Beyond the Pit [Pitboss Diplomacy Game] [Organization Thread V]

[Robert]

Of course, no ooc rules for nukes.
All remember that I've already been nuked from the diplo map once, no need to let lightning strike twice at the same spot

I'm REALLY REALLY curious how this game will conclude.......

[Pitboss Khmer]

Fair enough but you risk players quitting I suspect...

oh well.

[Pitboss Rome]

I agree about OOC rules, but there has been favourable response to the idea of an IG treaty by some of the leading nations ... watch this space.

[St Jon]

I don't see anything wrong with nukes, not to my advantage here as I will never get them in time, as they are just another weopon of war. The big boys chucking some City-Busters around would be very helpful to me. Can't imagine anyone's going to waste one on poor little harmless me!

[Robert]

I have a problem with the United Nations resolutions that limit the use of civics.
I would really like us all to refrain from using civic-resolutions. I think it's a very poor game mechanic.

Both for game playing and for story telling it sucks to be forced to use a certain civic.
IE. Sparta has the city-state system where representatives of all city states rule the nation together with the king.
Why would I have to be forced to adopt democracy insteade of representation?

All the other resolutions are cool, but the civic ones really suck.

[St Jon]

I wish someone would build the bloody thing and force me into democracy to save me the hassle of researching the damned tech!

[Robert]

Seriously guys, voting time is almost over.
I'm not going to delay the deadline because people just do not cast their votes in time.

Only about 12 hours left for voting.

[OzzyKP]

Voted.

[Pinchak]

Of course, no ooc rules for nukes.

I would really like us all to refrain from using civic-resolutions. I think it's a very poor game mechanic.

Your constant efforts to alter the game from an OOC perspective is tiresome.

If we didn't want this, then the diplomatic victory should have been left out. Alternatively, if you don't agree with a resolution you can always opt out... or better yet, vote for a leader who has your civics!

What you consider to be a "poor game mechanic" may be what another player was counting on in his/her long term strategy. IMO changing the rules half way into the game is "poor game management".

[Robert]

No need to react that offensive.

BTW, did you read that first quote

[St Jon]

Roll on the Nukes! Let me see them fly and mass slaughter result!

No OOC rule should be allowed regarding their use as it is not specified in the Rules and if, given the chance, I had them I would defy any, IG or OOG, informal decision regarding their use barring a UN resolution prohibiting further construction.

Merely a point of view.

[Heraclitus]

Your constant efforts to alter the game from an OOC perspective is tiresome.

If we didn't want this, then the diplomatic victory should have been left out. Alternatively, if you don't agree with a resolution you can always opt out... or better yet, vote for a leader who has your civics!

What you consider to be a "poor game mechanic" may be what another player was counting on in his/her long term strategy. IMO changing the rules half way into the game is "poor game management".

OCC limits on the use of nukes was never an agreed upon rule. It is in fact the Khmer who are trying to change the game.

I do agree on what you are saying regarding the UN, if Greece dosen't want a civic it can refuse or use diplomacy (what a crazy notion right?) to convince enough players to vote NO on the issue or better yet use its influence to ensure the secretary general of the UN is someone friendly to them (or even get themselves elected).

I do however believe that for future games a modified UN would be a great boon for the Diplo community. More civic choices,embargoes and a "blank" resolution would greatly improve diplomacy. A warning that a UN vote will come up in one turn (so the secretary can say what he plans on putting on the agenda). Also perhaps creating some kind of ingame bonuses for being the secretary general (something like SMAC had, a few extra trade routes in your capital and perhaps some extra free espionage points) would create more incentives for players to scheme with each other regarding who should be the secretary.

[St Jon]

If it wasn't in the rules to prohibit the UN then, for right or wrong, it must stay. Same goes for Nukes - it may be against diplo-game etiquette to utterly knock a Civ out of the game but crippling a Civ by a massive 1st strike is not at all the same. It is no different to finding a massive industrial base of a rival badly defended and then capturing and razing it! It may be very nasty but it is still not illegal.

For future games Heraclitus is right and maybe the rewards of having the UN need to be curbed but if you castrate it as a Wonder altogether then why will anyone build it? A lot of Wonders give huge and distorting advantages, that's why they are Wonders, so why not ban the lot?

I still come back to the fact that the only thing in BtP that would stop me building and using Nukes, as I pleased, would be a UN decree. Anything else I would totally ignore!

[Pinchak]

BTW, did you read that first quote

Yes. My question is (and the reason for posting that quote) why should some issues be "of course this shouldn't be handled OOC" and on other things we consider rules halfway into the game.

Any OOC rules need to come at the start of the game.

[Robert]

I didn't ask for a chance of ooc rules, I asked people to restrain themselves.
A question that can easily be ignored by people.

I disagree with you that rules can't be changed during the game. If we learn from game events and everybody agrees, then it should be possible to update rules.
But you are right, we should restrain ourselves from changing rules mid-game all the time.

The reason that I see no reason to make an ooc rule for nukes and ask people to restrain themselves regarding civic-resolutions at the same time, is that nukes imho do not interfere with roleplaying and storytelling, while the flawed concept of civic resolutions imho goes against the core of role playing and story telling. (And against the core of the civ4 civic mechanisms, btw).
But that's only a personal opinion which may be very flawed.

I just don't like the idea to all have the same civics. Democracy, Freedom of Speech, Emancipation, Environmentalism and Free Religion.
That's quite a boring role-playing game. And of course my caste-system strategy makes me biased there.

But I loved it to have an ic anti-emancipation treaty, but I would defenitely hate it to force other players to not be able to adopt emancipation. That would suck. The fact that you were able to pick emancipation make this game interesting.
Limiting people's civic choices just makes one hell of a boring game.

But no worries, I won't try to make it an ooc rule
I'll just nuke everbody who votes in favour of a civic resolution