Question about ransom in 3rd cycle

[gkmetty]

When ransoming a prisoner, do the amounts of the ransom request and the ransom paid need to be exact?  As an example if the ransom request is for 1 gold and the paying kingdom offers 1000 gold, will the transaction go through?

[Jumpingfist]

I have not specifically tested it in 3rd cycle but it did need to be exact in 2nd cycle.

[IMPERIAL_TARK]

interesting. it would seem logical that as long as the minimum ransom amount was met, then the transaction should go through. I mean if I ask for only 1 gold for my hostage and the other side brings me 1000 gold, would I actually turn them down??????

[unclemike]

All trade values should be exact amounts.

[Hawk_]

All trade values should be exact amounts.

Is there a way it could be modified to work in anon/silent games?

Message-  kingdom is offering ransom for "x"?

[Lord Thanatos]

All trade values should be exact amounts.

Is there a way it could be modified to work in anon/silent games?

Message-  kingdom is offering ransom for "x"?

I would vote that allowing this to work in anon/silent games violates the spirit of the rules for that format.

I know others disagree, but such is life.

[Jumpingfist]

All trade values should be exact amounts.

Is there a way it could be modified to work in anon/silent games?

Message-  kingdom is offering ransom for "x"?

I would vote that allowing this to work in anon/silent games violates the spirit of the rules for that format.

I know others disagree, but such is life.

LT you are thinking from a warlords perspective.  Player can declared enemy/ally and vote council how they wish in single player anon/silent games

[Ry Vor]

Just while I am here and noticed this, players should remember the Anonymous format and the various conventions associated with it are up to the players to agree upon and enforce.  The most important of course is no diplomacy, but I'm not even sure about some of the particulars on things like High Counsel issues and trade, etc.  Again, Alamaze was designed with the game Diplomacy (played by Kennedy and Kissinger in the White House) as a major influence, not the Anonymous format.

Maybe there should be a discussion thread on the forum to lay out the particulars so everyone has the same understanding.  Once it looks like a consensus, we can make it a sticky thread and include it in the documentation.

[Lord Thanatos]

All trade values should be exact amounts.

Is there a way it could be modified to work in anon/silent games?

Message-  kingdom is offering ransom for "x"?

I would vote that allowing this to work in anon/silent games violates the spirit of the rules for that format.

I know others disagree, but such is life.

LT you are thinking from a warlords perspective.  Player can declared enemy/ally and vote council how they wish in single player anon/silent games

I admit that I always think from a warlords perspective. 

Rick refuses to make special coding for warlords and this rule as suggested will require another "house rule" to keep warlords viable.

Another example: limiting enemy declarations to only two.  The new game costs influence to declare a kingdom an enemy.  This is both understandable and desirable.  With this influence cost to issuing the order why must there be an artificial limit of only two enemy declarations?  Why not three, or one, or six?  This makes no sense to me.  But it drastically impacts how warlords is played... without any corresponding benefit to the non-warlords game. In fact, three versus one gang bangs are now slightly more effective.

[Jumpingfist]

I agree in team/warlords trading hostages violates the spirit of the rule. You are effectively saying lets be buddies.

I actually brought up the enemy/ally thing you mention to support for single player games but it applies to warlords/team. I noticed if 3 vs 1 the three can all declare enemy but the 1 is not able to put up the same defenses as the 3 so further making him at a bigger disadvantage.
In our team game I see it more how the warlords would play out. Two members of the other team are making waves in your region while the third is building up. So naturally you would declare on the two immediately threats but then the third invades and you must now undeclared one and declare another loosing orders and influence.
End result they did not see a problem but my guess this will be a rule change down the road. Something like you can declare enemy over two to anyone that has already declared you an enemy. Does not fix everything but at least helps