Who is ready to Cut more Crap?

[Indiansmoke]

Originally Posted by socralynnek

The advantages are IMO, to push the players to building solid empires themselves.
This helps the players who are a little behind to stay interested in the game as a bigger player can't steamroll over them as easily as before and destroy their empire in just a few turns

I guess, this might be one of the reasons why so little players quit in our pitboss games. It's because even the ones who are a little behind stay relevant in the game.

I think I understand what you mean...you mean that a bigger player cannot steam roll because he has to keep the cities and pay maintenance instead of just raising them?

If that is the point, I would have to disagree as after a point in this game when cottages are developed and the economy is stable, the more cities you get the faster you tech, maintenance costs are irrelevant after a point.

I was thinking it is quite the opposite of what you said, that a backwards player can slave an army and raze some key cities of the forward player therefore crippling him and giving himself a chance to catch up.

In any case I don't want to be the awkward voice here, I am sure you guys know what settings you want, I am glad you invited me to play here in the first place and will play with whatever rules you see fit...at the end of the day it is the same rules for everyone

[Shabbaman]

Originally Posted by Wosret

if we put a poll up that should be considered.

That'd make the poll monkey very happy

[Wosret]

sorry?

[akots]

Originally Posted by Indiansmoke

...if I get an imperialist neighbour who decides to spam nothing but settlers (especially since barbs are off) and he fills my land misplacing his cities...

I'm already salivating at perspective of having such a joyful neighbor! That would be the most welcome turn of events!

No city razing shortens the time spent playing the game since you don't have to contemplate whether to raze it or to keep it. And if thy neighbor captures one of your cities, there is always a chance to get it back. In 15-city empire, there is little difference if a couple of cities are misplaced unless, as Matrix said, it is archipelago map and it screws the irrigation.

[IanDC]

Originally Posted by Azza

I'd also like some sort of guard against razing large cities, but I'd much prefer it to be an out of game rule. Small cities should be fair game for razing IMO.

In the same vein, I think diplo checked but an agreement not to use the diplo victory is ideal.

I would also favour a house rule on razing linked to size.

[barbu1977]

How about:

City razing is forbidden in the event of:
- A direct naval assault.
- a city of size 6 and above.

[Beam]

I'm worried that this rule about allowing city razing of other players only in specific situations is unnecessary and will quickly become quite complex.

First of all, imo in a multiplayer game it is essentialy stupid for any player to deliberately do poor city placement as the cost will easily outweight benefit in most if not all situations.

The AI of course does a piss-poor job of city placement so basically it would be OK to allow city razing of barbarian cities no matter it's size.

The only issue left would be that a mis click when another players city is razed would require the game to be restarted.

[Shabbaman]

Originally Posted by Wosret

sorry?

Coffee mugs

I have to say I would miss the opportunity for razing cities. I always enjoy the sensation.

[Lt. Killer M]

how about this: below culture radius 3, and barb cities of any size and expansion, razing is OK. Nothing else may be razed.

[Stapel]

Please stop this silly discussion.........

Originally Posted by Indiansmoke

Exactly! I mean if someone has infantry while I still have knights and he leaves his capital unguarded, why should I not be able to raise it and give myself a chance to get back in the game?

No city raising makes mindless expansion much more dominant as you know the city will not be raised and you can get it back....which brings me back to my point...if I get an imperialist neighbour who decides to spam nothing but settlers (especially since barbs are off) and he fills my land misplacing his cities...why do I have to be responsible for this?

Why should I not have the option to raise his misplaced cities and make my own?

Your arguement didn't make any sense in the first place and it still doesn't when you repeat it...

If your neighbour decides to waste his resources on spam settlers, you should be glad to have an utter nutcase as neighbour. Having said so, if your neighbour manages to spam your land with misplaced cities, it is fair to say you did a very very poor job yourself.

If anytime some player wants to invade my land with settlers, be very welcome .