Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
26 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

Mega Civilization» Forums » Rules

Subject: Trading rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Thierry Vlaeminck
Belgium
flag msg tools
mb
From the rulebook :

If more than two commodities are mentioned, the first two must be true.

Do I need to take "the first two" literally (A), as in the first two that I speak out loud, or is it a bit more forgiving stating that at least two must be true (B)?

This is a major difference because if I offer "Two gold and one Oil" in
(A) I am offering Gold, Gold and Whatever
(B) I could be offering Gold, Oil and a Calamity

I really hope case (B) is the correct one as in our playgroup the only way to definately receive a trade with 2 gold, you would need to be offered "3 gold" (and you would be getting 2 gold and a calamity, but hey Worth It)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mattias Elfström
Sweden
Unspecified
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Reading the rule literally means "A".
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Thierry Vlaeminck
Belgium
flag msg tools
mb
I am much more in favor of the "2 out of the 3 cards I offer are true" in which the order doesn't matter.
This allows much more creativity in the trading. If only the two first cards must be true, in fact the 3rd card you mention has no value at all and you could just stick to mentioning two cards and that's it.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
alan beaumont
United Kingdom
LONDON
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Play nice ...ish
ThierryV wrote:
I am much more in favor of the "2 out of the 3 cards I offer are true" in which the order doesn't matter.
This allows much more creativity in the trading. If only the two first cards must be true, in fact the 3rd card you mention has no value at all and you could just stick to mentioning two cards and that's it.
That's not true at all. Civilization games are epic and you will be trading intensively with opponents dozens of times. If you consistently lie, or stick them with disasters you get a bad reputation and the same treatment back. You are far better served by getting a good reputation so you can unload the really lethal stuff when you really must and can justify afterwards. This is basic Games Theory (and incidentally good business practise!). It pays to be 100% truthful most of the time.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mattias Elfström
Sweden
Unspecified
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I think the trading works best if you stick to the RAW. The same goes for Civ and ACiv.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brian McCarty
United States
La Crescent
Minnesota
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Since I am not a good liar I stick to the "don't even mention the third card" option.

Brian
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Thierry Vlaeminck
Belgium
flag msg tools
mb
Ok,

Well I guess our playgroup has been playing it "wrong" in the past 15 years. However I looked it up in my old box and found this :

Quote from the Advanced Civ rulebook :
"Each trade must involve at least three trade cards on each side. A player with fewer than three trade cards may not trade. When negotiating a trade, each player must honestly inform the other of the number of trade cards he wishes to trade and at least two of the trade cards involved in the trade. This information must be correct -the remaining card or cards need not be specified and may consist of any commodity or tradable calamity card(s), regardless of what was said to the other player.

When I read this, option B is still valid as nowhere it is written that the FIRST TWO need to be correct.
We just took the habit of always offering a 3-card trade and naming all three cards, so in fact one is completely allowed to be a lie.

So the question is, are the rules of Mega Civ different by design, or is it a issue due to different wording?

I'm fine with either, just want it to be 100% clear.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mattias Elfström
Sweden
Unspecified
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
But note that the "two truths" must be known. That means you have to truthfully inform your partner that the cards include item A and B. You may also declare item C, but you are not obliged to tell the truth. You can't just say A, B and C and not declare which two are guaranteed.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John Rodriguez
United States
Carrollton
Texas
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
Mattias wrote:
But note that the "two truths" must be known. That means you have to truthfully inform your partner that the cards include item A and B. You may also declare item C, but you are not obliged to tell the truth. You can't just say A, B and C and not declare which two are guaranteed.
This is correct MegaCiv way.

However different groups can (and often have) adjusted the trade rules to meet their own play styles.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mattias Elfström
Sweden
Unspecified
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Trading while just requiring that two of any number of stated cards are correct will make trade much harder and probably lengthen the game considerably.

Consider the following:

I want to trade one wine for one salt. I state that I want salt and am willing to trade wine. Another player offers salt, ochre and hides. I say I will give him wine, papyrus and iron. We exchange our cards. Looking at what we got we realize that we have fooled each other and now have ochre, hides and iron and papyrus, iron and ochre. This trade was pointless. Using this type of house rule I would insist on any trade including at least two of the product I actually want (salt, salt and hides for example). That would ensure that I at least get one.

I think the RAW for ACiv and MCiv make much more sense.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Thierry Vlaeminck
Belgium
flag msg tools
mb
I don't wanna advocate the "2/3 true cards way" anymore, but if all I was looking for is one more gold, our way around it was asking "can anyone offer me two gold?". Success (and calamity) guaranteed laugh
It really didn't take longer, it was just a different wording.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tom
United States
Seattle
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
Microbadge: Seattle Mariners fanMicrobadge: Silver Board Game CollectorMicrobadge: Salmon Run fanMicrobadge: Silver Image UploaderMicrobadge: 2019 Silver Supporter
ThierryV wrote:
From the rulebook :

If more than two commodities are mentioned, the first two must be true.

Do I need to take "the first two" literally (A), as in the first two that I speak out loud, or is it a bit more forgiving stating that at least two must be true (B)?

This is a major difference because if I offer "Two gold and one Oil" in
(A) I am offering Gold, Gold and Whatever
(B) I could be offering Gold, Oil and a Calamity

I really hope case (B) is the correct one as in our playgroup the only way to definitely receive a trade with 2 gold, you would need to be offered "3 gold" (and you would be getting 2 gold and a calamity, but hey Worth It)
We have always played the way the new rulebook states (first two mentioned must be true, your example 'A'), and have never had any problems. It is an easy rule to follow (especially for newcomers) and seems to head off a lot of misunderstandings . The only thing that I always clarify before the game is the reverse situation of your example: if I say "An oil and two gold", that means the Oil and one Gold are real, and the third card could be anything. The other person will say, "Is that the same as two gold and one oil?", but the wise will refuse to answer that.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Walter Kolczynski
United States
College Park
Maryland
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
noisycrow wrote:
ThierryV wrote:
From the rulebook :

If more than two commodities are mentioned, the first two must be true.

Do I need to take "the first two" literally (A), as in the first two that I speak out loud, or is it a bit more forgiving stating that at least two must be true (B)?

This is a major difference because if I offer "Two gold and one Oil" in
(A) I am offering Gold, Gold and Whatever
(B) I could be offering Gold, Oil and a Calamity

I really hope case (B) is the correct one as in our playgroup the only way to definitely receive a trade with 2 gold, you would need to be offered "3 gold" (and you would be getting 2 gold and a calamity, but hey Worth It)
We have always played the way the new rulebook states (first two mentioned must be true, your example 'A'), and have never had any problems. It is an easy rule to follow (especially for newcomers) and seems to head off a lot of misunderstandings . The only thing that I always clarify before the game is the reverse situation of your example: if I say "An oil and two gold", that means the Oil and one Gold are real, and the third card could be anything. The other person will say, "Is that the same as two gold and one oil?", but the wise will refuse to answer that.
We've played that as you finalize a trade, each player states exactly what is guaranteed and nothing else. Anything said during negotiation not included in that final confirmation is non-binding. Then there is no chance for confusion.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Torbjörn Rander
Germany
Berlin
Berlin
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
The MCiv way is the way used in almost all ACiv tournament settings as well afaik, and also the way the computer game handles trading. I think it saves a lot of time in the trading phase, and am very happy with the MCiv RAW.

Velusion wrote:
Mattias wrote:
But note that the "two truths" must be known. That means you have to truthfully inform your partner that the cards include item A and B. You may also declare item C, but you are not obliged to tell the truth. You can't just say A, B and C and not declare which two are guaranteed.
This is correct MegaCiv way.

However different groups can (and often have) adjusted the trade rules to meet their own play styles.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Flo de Haan
Netherlands
Heerhugowaard
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ThierryV wrote:
From the rulebook :

If more than two commodities are mentioned, the first two must be true.

Do I need to take "the first two" literally (A), as in the first two that I speak out loud, or is it a bit more forgiving stating that at least two must be true (B)?

This is a major difference because if I offer "Two gold and one Oil" in
(A) I am offering Gold, Gold and Whatever
(B) I could be offering Gold, Oil and a Calamity

I really hope case (B) is the correct one as in our playgroup the only way to definately receive a trade with 2 gold, you would need to be offered "3 gold" (and you would be getting 2 gold and a calamity, but hey Worth It)
"From the rulebook">

As you can see here, each group of players have their own personal preferences on trading. That's OK, let's have everyone use their own houserules.

For MegaCiv however we have set the rules, which we tested thoroughly. We have tried many options. If you want a quick way to do as many trades as possible with 18 players, in a 10 minute time limit, our option proved to be the best way to do so. Whenever you prefer something else, your own personal house-rules, please do.

But the rules are clear:
- at least 3 cards per trade
- the FIRST 2 cards mentioned must be the truth, the third card may be any card
- You may mention the third card, but it has no influence on the first two cards mentioned, and the third card mentioned does not necessarily be the truth.
- you can mention water, but you cannot mention calamities.
- you can promise, but cannot guarantee a calamity-free offer.


examples:
- if you offer 3 gold, you may give either
A 3 gold
B 2 gold and a commodity
C 2 gold and a calamity

- if you offer 2 gold and a bone, you may give either:
A 3 gold
B 2 gold and a commodity (may be a bone)
C 2 gold and a calamity

- if you offer 1 bone and 2 gold, you may give either
A 1 bone and 2 gold
B 1 bone, 1 gold and any other commodity
C 1 bone, 1 gold and a calamity



2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
alan beaumont
United Kingdom
LONDON
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Calamitous logic
Flodehaan wrote:
- you can mention water, but you cannot mention calamities.
- you can promise, but cannot guarantee a calamity-free offer.
I assume you mean you cannot specify a particular Calamity is present/absent, since stating a calamity-free offer is mentioning Calamities.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Becq
United States
Cerritos
California
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
Out of curiosity, why the rule that you can't mention Calamities in your trade (assuming, of course, that you follow the rules about stating two of the cards and the number of cards honestly)?

For example, why not allow someone to say "Yeah, I'm giving you a calamity as the third card. It's Epidemic. But hey, you're getting two gold out of it, and you have Medicine, anyway, so isn't it worth it?" Or "I know you have Piracy, and I'm willing to eat it -- so long as you make it worth my while by including the two salt that I need."

Now, the rules don't guarantee that the player must be honest about that calamity, but why disallow it as a potential the negotiating tactic?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nes
Norway
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I guess trading with others will be difficult when everyone knows someone just received a calamity. The receiver would then get a calamity and a potential "trade block".
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Flo de Haan
Netherlands
Heerhugowaard
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
woxoya wrote:
I guess trading with others will be difficult when everyone knows someone just received a calamity. The receiver would then get a calamity and a potential "trade block".
I believe that is a matter of perception. In fact... As everyone has a calamity, everyone wants to pass their calamity to someone else. This encourages trading rather than blocking it.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nes
Norway
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
True Is there a different reason for the rule?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alex Herndon
United States
flag msg tools
Becq wrote:
Out of curiosity, why the rule that you can't mention Calamities in your trade (assuming, of course, that you follow the rules about stating two of the cards and the number of cards honestly)?

For example, why not allow someone to say "Yeah, I'm giving you a calamity as the third card. It's Epidemic. But hey, you're getting two gold out of it, and you have Medicine, anyway, so isn't it worth it?" Or "I know you have Piracy, and I'm willing to eat it -- so long as you make it worth my while by including the two salt that I need."

Now, the rules don't guarantee that the player must be honest about that calamity, but why disallow it as a potential the negotiating tactic?
The more significant effect is that you can't offer a calamity as one of the two guaranteed cards. For example you may not offer to trade a cloth and an iron for a gold and a civil disorder (and almost certainly a second calamity). This was an expert play in Advanced Civ that would enable trades otherwise not equitable. However, I suspect that the water cards in Mega Civilization will reduce the frequency that this type of calamity trade would have been worthwhile.

By the way, Flo answered your question in this article (it is item #11): Many Minor Rules Questions.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
alan beaumont
United Kingdom
LONDON
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Iconoclasm and Accountancy
bigal230 wrote:
The more significant effect is that you can't offer a calamity as one of the two guaranteed cards.
Of course not, it isn't a Commodity. laugh
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alex Herndon
United States
flag msg tools
misteralan wrote:
bigal230 wrote:
The more significant effect is that you can't offer a calamity as one of the two guaranteed cards.
Of course not, it isn't a Commodity. laugh
That's right. And that's one of the differences with Advanced Civilization, which did allow a calamity being one of the guaranteed cards.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lane Taylor
United States
Layton
Utah
flag msg tools
Avatar
Microbadge: 10 Year Geek VeteranMicrobadge: Battlestar Galactica - I am a CylonMicrobadge: I am related to Monkeys!Microbadge: AtheistMicrobadge: Aerospace Engineer
The way our group always does it is that we say which two we are guaranteeing. That way, if a player is trying to get one specific commodity, he doesn't get two things he doesn't want and a calamity,or third card that he doesn't want.

So a trade will end with something like:
"I'm giving you a salt, ochre, and papyrus, and I'm guaranteeing the salt and papyrus."

or

"I'm giving you two wine and a gold, and I'm guaranteeing the wine and one gold."

The players then decide whether the third card is worth the risk. We have found that this doesn't add much time to the trading, and it rarely discourages trading, except in the rare instance where a player won't guarantee a card the trading partner really wants.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Hawks
United States
Apple Valley
Minnesota
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Wylann wrote:
The way our group always does it is that we say which two we are guaranteeing. That way, if a player is trying to get one specific commodity, he doesn't get two things he doesn't want and a calamity,or third card that he doesn't want.
We always do this by playing the guaranteed cards faceup to the table, and the additional cards facedown, before swapping.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   |