Posts: 2,698
Threads: 14
Joined: Apr 2011
(July 22nd, 2015, 15:36)BRickAstley Wrote: Why is it bad if the lurkers are razed again? It isn't.
Capturing could be bad as I described earlier:
(June 27th, 2015, 08:23)ipecac Wrote: (July 13th, 2014, 15:04)Commodore Wrote: 500 EP per turn. Is Krill planning to raze or capture? If capture the EPs gained are significant and they could still swing the game (eg destroy aluminium mine, poison artist city etc).
(July 22nd, 2015, 17:18)Bobchillingworth Wrote: I guess you could make him swear to not run any espionage missions if he keeps it instead of razing. Espionage is the only significant way Krill can directly affect the win chances of the front-liners, so the chance of him taking that deal should be zero.
Posts: 10,250
Threads: 83
Joined: May 2012
He's not exactly bending over backwards to alter the game, though, as this sidequest with the lurkers (and his artist posturing) demonstrates.
I think it massively overstates the lurkers value and right to interfere in this game if we reload the game for them.
Erebus in the Balance - a FFH Modmod based around balancing and polishing FFH for streamlined competitive play.
Posts: 4,861
Threads: 26
Joined: Sep 2006
(July 22nd, 2015, 23:51)ipecac Wrote: Espionage is the only significant way Krill can directly affect the win chances of the front-liners, so the chance of him taking that deal should be zero.
We should just reload if he doesn't accept the deal. We will easily get the players on our side.
Q, as Krill pointed out there's a correlation between map size and how long the game ends. With 33 players it will actually go to a victory condition.
Posts: 10,250
Threads: 83
Joined: May 2012
Sure, I believe Krill thought that. But did anyone else?
Erebus in the Balance - a FFH Modmod based around balancing and polishing FFH for streamlined competitive play.
Posts: 7,916
Threads: 158
Joined: Jan 2012
(July 23rd, 2015, 00:24)Qgqqqqq Wrote: I think it massively overstates the lurkers value and right to interfere in this game if we reload the game for them.
That's kinda how i'm feeling about it now. Game's about to end. The info gleaning on GJ is nice but not sure if it's really necessary.
Posts: 2,698
Threads: 14
Joined: Apr 2011
The additional insight from passive espionage by the lurker civ isn't. I only advocated reloading upon capture because I think it likely that a) there'll be people who will object and it's much better to just reload than have some people play their turns and then to have a hubbub about whether reloading is worth replaying end game turns with possible combats, or b) post-game complaints about how the extra EP unfairly affected the outcome.
But if all the other players don't care then I see no reason to reload.
Posts: 4,861
Threads: 26
Joined: Sep 2006
Hmmm... If what I'm reading is correct; if GJ is actually going to gift that great artist he's making that would actually make the difference. (It's a gift because the gold is useless with no time left in the game.) If I was BGN I would have given up (you're not going to win if you have over 100 cities to manage and are prioritizing other things over Civ but your opponents are) and DoWed TBS long ago so if he doesn't like it it's his fault anyway. If GJ cannot get a golden age from that great artist it has to be a gift because there's no other use for it.
Posts: 10,250
Threads: 83
Joined: May 2012
It's still not a gift, but a sale. If we invalidated trades on that level then, for example, my OB agreement with Krill would have been invalid, because the extra commerce had no effect on my demise (and thus I had no benefit) but he, as a significant player, may have used those as part of his later actions. And so on and so forth. To deny that one player is getting any benefit out of a trade when this is manifestly not the case is to deny players individual autonomy over the actions of their civs. Should, say, Commodore be unable to trade techs to Krill in PB5 because his benefit from them is never going to eventuate advantages that will sway the eventual victor of the game? No, of course not (if TT is allowed, OC), as his individual benefit in the struggle vs. Cyneheard is obvious. The same principle must and should be applied.
Should sales of GP be allowed (generally) or, more specifically, in cases where one player is close to victory?
Personally, I'd say no (generally, and if denied specifically it should be denied for all, IMO), but then I distrust and dislike most aspects of the AI diplomacy manipulation. If it should be allowed - IMO - than a unit-sale modmod a la that of MNAI (where they appear in the trade screen) ought to be implemented.
Erebus in the Balance - a FFH Modmod based around balancing and polishing FFH for streamlined competitive play.
Posts: 3,193
Threads: 17
Joined: Jan 2012
There, Lurker turn has been played before anyone else this time. I did not, however bother moving the Great Spy or even looking around at anything. So if any other lurkers want to actually log in to do any of that stuff, feel free. But the turn is at least ended.
Posts: 1,836
Threads: 34
Joined: Feb 2006
But the lurkers have to observe the turn split in their war right? Otherwise it would be farcical!
"We are open to all opinions as long as they are the same as ours."
|
