Poll: Swapping cities for Trade benefits

deity · July 20, 2001, 21:12

Is it OK for the Tourney?

IE,
Two civs scheming to cede a city to each other to more easily boost trade to the other civ.....

cavebear · July 20, 2001, 22:18

It will be interesting to see how people vote on this. I don't think it seems proper to swap cities for this kind of purpose, so I hope the poll results are a firm "NO". It seriously disturbs me to contemplate the violation of natural border sovreignity that such a situation suggests.

finbar · July 20, 2001, 23:32

It's more than a cheat, it's a fraud.

Smash · July 21, 2001, 00:20

This is a joke right?

SlowwHand · July 21, 2001, 01:15

My opinion is, it's not to be done.
It's unrealistic, and not in the spirit of the game.
I'm against swapping of anything.

Yes, let's get this straight.

deity · July 21, 2001, 01:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Smash
This is a joke right?

'fraid not... I got game maps that show it in action!

SlowwHand · July 21, 2001, 01:24

Have you started your game?
No. It's against the nature of the game.
We're having same discussion in multiple threads.

Rasputin · July 21, 2001, 02:47

do you meqan continual swapping of citys, or a one off swap just to get a foriegn civ on your contnenent so you can trwade with it easier... if latter i dont have aproblem, i seen it in nearly every gaem i palyed, whether it is for trade or just diplomacy people swap citys.. those citys can then be used for increased trade.. in our HOTW game you gave Mongols a city in South America surely this helped for trade, even if you gave it for other reasons..

finbar · July 21, 2001, 03:40

Swapping cities for any reason is ridiculous.

Smash · July 21, 2001, 03:49

You're not kidding

....geez...I don't play MP that much anymore but I thought we more or less had that one set in stone eons ago....guess not....I like certain wonders to be shared in freindly games(by agreement of course) but this is just silly.How long do turns take?Imagine when each has 30+ cities.

Rasputin · July 21, 2001, 04:25

is this a practice that goes on, this continual swapping of citys.. you mean by this each turn swapping citys back and forth ,????

this shows that trade has become way too powerful in Civ 2 and thus people now find need to exploit this loophole...

markusf · July 21, 2001, 04:54

you fools don't even know what it is, or how its implimented.

Basically diety got pissed because i swapped a city with bezerker in a huge game. Diety was ship chaining his ships and sending 5-10 caravans around the world every turn. I had no one close so i gave bezerker on the other side of the map a city of mine in exchange for one of his. diety with his basic understanding of trade was horrified that i had + 38 routes while his where +10. But really a 3-4,000 cash/science bonus for every caravan sent around through a ship chain does not match a caravan sent 10 squares that only gets 80 gold. I consider sending caravans to other civs cheating. I mean you basically have to do nothing but build caravans and ship chains and you can get to 3 techs a turn, and have a ton of money to buy all the wonders and units you need. Every big game i play in we ban sending caravans to other civs, because if 2 players starting close to each other know how to use trade 5 others combined don't stand a chance and i am not exagerating.

markusf · July 21, 2001, 04:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Rasputin
is this a practice that goes on, this continual swapping of citys.. you mean by this each turn swapping citys back and forth ,????

this shows that trade has become way too powerful in Civ 2 and thus people now find need to exploit this loophole...

only an idiot would do that. You'd lose 50% your routes value + 50% the value of the routes of any city connected to it. oh and you lose all your happy improvements. Yes that sounds like a great idea.

Rasputin · July 21, 2001, 05:13

Quote:

Originally posted by markusf
oh and you lose all your happy improvements.

didnt realise that occured actually, never noticed it before, i quite often demand city to be ceded to me for a peace treaty to be given during time of war, never had one of this go into riot due to lack of Happy improvements.. are you sure this true ?>??

Hydey · July 21, 2001, 05:41

Gee I can remember when this was such a fun game to play.

All cheats should ban themselves and find another game to play. :banned:

Rasputin · July 21, 2001, 06:02

good use of the new smilie Hydey !@!!

SlowwHand · July 21, 2001, 11:01

Quote:

Originally posted by markusf
you fools don't even know what it is, or how its implimented.

Basically diety got pissed because i swapped a city with bezerker in a huge game. Diety was ship chaining his ships and sending 5-10 caravans around the world every turn. I had no one close so i gave bezerker on the other side of the map a city of mine in exchange for one of his. diety with his basic understanding of trade was horrified that i had + 38 routes while his where +10. But really a 3-4,000 cash/science bonus for every caravan sent around through a ship chain does not match a caravan sent 10 squares that only gets 80 gold. I consider sending caravans to other civs cheating. I mean you basically have to do nothing but build caravans and ship chains and you can get to 3 techs a turn, and have a ton of money to buy all the wonders and units you need. Every big game i play in we ban sending caravans to other civs, because if 2 players starting close to each other know how to use trade 5 others combined don't stand a chance and i am not exagerating.

You didn't have anything, it would seem.
You and Berzerker, you mean?

War4ever · July 21, 2001, 11:11

In Markus's defense, he is correct about two players being close together. If they cooperate (without sharing cities) they can still create trade routes of a huge magnitude. Its really scary. Caravans to other civs although not a cheat should be.

I believe my cousin Mercantile wrote a thread awhile back called

"caravans are too powerfull" and i guess my stance should change. i publically disagreed with him and now i have to agree.

As for swapping cities i am against it if it has wonders in it. However if your playing games which allow alliances and such, it is realistic to cede territory (once not every turn

) to your partner as part of a treaty... i would request an equal value city in return.

For the tourney..... i say its a cheat and you should be :banned: from further tourneys if your caught using cheating tactics.

I guess this is another rule to be implemented....although like the rest of you i assumed we dealt with this years ago

SlowwHand · July 21, 2001, 12:03

As did I.
If the tourney is going to include bull**** tactics, I'd just as soon withdraw.

I guess I'm expecting more "Rah Rules". Sorry Rah.

Ming · July 21, 2001, 13:07

When civ mp first came out, we did a lot of this kind of crap...
Trading cities... Sharing wonders... teleportation for caravans...
Sharing cities to double science and production... great stuff to learn about, and boring as hell. It adds tons of time to a game that already takes too long... and is really against the basic concepts of the game. I have no problem with actually trading with other people, because you do have to get the caravans there... but with ship chaining.... BIG CHALLANGE

I know I'm not playing in the tournament ( I play for fun, and try to avoid games where issues like this are important) but you should pick the rules that make it interesting, but don't give too much advantage to the first two people that meet. Because that is luck and not skill

markusf · July 21, 2001, 13:37

Whats wrong with trading a city just once? Its not as if its going back and forth. Your trade bonus's are all 10% of what they should be. If anything all your routes are cut in half. As for it being a cheat, then all of you are cheaters because i have seen most of gift a city to someone else at least once.

deity · July 21, 2001, 19:17

I was genuinely uncertain about this device and for that reason I refused Markus offer to trade cities in the game he refers to. We'd actually done offline tests to see it in action. But I thought it was a borderline practice and said so.
He them traded cities with another civ.
I wasn't upset.

As for ship chaining, you have to make an effort and expend considerable resources to do it. I checked in that game and other games and everyone said it was OK - no different to rail on land in terms of movement during one turn.

Most in this thread are saying that ship chaining is OK but city trading is not. Mind you I think there is some misunderstanding about it and I apologise. It's not what Raz is saying.
It is trading a unitless city, without Wonders to another civ to exploit increased trade routes. It is clever and powerful. I'm not saying anyone is a cheat, just a little misguided....

Which is why I needed to air my concerns her and now. I know it will come up in the Tourney somewhere.

Come on, let's play the civ game, and not the code, as Ming suggests - the spirit of the game!

If you play the computer code you force others to do the same to keep up.

Eyes_Of_Night · July 21, 2001, 19:47

What a bunch of dorks.

Rasputin · July 21, 2001, 19:50

Raz was not saying anything Deity... I was merely questioning wha the problem here was. I thought city swapping (once off) was an accepted part of game (especially in allainces and such like)..

I did however think (in error) that ship chaining was agaisnt the rules as it defeats the games (seemingly) intent.. If this is part of game, for us virgins can you please explain how to do it ... !!!!

As you can tell, I have never studied Civ for its intacacies , to me its just a game, its not my life, al lthe people here seem to know way too much about it !!!! IMHO

SlowwHand · July 22, 2001, 09:19

Quote:

Originally posted by EyesOfNight
What a bunch of dorks.

What a singular pain in the ass.

Do you even know what a dork is, oh great one?

Hydey · July 22, 2001, 19:29

Quote:

Originally posted by EyesOfNight
What a bunch of dorks.

Its the pot talking to the kettle again.

Rasputin · July 22, 2001, 20:48

maybe its time to update a list of whats aceptable and what isnt in a civ game, i am amazed to find here that ship chaining is accepted but city swapping might not be....

i am involved in a game now and am unaware of whther all this stuff is right or wrong ???

Zylka · July 23, 2001, 01:50

Quote:

Originally posted by deity

If you play the computer code you force others to do the same to keep up.

That's how I feel about intense micromanaging as well. Those that spend over half of their ultra long turns figuring out how to milk an extra trade arrow are just forcing another petty tactic on the game, thus slowing it right down. It should be an unsaid rule that extreme nitpicking be forbidden. No, I don't lack your "skill and patience" to drudge up a miniscule advantage. I simply choose to speed the game up drastically by forfeiting the 2% increase in trade/production/whatever, thereby handing you your slight lead on a silver platter.

The nitpicker pauses from his/her hectic pace of chart making and troubleshooting to retort; "Then why don't you go play a speed freak game like AOE, this is the way civ is meant to be played!"

Grrrr...

Eyes_Of_Night · July 23, 2001, 11:51

I don't understand why people think micromanaging their cities takes time. It takes me seconds to reassign all resources in a city/rush buy/change production. Not only that, but if you keep track of what resources are where in each city you don't have to click on each city each turn, just when it grows to another size. Is it really that tough to do?

Ming · July 23, 2001, 12:04

I have to agree eyes... most micromanagement can be done between turns and doesn't effect the speed of play (unless you are playing simul movement)

The biggest micromanagement problem I see is the maximizing of cities trade when delivering caravans DURING your turn. Once trade gets discovered, the turns start taking longer not only for the movement of all the caravans (too bad goto commands don't always work), but also the fact that people are changing their workers to make sure trade is at it's highest for the moment the caravan is delivered. This way, they can continue getting the right mix of trade, production, and food at the start of the turn, but can then take advantage of the trade bonus when a caravan is delivered... now granted, you can put the cities back to normal after your turn... but this is a big time killer since caravans are important. It's even worse in team games, or in games where you are delivering caravans to other players... chat message... prime Rome, incoming caravan.... HOLD ON... OK CITY SET... deliver caravan... OVER AND OVER AGAIN..... talk about making a game slower

Yet I can see why people do it