainly grey areas and I agree that each case is different.  I'm glad that these situations are being announced and openly discussed to maintain optimal fairness and realism.

[DribNairb]

I see your points, and can understand why this situation seems, at best, a little odd.

Part of the problem is that I haven't actually heard anything from Rennald so I don't really know why he gifted the cities in the first place. I'm making the assumption that he hasn't got time to play but I could be wrong.

I'd like to go over some of the recent events though, to see what others think:

Hoplo gifted several of his cities amongst the coalition when he left. However, in this case some of the cities were gifted to him in the first place since we were generally working to get him back in the game and none of us were particularly interested in the captured cities. The other cities are ones he recently settled, but if he wasn't one of our allies we wouldn't have let him settle there anyway, we'd have built a settler and put a city there ourselves - so for this particular situation I don't see it as unbalancing (ie. if someone other than Hoplo was playing - be it AI, a human or nobody at all - we would end up in the same position because we would either have kept the cities for ourselves originally or we could easily have captured them with little to no cost).

Rennald's situation is a little different. He gifted me one city a while back because it was under a lot of cultural pressure it made sense for me to control it. The rest of his cities are relatively weak and he has lost several cities from da Vinci's attacks. If I chose to attack Rennald now I could take most of his cities within 3 or 4 turns with very little cost (especially if he didn't actually play his turns!) but that wouldn't make any sense from a RP point of view.

It comes down the question of when gifting cities should be allowed. If I put forward an alternative scenario then perhaps it would go down better?:
Imagine I had gone to Rennald and threatened to declare war on him. He would know I would be able to take most of his cities easily. In order to keep peace he offers me a number of his cities (mainly the ones I would have taken over anyway) and in exchange he gets a peace treaty and me agreeing to help him defend his remaining cities from his other enemies.

I'm not sure, but I imagine the above situation would be considered good bargaining by Rennald since the alternative is near certain death. Of course, it's a strange case because he's currently allied with me, but there's nothing to stop me backstabbing him like that if I chose to.

The alternative put forward is to end up with Rennald as an AI vassal state. That, to me, could be much worse because there is a good chance I won't be able to defend his cities and the AI will not do a very good job of helping itself. That leads to a good chance the AI abandons the Vassal and join the other side - something I have been assuming Rennald would not do. If I had believed there was a chance Rennald would defect I would have declared war on him a long time ago.

Essentially, I'm trying to point out that if this was a non-RP game there's a good chance I would have taken over Hoplo and Rennald's cities a long time ago. But I've built up this religious situation where the followers of The Path are happy to sacrifice whatever is necessary to achieve it's aims, regardless of how sensible it is for the individual nation. So far that has meant fighting a war they won't get much out of and trading resources/cash to whichever nation will benefit the most. Giving away their cities is merely an extension of this. I could argue that I'm actually in a much worse position at the moment because I have tried to maintain the RP situation instead of doing the more logical military approach which would have been to take over Hoplo and then Rennald centuries ago when it wouldn't have cost me very much.

[da_Vinci]

This is an interesting discussion ...

There are a lot of ways that Drib could end up with Rennald's cities ... so that the end looks a lot like the end of the gifting scenario.

Maybe the point is that it matters how that end is reached ... if Drib can get all of Rennald's cities by either war or gift, the by war option at least makes it take some (even if minimal) effort, adds some war weariness, etc.

I think that when gifting a city "techs it down" (new owner less advanced than former) there are fewer issues ... so the question is, how many gifts of cities from a backward ally to the advanced ally can be done without really unbalancing the game?  Should the mainland of Wei be gifted to Greece, for example?  While it might be the best way to enhance the defense of both Greece and Wei, is that the kind of game we want?

Of course, there are always non-gifting ways to get to the same place ... a phony war where, for example, Wei pulls out the defenders and lets Greek troops in.  But even that has implications for turns of revolt, how much of new owner's culture is in the city, etc.

Maybe we want to prohibit gifting of cities from a tech laggard to a tech leader (one can define now much gap matters)  in general, and then figure out what the exceptions might be?  One exception might be allowing a gift of one city to establish a govenment in exile (although unlikely that tech leader is in that position, I suppose).

An even swap of cities might be allowed.  And allow gifts in peace negotiations.  Which allows the a phony war exploit, but I think that can't be avoided.

dV

[da_Vinci]

Leaving the generic question, and getting to the current issue ... I think we all agree that turn over to AI suffers from the easy exploitability of the AI by the humans.

But if we solve this with a mass city gifting, then rather than players competing to exploit the AI, one civ gets 100% of the benefit of the player's departure.  This would be fair, if one player was already getting 100% of the benefit of that player staying. Drib was getting all of the benefit of Rennald's existence.  So a solution that allowes that civ to continue to benefit Drib would be fair.

To convert that civ's cities into Founder cities, potentially gives Drib more benefit that he was getting from Rennald as an ally.  So, is that fair?  One argument is that he could have chose to own those cities much earlier in the game, so this just realizes on potential scenario the game could have had anyway.  But that scenario would only exist if past choices were made differently ... short of the city gifting.  So I am not sure that argument is compelling.

It could be argued that Drib have to conquer Rennald's cities if he wants to have them in his Civ ... no doubt he can do it, but there is a time cost when Rennald's borders are the enemy and not a friend.  That time cost is not unimportant to the current war.  So who runs Rennald's civ during this process?  Well, if they go to war, Rennald and Drib, to transfer the cities, maybe Maltman gets the job of putting up a fight, if Rennald is unavailable?  Or one of the Founder Allies?

Or one could argue that Drib has the right, as senior member of the alliance, to take gifts of any cites his allies see fit to give him.  That kind of policy would put a whole new complexion on the game.

dV

[Fosse]

Hoplo gifted several of his cities amongst the coalition when he left. However, in this case some of the cities were gifted to him in the first place since we were generally working to get him back in the game and none of us were particularly interested in the captured cities. The other cities are ones he recently settled, but if he wasn't one of our allies we wouldn't have let him settle there anyway, we'd have built a settler and put a city there ourselves - so for this particular situation I don't see it as unbalancing (ie. if someone other than Hoplo was playing - be it AI, a human or nobody at all - we would end up in the same position because we would either have kept the cities for ourselves originally or we could easily have captured them with little to no cost).

My understanding was that those cities were all front line cities, and thus I raised no objections.  I'm not 100% kosher with "other" cities, as you've mentioned, and hadn't realized that any non-front line cities changed hands.  I'd have raised questions then if I understood that to be the case.  However, it's the past.  Nothing to worry about.    However, a couple of points: The fact that other allies would have settled the areas anyway doesn't make everything fair.  It costs 100 hammers and food to build a settler.  Thus the cost is borne by a civ that's about to vanish.  You would not be in the same situation if someone other than Hoplo had been playing. 

Same as with capturing them.  There might not be much cost in game mechanic terms, but there would be some: risk to units, commitment of units, destruction of buildings, and the potential for immediate or longer term RP and political consequences (perhaps attacking Rennald would have led him to break from the alliance and join the other side, giving away alliance secrets and engaging in a scorched earth policy in his own lands.  Or perhaps you'd lose six 90% battles in a row in the takeover, taking away several of your best units.)

It seems that the really unbalancing thing in all of this is is converting low technology cities into high technology cities.

I agree.  Not just that the production centers are suddenly capable of building more advanced units and improvements, but their economic output is now feeding a larger more advanced empire, letting it snowball.

I think it's bad form to do anything on quitting that you wouldn't have done if you weren't leaving.

I think that's a pretty good rule of thumb.  It's easy to imagine swapping front line cities, or rearranging borders by a treaty if you're staying.  It's harder to imagine suddenly turning your army and territory over to another nation.

The BEST solution, to me, accepting it as a given that Rennald is done, is to find a replacement.  That seems unlikely to succeed, as it doesn't look like the nation in question has much of a shot at winning or being a big dog, so few would want to take over.  Perhaps, however, given the unique nature of a game that encourages role playing, there would be someone out there who wants to play the role.

I don't think that another player currently in the game taking over is the best solution.  But it's much less objectionable than having the civ absorbed.  We are playing turns for allies when they are going to miss a few of them, but this is always done with the mindset that you're stepping in temporarily and that you should run the nation in question as its own nation.  I could argue that one person playing two civs allows them certain advantages, but most of those advantages are achieved with two nations agreeing to work closely together anyhow so it's mostly an ease in execution advantage, which I can't begrudge anybody.

I cannot find any objection to the civ becoming an AI vassal of Drib.  It's possible that this would not have happened if Rennald kept playing (after all, it hasn't happened yet).  But it would not be unreasonable for it to happen.

That, to me, could be much worse because there is a good chance I won't be able to defend his cities and the AI will not do a very good job of helping itself.  That leads to a good chance the AI abandons the Vassal and join the other side - something I have been assuming Rennald would not do. If I had believed there was a chance Rennald would defect I would have declared war on him a long time ago.

A few points:
1 - That's part of why I consider the best solution to be a replacment.
2 - Having a vassal is not without perks to offset the burden of protection.  +1 Happiness in all cities, resource demands.  It has downsides too, but it's not all bad. 
3 - it isn't (I assume) as though the FOunders wouldn't defend against an invasion into Skaarsgardia if Rennald kept on playing (or is it.   ), so the onus to protect the civ doesn't really change.
4 - We could probably all reach an agreement to treat the AI civ as though it was Rennald for the duration of the war.  So that if it tried to break with you and sign up with someone else, we'd all say "no" and it'd have to go back to you.



I'm trying to imagine the current situation as though it happened a few months ago and it was instead WU2 deciding to leave the game and giving all of his cities to Greece on the way out.  What would my objections be if I were on the other side?  Would I accept it more readily if I directly benefited from it?  How would it have been different than the actual outcome (after all, I was able to take the cities at "little to no cost")?  And, as an outside arbiter watching a situation in a similar game, how would I react? 

[DribNairb]

Just received this message from Rennald - sounds like he's in a spot of bother

"Sorry for the time being I won't be able to play much.  Working on repairing my house from a flood.  I will probably be out 3-4 weeks, if it
won't screw things up too bad maybe then I can get my cities back."

So it's possible he'll come back.

Anyway, having read everyone's posts it's impossible to disagree with anything. There's no obvious right/wrong in this situation. Taking America for example, if he had simply gifted his cities to Fosse instead of allowing them to be taken over I don't think I would have been too pleased, but I also don't think I would have done much to try and stop. Frankly I was surprised it took so long for you to do it which is why I thought WarningU2's offer to me was part of an elaborate plan of yours (but that's getting off topic!)

Having said that, if Wei decided to gift you all his cities that seems to be a different matter. I can't really put my finger on it, but it's probably because Wei is a fully functioning and fairly advanced civilization, whereas America and Catfish were both small nations clearly aligned with a 'master' (for want of a better word). If Wei was suddenly put under Greek control this turn then our only option would likely be to get France and Nomads to gift all their cities to The Founders to counter it. Probably not a situation we really want?

I think it's bad form to do anything on quitting that you wouldn't have done if you weren't leaving.  In particular, I think that gifting away all your cities to an ally just because you are leaving is unfair.

This is very true and perhaps gives a basis for figuring out what does and does not make sense. The more powerful nations in this war (IanDC, Bjarkekr, Wei and possibly Gren) would probably not want to give away their cities to the alliance leader if they want to continue playing. Someone like WarningU2 and Hoplo though, might be quite agreeable to do that on the basis that giving up land and cities now they will get more back in the future. Rennald falls somewhere in the middle because he's got quite a few cities but his tech is way behind. However, Rennald was 'happy' to gift one of his border cities previously even though he wasn't leaving. Maltman gifted a couple of his cities to Greece too, presumably in the hope they could be better defended? I don't think anyone had any objections to that.

Lots of questions and no real answers! Is the summary that effectively it's ok for a nation to allow his cities to be taken over to the (potential) benefit of a 'master', but only if the master at least has some risk/cost involved in getting there (eg. war)? Or is the summary that this is RP and it should be possible to persuade any nation's leader to do your bidding as long as it's not exploting a bug? The game mechanics allow peacefully taking over civs using culture, is this just an extension of that? (ie. my 'religion' is working like the culture game-mechanic).

[Capsavian Hopewell]

I've read and re-read the various comments and everyone, without exception, raises solid points.  I don't know if it's possible to enact a general "rule of thumb" in this scenario, and we have to handle it on a case-by-case basis as we clearly are right now.

Munro's now-famous "bad form" quote summarizes the spirit of the game.  Since Rennald has indicated that he plans to return to the game, however, that's moot, to my perspective.  I'd suggest that the most viable option, given Rennald's desire to return in 3-4 weeks, is to find a human to take over Rennald's civ.

I personally have no qualms with any of Rennald's war-time allies taking over his turns for him. I trust in the sportsmanship of everyone presently in this game, and given the "total war" state of affairs, it wouldn't be unrealistic to expect Rennald's country to be geared towards a supportive role, all-out-military production (if it isn't already).  The rule of thumb would then become:  "Do as Rennald would do."  Granted, that probably includes rattling of sabres and threats of wanton pillaging.

It would be most fair to find a new person to sub for Rennald, but that might prove challenging as mentioned by others above.  It would be probably unacceptable for anyone other than his allies in the game to sub for Rennald long-term.

Though I'm the game servant, I'm just one vote in this discussion unless we are unable to reach consensus amongst the parties directly involved (the nations on that continent).  So for what it's worth, I'd say one of Rennald's allies should take over his turns until he returns. 

Would that be reasonably acceptable for everyone?  I'm sure both sides will feel it's not an optimal solution, and I'd agree, but it strikes me as the best one for this situation.

[Fosse]

So for what it's worth, I'd say one of Rennald's allies should take over his turns until he returns. 

Would that be reasonably acceptable for everyone?  I'm sure both sides will feel it's not an optimal solution, and I'd agree, but it strikes me as the best one for this situation.

If he might come back, then I think this is the best solution. 

[DribNairb]

Sounds like a reasonable solution. One immediate problem I can see is that if, for example, I was playing Rennald's turns I would consider gifting his most vulnerable cities to The Founders for their defence - similar to how maltman gifted some cities to greece. Obviously I'm biased though, so I don't know whether that's ok or not!

In hindsight, if I'd realised da Vinci had quite so many naval units in the area I may have suggested Rennald temporarily give his coastal cites to me to allow for upgrades. I think there's a good chance Rennald would have accepted this 10 turns ago or so (but obviously I don't know) which fulfils the criteria of not doing things just because you're about to leave.

Apparently Rennald has also offered some cites to Grenlock. That also raises another issue since I can imagine that it might be considered a very good idea for two small countries to consider merging in order to challenge the top civs - or does that fall under the same category that it shouldn't be done?

Anyway - I'm not sure how to proceed. I've emailed Rennald to ask for his password, but I imagine there's a good chance he won't have email access for a while. Is it possible for the game host to reset his password? I don't really want to gift the cities back if nobody is able to login to Skarsgardia since I'm assuming Wei still has units in the area? Of course, I can't see enough at the moment and Rennald isn't there to give the full story.

[Capsavian Hopewell]

In this situation, I would think having another player run Rennald's civ as a whole would be most palatable.  I think gifting of cities might be getting into that grey area again, though you raised a legitimate point.  I would be indifferent on whether that should be allowed, except for the fact that if Rennald's nation is sliced up and redistributed then we're right back to the problem discussed originally.

I will get ahold of Rennald and allow him a voice on this since it's his nation. 

[Fosse]

Sounds like a reasonable solution. One immediate problem I can see is that if, for example, I was playing Rennald's turns I would consider gifting his most vulnerable cities to The Founders for their defence - similar to how maltman gifted some cities to greece. Obviously I'm biased though, so I don't know whether that's ok or not!

I've been thinking about that a lot lately.  A long time ago I took over two of Maltman's cities for a single turn (before they were conquered, which was clearly going to happen) in order to draft from them.  Looking back, and thinking about it I think that this was exploitative.  I'd not do it again.  There are a few game mechanics in place that prevent this from being too easily exploited (minimum culture to draft, the vassal arrangement rules forbidding city gifts), but we worked around them.  The fact that we had to work around them should have been enough to indicate to me it was bending the rules.

I would come down against what we did.  It was "role played" as Greece taking control of the threatened cities to organize defense... but come on.  :/

Apparently Rennald has also offered some cites to Grenlock. That also raises another issue since I can imagine that it might be considered a very good idea for two small countries to consider merging in order to challenge the top civs - or does that fall under the same category that it shouldn't be done?

This certainly feels less cut and dry to me, but my instinct steers me away from accepting it... It's hard to imagine a rule that allows it that isn't unbalancing in its own way.  But I really do like the idea of smaller civs being able to stand up to the bigger ones.   

I don't think city gifting should be allowed for the following reasons:
1 - For the city to build better or different units or buildings than it's normal civ can build, with the intention of returning control.
2 - For the city to create a cultural border within which units can be upgraded.
3 - To circumvent health or happiness penalties.
4 - To directly and temporarily boost the economy of either civ involved (ie, you give me your science city until I research Physics, then you get it back).
5 - To exploit "in territory" effects.  Such as double GG points if you own the Great Wall, or double WW points if you own Statue of Zeus (Tests I've run have shown me that the double WW -- and I would presume the double GG as well -- count in vassals' territory as well.  So this rule would apply to non-vassal allies).
6 - To cheat a conquerer of spoils (give the city to a neutral party while at war just before it's taken over)
7 - As a final act in exiting the game.

Situations in which I think city gifting can be allowed:
1 - To rearrange borders peacefully
2 - To divvy up the spoils of war
3 - As part of peace agreements
4 - In trade that does not violate any of the first set of rules.

[DribNairb]

That's looking better since we now have some points to work from. I agree with points 5-7 but I'm not entirely certain I agree with 1-4.

2) seems a reasonable situation for a civ to allow another civ to use one of their cities as a temporary base camp. Even more confusing would be if the city was a captured city in which case it comes under the 'spoils of war'.
4) could be considered part of peace or trade agreements. An alternative is for the civ in question to stop all research and send their cash to the other civ. Is that considered ok?
1) and 3) feel more like exploits but could also be RP'd to a sensible degree.

I can agree with your suggestions and that if those rules were put in place I would certainly abide by them. However, part of the fun of C&C is that the RP element allows players to co-operate and come up with interesting and unexpected solutions to problems. I don't think we want to restrict the rules too much so that the unexpected can't happen.

I've been stung by unexpected 'exploits' in the previous C&C and in this one but - after the initial annoyance - they usually turn out to make the game better (where better means more fun, not necessarily making someone win). These unexpected twists are what make C&C interesting.

In any case, at the moment I still control some of Rennald's cities. Even if I offer them back they won't be taken until someone can login as Rennald. I'm assuming that's ok for the moment?

[Munro]

Lots of good points here although I think there are really two separate questions in this thread now.

• 1. How to handle players who are leaving?  (Temporarily or permanently).
• 2. When should city gifting be allowed?

For (2) "When should city gifting be allowed?

I'm not sure I necessarily agree that any additional rule change is required.  Allowing city gifting does make for more interesting diplomacy, and for the prevention of exploits, we do already have the following rules.   http://www.chaosciv.com/index.php/topic,255.0.html

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.

4.4 - When at war, a nation may not gift any of its cities to another nation which would cause a "false peace" by ejecting units from cultural borders without a mutually-agreed peace treaty or cease-fire.

In particular, I think the '10 turn' rule is a pretty good way to limit the impact and attractiveness of most of the different types of potential abuse, while still being flexible enough to allow creative diplomacy and even war-time strategy.  I think it's worked pretty well up until now, and the recent concerns in this area are I think all linked to question (1).

For (1) - How to handle players who are leaving?

I think it's bad form to do anything on quitting that you wouldn't have done if you weren't leaving.

An important corollary to this (which I should have also mentioned) is that the same must also apply to the players who remain.  I.e. the remaining human players should also not exploit the AI in a way that would be substantially inconsistent with the outcome had the human player stayed (again, within reason).  In other words I wholeheartedly agree with Fosse here, in the 'turn the civ over to vassal AI' scenario:

4 - We could probably all reach an agreement to treat the AI civ as though it was Rennald for the duration of the war.  So that if it tried to break with you and sign up with someone else, we'd all say "no" and it'd have to go back to you.

In summary, my view is that all players should try to play out the game as much as reasonably possible to preserve the outcome that would have occurred if the human player had not left.  In the specific case of Rennald, that means the gifted cities should be returned.  (It's clear from his comments that he would like them back if he returns in a few weeks, that they were only gifted due to his absence).  Then either:

i) find a replacement or sub (preferably not Drib) to play his turns for him
ii) vassalize to Drib and then kick to AI; with agreement from other players not to unreasonably exploit the AI

I think that having Drib play Rennald's turns for any substantial period (particularly during wartime) is unbalancing, because it does make it a LOT easier to co-ordinate, when you have direct control of 2 civs at once.  I think this is sufficiently mitigated if a less powerful ally (not Drib) is filling in.  

If we can't find anyone other than Drib to play for Rennald (or if it starts to look like it will be more than a few weeks), then kicking to a vassal AI still seems fairest to me (with the understanding not to exploit the situtation unfairly as laid out by Fosse).

Cheers,
Munro

[Fosse]

Lots of good points here although I think there are really two separate questions in this thread now.

• 1. How to handle players who are leaving?  (Temporarily or permanently).
• 2. When should city gifting be allowed?

Good point.

I think the rules we're already playing under are good.  I still stand by my previous points 1-4 that Drib questioned.  I think that being able to suddenly upgrade forces far from home feels like an exploit.  Say I were to gift one of my cities to an Advanced Nation on another continent that could build Attack Helicopters.  I give them a crappy city, then give them all of of my old horse units and a pile of gold.  They upgrade and give me back my units, and suddenly I have a ton of Airships that I wouldn't have been able to build for at least thirty turns.  That's frighteningly unbalancing, I think.  Whereas my transporting my units to an ally in order to affect the upgrade seems more reasonable from a game mechanic standpoint.

I think that being able to maintain actual forts, and make use of allied cities, meets the criteria for role playing established forts and bases of operation in allied territory.  The only advantage that being given a city offers is being able to build and upgrade units far from home.

I think that all of my reasons not to gift cities should have a clause that allows for reasonable roleplay that doesn't unreasonably impact a conflict.  We might be able to come up with a very good reason for Greece to suddenly be in charge of, say, a distant city of Aidern.  That result grants the advantages outlined in my points, but isn't the motivator for them.  Given that Aidern is not currently embroiled in a war, it doesn't seem to hairy.

In cases of war and total war, the ability to pass the non-exploit muster gets harder, I think.  I think that both the temporary Greek control of two carolingian cities long ago and the more recent turnover of Hoplo's cities failed to pass this test, but in a small way.  I'm concerned that the current situation with Drib fails to pass it in a bigger way.  And remember, me and my in-game allies stand to suffer directly if I'm right.  So, grain of salt, please. 

In any case, at the moment I still control some of Rennald's cities. Even if I offer them back they won't be taken until someone can login as Rennald. I'm assuming that's ok for the moment?

Let's keep the game going.    We'll get to a solution soon enough and play on from there.  We have a general consensus, I feel, that a sub is best.  We'll probably get to that point within the week.  That means that the finer points of this discussion are academic and forward looking, so let's not pause the game or much with it too much.  Let's keep playing! 

As for immediate solutions: If we don't hear from Rennald tomorrow I'd be okay with booting the host logging in to change the password, turning control of the cities back to Rennald's civ, and letting Drib or another Founder Ally play the civ for the moment. 

[Capsavian Hopewell]

I'm still trying to get ahold of Rennald. 

Would Ian, Bjarkekr, or Grenlock be willing to take over Rennald's turns?  Or if not, then (slightly less optimally) Drib?

[da_Vinci]

It is interseting that many of the issues that make the who takes over for whom and city swap potential exploits would either not exist or be significantly mitigated if tech trading were on.  Instead of gifting cities to build advanced units, just gift the techs ...

Not that tech trading on does not have its own issues, but here is a complication of no tech trading.

I think that one of the lesser FA allies playing for Rennald is the best answer (sub may not have the loyalty to stay in the alliance), a sub being next in line and Drib running it being third.  But I see Drib playing for Rennald as only marginally problematic compared to one of the lesser allies, and certainly much better than Drib absorbing the cities.

Hoplo have any interest in playing for Rennald?

dV

[DribNairb]

If we can't find anyone other than Drib to play for Rennald (or if it starts to look like it will be more than a few weeks), then kicking to a vassal AI still seems fairest to me (with the understanding not to exploit the situtation unfairly as laid out by Fosse).

I might be a little biased here, and I've only briefly logged in to see what happened. However, Wei has razed a Skarsgardian city today, but I can't help feeling that it was only possible because his navy stayed within Rennald's borders where he should have been seen, but because nobody was playing there was no-one to warn about the impending attack. (I'm trying to defend based on guesswork rather than proper intel). I'll have to look more closely tonight to see what actually happened, but I was just wondering what others thought about this kind of thing?

[Viktor Ahriman]

Yes kicking Rennald to AI is the best option.  We all know the AI sucks, but thats what happens when we cant find somebody to take over or stops playing.  Just need a good story behind what happened to the Skars government and the stupid moves by there military.

Viktor

[Capsavian Hopewell]

I can't get ahold of Rennald.  I will continue to try, but in the interim his country is just a sitting duck.

I have booted his civ to AI, and ask that whoever amongst the alliance were planning on taking over, do so.

[DribNairb]

I've gifted Rennald's cities back now that he is under AI control.

Looking more closely at what happened with the razing of Tar Pacovilla. Obviously I don't know which route da Vinci took with his ships. If they kept out of sight of Catfish and Skarsgardian borders then fair enough, but if they went through/near their borders then to me that is taking advantage of the knowledge that no human players would see them and therefore would not reinforce the cities.

Anyway, I've asked the other members of the alliance to see if they would consider playing Rennald's turns.

[Capsavian Hopewell]

Go ahead and play it this turn, Drib.  If one of the others of your alliance decide to take it on then you can pass the keys to them--but at least yet another AI turn won't go by. 

I blame myself for any grey areas regarding unfairness if any dubious movements took place;  as game servant, I should not have allowed the question of "what to do next" to linger as long as it did.  So, I apologize if anything potentially inequitable did happen.

[da_Vinci]

I've gifted Rennald's cities back now that he is under AI control.

Looking more closely at what happened with the razing of Tar Pacovilla. Obviously I don't know which route da Vinci took with his ships. If they kept out of sight of Catfish and Skarsgardian borders then fair enough, but if they went through/near their borders then to me that is taking advantage of the knowledge that no human players would see them and therefore would not reinforce the cities.

Anyway, I've asked the other members of the alliance to see if they would consider playing Rennald's turns.

Oh, you wound me with your suspicions ... ( just kidding!)

I swung wide to stay out of sight of any cultural border ... that is why only the destroyer was able to bombard on the turn I attacked.  If I had taken a short cut along the coast, I should have gotten there a turn earlier ... and been able to bombard with the frigates.  The direction of the ships should suggest they sailed in from due southeast ... from a point outside of view of any civ.  Stealth, you know ...

dV

[da_Vinci]

Yes kicking Rennald to AI is the best option.  We all know the AI sucks, but thats what happens when we cant find somebody to take over or stops playing.  Just need a good story behind what happened to the Skars government and the stupid moves by there military.

Viktor

How is this story:

"The Skarsdgardian came down like the wolf on the fold
and his cohorts were gleaming in purple and gold
and the sheen of their spears were like stars on the sea
when the wave rolls in nightly on deep Galilee.

... the might of the Gentile, unsmote by the sword
hath melted like snow, in the glance of the Lord."

In other words, divine intervention by Buddha ...

dV

[DribNairb]

Oh, you wound me with your suspicions ... ( just kidding!)

Clearly I don't wound you enough as you continue to destroy cities!

Oh, and no worries Frank - it's one of those situations where there's no obvious route we should be taking and it's just a matter of getting it sorted. But if you're feeling bad about it I won't complain if you decide to declare war on greece to even things up a little! 

[da_Vinci]

Clearly I don't wound you enough as you continue to destroy cities!

Just following the will of the Buddha, as told to Woo Li in his vision ... all in the pursuit of peace, of course!

dV

[Capsavian Hopewell]

Great, now everyone's getting poetical and paranoid! 

[DribNairb]

so if da Vinci is poetical, that means I must be paranoid.

I knew it - you're all out to get me