War and Spread of Religion

[notyoueither]

I just set up a pangaea and gave the AIs all the religions from turn 2 after they settled their cities. Also placed roads to make sure all caps were connected with me.

I declared war on all of the AIs (placed warriors next to all of them so I had contact with all).

Gave myself 10 MechInf and sat back to enjoy a good turkey shoot.

Played til 50AD, no religion spread to my cap. Made peace with them all and had religion in a few turns. It took 3 or so.

I recommend we declare war on Vox while letting them know why we are doing so. We should be able to work out rules for living next to each other that they understand are nothing personal.

[Cort Haus]

Good test, NYE, and good code-trawling (http://apolyton.net/forums//showthread.php?postid=4455421#post4455421), Blake!. :b:

As I said on the other thread, faux wars to manipulate game mechanics are not always seen as 'cricket' in DGs, but if we want to bop their scout the war would be real enough.

I don't think we can announce a faux war, then kill their scout the next turn if the ambush possibility was sprung.

[Arrian]

Is Faux War allowed in this game?

-Arrian

[vmxa1]

What was disapproved of in III was the stunt were one team declared war to the other could kill a unit to trigger a GA.


That does not exist in IV. I am not sure what the problem would be in a phony war. The only ones to dislike it are the ones with early religion. It spreads too easy, so it seems we should be able to declare war and not attack.

If it is up to Vox in this case, if they want to go along with it or not. I doubt we have much choice, unless you want to let their religion give them the keys to our car.

[Arrian]

I think that declaring war with the specific intent of avoiding religion spread and at the same time claiming to the team we declared war on that we don't really want to fight is pretty much the definition of Faux War.

If we whack their scout and go for a "choke" operation, that would be different. The religion thing would be a side benifit.

-Arrian

[DeepO]

Originally posted by Arrian
If we whack their scout and go for a "choke" operation, that would be different. The religion thing would be a side benifit.

I agree. And let's check with the mods first for their definition of faux war before sending Vox any message...

DeepO

[vmxa1]

I think the first question for us what do we see as the way to go before we pose any questions. If you are fine with them spreading a religion to us or do not want a phony war that is one thing.

If you are not willing to have religion spread, then you have to decide if you want to try a phony war. In that case you ask the moderators. If you are unwilling to have it spread, then you can still ask them, but if they say no, you just declare war.

You kill the scout if you can, but what or when or how many units to send is nobodies business. It is not a phony war, if we declare and have no dealings with Vox.

A bloodless war is still a war and evenutually it will get bloody, unless we get our own religion and make peace.

[DeepO]

vmxa, I wouldn't feel comfortable with the idea that we declare war with the sole intention of avoiding the spread of Hinduism. You're right in that any bloodless war will get bloody after a while, but still simply declaring war asap, without any direct threat I don't like.

What I do like is to kill their scout if possible... and if religion doesn't spread it's a nice bonus. If we can't kill the scout, no declaration is needed.

You might be right that we don't need to ask mods now what their view is. However, it could hasten up things: no use in discussing what won't be an option later on.

DeepO

[Cort Haus]

PM to Snoopy (http://apolyton.net/forums//showthread.php?postid=4456417#post4456417) sent, as he is currently active on the OT.

[vmxa1]

Deepo I said no need to talk to the mod, if it was decided that you had no interest in a phony war.

What is uncomfortable about declaring war for any reason? Either it is in your best interest or it is not. I am not sure if it is, but if it is what is uncomfortable about it.

I seem to recall a couple of teams had no problem with nuking us.
After we keep them from probably losing the game.

[Ennet]

DeepO only the game mechanic would be triggered, we wouldnt really go to war with them, they would have no need in feeling threatened by that. They are after all human players and one can assume they would understand our point of view once we'd presented it to them.. also not even killing their scout does absolutly mean war even if it sure is a hostile act. In my first civ4 mp game (still running) my friend i am currently playing early killed my scout but we made peace after it and havnt gone to war later. It was just a move to reduce an advantage and even if it sure was hostile and put me on the alert it sure was not enought to go to war about.

[DeepO]

Originally posted by vmxa1
Deepo I said no need to talk to the mod, if it was decided that you had no interest in a phony war.
erh, yes, I personally have no interest in a phony war... I wasn't talking to any mod yet ;)

What is uncomfortable about declaring war for any reason? Either it is in your best interest or it is not. I am not sure if it is, but if it is what is uncomfortable about it.

I've been at the edge of exploits before, and probably have crossed them more then once. But religion is one of my most favourite things in CIV, and the whole concept of staying at war to avoid getting a religion seems exploitative to me. After all, religion flows freely... it moves more rapidly when trading, but a war should only make it a lot more difficult to spread, not impossible.

I'm not sure Soren ever meant the game mechanic to lead to phony wars, if he realised it he would probably have changed it. So, for me, this is one game mechanic too far.

It's very subjective, though. I don't mind exploiting the best way to poprush as demonstrated by Blake... But somehow, you can't mess with religion, it's sacred ;)

DeepO

[DeepO]

Originally posted by Ennet
DeepO only the game mechanic would be triggered, we wouldnt really go to war with them, they would have no need in feeling threatened by that. They are after all human players and one can assume they would understand our point of view once we'd presented it to them..

Good luck in convincing Vox about that one... I don't have that much of demogame experience, but the PTWDG made one thing very clear: all you need is one vocal member of a third civ to blow up all trust between two teams. If some team comes to us, and tells us that they'll declare war, but only for a game mechanic reason, there's no way I won't know they're really looking for some opportunity.

It won't matter in this case, though. They start with skirmishers next to them. And look where Vox is coming from: that land is tundra on the South, sea on the North. Maybe it's not a corner of a continent, and the land continues in some form of snake on the West, but my guess is that Vox will have us, and possible one other team as neighbours. It won't take long for them to attack us, especially if they can somehow negate our skirmisher advantage.

also not even killing their scout does absolutly mean war even if it sure is a hostile act. In my first civ4 mp game (still running) my friend i am currently playing early killed my scout but we made peace after it and havnt gone to war later. It was just a move to reduce an advantage and even if it sure was hostile and put me on the alert it sure was not enought to go to war about.
Well, to be honest, I think this is a lot more acceptable diplomatically than the idea of a phony war to offset another of their advantages (Hinduism in our lands). I can see us destroy their scout, and send a peace message right after to say "sorry guys, but we couldn't resist this chance to get even. No bad feelings, right?"

DeepO

[Ennet]

Originally posted by DeepO
But somehow, you can't mess with religion, it's sacred ;)


It's voxian religion after all :D We cant let the Voice use its snake tongue to poison our citizens with its *um* lies, now can we? :rolleyes:

[vmxa1]

I just do not see how it is an exploit. First we are talking about other players, not the AI. So you see someone beating you to a religion as a good reason to not counter that advantage?

It does not even have a hint of an exploit as they do not have to go along with it. They can choose to act beligerently, if they see it as in their best interest.

Personally I dislike religion as it is too big of an advantage. It spreads too easily and has no effective counter, unless you get your own. In a ame like this where one team can get it by virtue of being able to play before another team, it is really ugly.

Again, I am not certain that we should take the action of war, real or phony. Not enough has been done to see what the possible out comes are for us.

I just do not see taking it off the table, just for nothing.

[snoopy369]

Ahem.

I'm not sn00py ... he's a singaporian/australian graphic designer who made a really cool civ3 tileset ... I'm an american occasional modder via code who administers a demogame in my 'free' time ;)

I'm not entirely sure whether what you're describing would be okay or not. There was quite substantial discussion pre-game about Faux Wars in general, much of it coming from NYE and Krill ... I'm going to have to read that discussion, and talk to Aeson if he's around.

I'm torn, personally, about it; I think it might be different if you declared war for your own, non-military reasons, than if you talked to Vox about it. One is a war for what could certainly be considered valid reasons; the second, even if it's not straight-up collusion, appears as such to the rest of the teams.
One of the main arguments against Faux Wars was to avoid collusion, ie two teams claiming to be at war together and then actually being allied, and gaining significant strategic advantage from doing so. You might argue that's a valid strategic tactic ... and certainly some do ... but if I recall the pre-game chat, many don't (or at least didn't). You're not, precisely, doing this here... but you're probably getting close enough to it that it would be hard to permit this and not permit any other activity in that regards.

So, the short of it is, let me reread the old chat/threads and see if I can chat with Aeson about this some ... we'll try to come up with something before the turn comes back to you.

[Cort Haus]

Erm, I got my snoopy and sn00py mixed up...

doh! :idiot:

[Cort Haus]

dp

[snoopy369]

Rereading the chat and the poll, the kind of war you're describing was accepted by many (more than half) of the players, and only I think one person really had a significant problem with it.

I'd still like to discuss it with Aeson, to make sure he reads it the way I do, but I suspect that we'll not object to it. Personally I don't think it's all that kosher, but I think it's probably within the rules we agreed on.

However, if it becomes more than what you're describing here, it may be a problem; it was clearly agreed on that you can't agree to wars for training or city trading/clearing, and it's a bit muddier if you were to stay at war with vox but begin a peaceful alliance. IE, if you decide to war with them to avoid hinduism, that's probably going to be fine, but don't expect to gain the normal advantages of peaceful neighbor relations (like tech trading) while at war.

[notyoueither]

The thought that is an exploit never crossed my mind.

You can do this in SP.

If you do this in SP so as to avoid religion spread from an AI you know you are likely going to go to war with, you would avoid the war unhappiness, and that might be a good idea.