NWO pbem#2

[Eurisko]

Originally posted by academia

i don´t feel that. i feel that NWO have lots of rpg, but as i said before, if a player wants to start a war, he can do it. i´m not going to ban him for that.
it may be weird... but he can do it. for instance, in the other nwo game, i was using north korea and i nuked tokyo. i also think that it´s unreal and stupid, but i wanted to bring some action to the game.

again, what´s the problem with india´s expansion? if you don´t like it just go and try to stop him!! that´d be fun.

Oh, I am not asking for all-out aggression to be banned. Not at all.

Of course he can start a war, but China has something to say in Asian matters, and we do not accept this.

Like Russia, we will intervene if the nations are not demilitarized, returned and compensated.

[Eurisko]

Btw academia, I think the ban on gifting money should be lifted.

I am not sure about techs, but maybe tech-trading should be allowed as well, considering how slow technologies are to research.

[academia]

Originally posted by Eurisko


Oh, I am not asking for all-out aggression to be banned. Not at all.

Of course he can start a war, but China has something to say in Asian matters, and we do not accept this.

Like Russia, we will intervene if the nations are not demilitarized, returned and compensated.

exactly. that´s what i want

Btw academia, I think the ban on gifting money should be lifted.

I am not sure about techs, but maybe tech-trading should be allowed as well, considering how slow technologies are to research.

ok... i don´t have a firm position about money gifting. if you guys think it´s fine, let´s lift the ban.

about the techs, i agree with you. however, i think that we should limit the tech-trading rate... what about 1 tech trading allowed per 4 turns?

[Arthedain]

Originally posted by Nilat
I am so sorry about this! I thought you could use Istanbul to move your stuff. I didnt want to block Istanbul. Wont happen again, I hope Russia apologises for it's irresponsible action.

Hey, I know this wasn't your intention (as stated), and I was more thinking you were blocking the straits for other countries (trade).



Anyways I think it's okay to attack neutral countries, but compare to me in the other PBEM (playing India). I was trying to give myself legitimate reasons for doing so and presented the reasons to the others. Not just saying 'Pakistan occupied'.



In game mode:
* Singapore acknowledges the new nation of Aceh, but wishes to remind the nation not to expand anymore in Indonesia.

* Several of the Western allies oppose the Indian expansion, demanding all nations to be returned to the neutrals (except for Sri Lanka).

[Eurisko]

China also recognizes the now independent country of Aceh.

Academia is next.

[ISeeALL]

Originally posted by Eurisko
In the end it also strongly depends on what you want to do.

Aha. So, there is in fact no formal goal set, and everyone does what he wants. This sounds like World of Warcraft or Ultima.

But I see a problem with this approach. Suppose you want to play the game in democratic style and set your own goal of reaching maximal population, tech count or money. And I want conquest and set my goal as the number of turns I need to conquer the whole map. Then as soon as I start attacks you will either get frustrated and stop playing, or you will have to spend so much for defense, that in the end you will cancel your democracy and start counter-attacks.

I imagine that in multiplayer Civ2 the goal should be the same as in single-player Civ2, it's the same game after all. So, if in Civ2 the goal is to get maximal score, and if in scenarios score is calculated by number of objective cities, the only obvious goal is to capture those cities from other players. But if you say other players may have other goals (like making techs for their own's sake), I will spoil their game.

If we just set a formal goal for every player to get max score, there wouldn't be such stuff as "find reasons before capturing barbarian cities". If this is RPG, I won't play it, because I don't see the point. RPG game excludes decisions, so one player can happily run such a game, doing the roles of all involed nations himself.

Maybe I take your role-playing with China too seriously, but if you wish to attack, you may do it without finding reasons. I just don't want to spoil the game for you in case you don't want any wars. I will start wars only against those players who wish to have war.

[Nilat]

I agree that anybody has the right to attack anybody in this game. There is no divine force preventing you to that! However, think about the consequences. An example:

You, as India, attack Uzbekistan. I, Russia, get absolutely pissed off and attack you in that area (does not become a full blown war. Fighting only happens in Uzbekistan and some rules are set, no nukes for example). If you beging to break those rules, they will consequences too. Maybe another c9ountry joining the war in that area or even an escalation into full-blown war!

What I find so fun about Diplomacy scenarios is the influence you have on others, your diplomatic skills and the fear of large conflicts. We act as the nations and react as we wish (does not have to be realistic, although it might displease some people).

Feel free to do anything within the rules, however, expect consequences which may end up in the annihilation of your nation or your future prospects of power. What do we all want in this PBEM? More power!

I say we just continue normally, but keep this in mind ISeeAll You are learning, my friend.

@Alejandro: Are we using the UN security council rule?

[Nilat]

Originally posted by Arthedain

Hey, I know this wasn't your intention (as stated), and I was more thinking you were blocking the straits for other countries (trade).

Who the hell wants to trade with Russian Black Sea Ports?

EDIT: Russia recognises the independence of Aceh and wishes to discuss with them.

[academia]

Originally posted by Nilat
@Alejandro: Are we using the UN security council rule?

i dont know. i think that the UN council rule never actually worked...

[Nilat]

I think it did. How didn't it work in your opinion?

[Eurisko]

Originally posted by ISeeALL


1) Aha. So, there is in fact no formal goal set, and everyone does what he wants. This sounds like World of Warcraft or Ultima.

But I see a problem with this approach. Suppose you want to play the game in democratic style and set your own goal of reaching maximal population, tech count or money. And I want conquest and set my goal as the number of turns I need to conquer the whole map. Then as soon as I start attacks you will either get frustrated and stop playing, or you will have to spend so much for defense, that in the end you will cancel your democracy and start counter-attacks.

I imagine that in multiplayer Civ2 the goal should be the same as in single-player Civ2, it's the same game after all. So, if in Civ2 the goal is to get maximal score, and if in scenarios score is calculated by number of objective cities, the only obvious goal is to capture those cities from other players. But if you say other players may have other goals (like making techs for their own's sake), I will spoil their game.

2) If we just set a formal goal for every player to get max score, there wouldn't be such stuff as "find reasons before capturing barbarian cities". If this is RPG, I won't play it, because I don't see the point. RPG game excludes decisions, so one player can happily run such a game, doing the roles of all involed nations himself.

3) Maybe I take your role-playing with China too seriously, but if you wish to attack, you may do it without finding reasons. I just don't want to spoil the game for you in case you don't want any wars. I will start wars only against those players who wish to have war.

1) I don't see a problem with one player's actions derailing another player's plans. It's not a race where everyone tries to do their best within their own narrow track, after all, but rather an arena where one may choose to perform by oneself or to hamper and usurp others.

There are many ways to contain aggressors as well. It's pretty much like wild nature: You, a predator, may attack a single peaceful herbivore who cannot put up much of a resistance by itself, but he can band together with others who have similar goals to put you in your place. Form a protective herd, so to say.

Up until now, the only things which have, in my opinion, skewed fairness in games were strong players ganging up on weaker players.

I am not sure about how implementing a system like in civ 2 singleplayer would work out, though.

Truth be told, only certain scenarios have come to completion when played in PBEMs so far, and most of the time it was because one side was so powerful that resistance was futile anyway.

Such scenarios include: John Ellis' Bonaparte, Steph's WW1, 2194, Eivind's BK 1936 and 1942.

2) It is not really a rpg, but more of a synthesis between a normal game and rpg. You base your decisions on what you think is the best course of action, and then simply build a bit of rp around that decision to spice things up for others.

So while all you want to do is conquer cities, you could use excuses such as Pakistani sponsorship of Kashmir terrorism and so on. Would it be necessary? Of course not. But it would make the game hell of a lot less boring for others.

We could of course post turns along the lines of:

"Movement made."
"Conquered a city."
"Declared war."

But that would be pretty damn boring for everybody involved.

Writing turns reports is another thing altogether and most people probably enjoy it.

3) Frankly I do not want war, but obviously I would not want to let my personal preference affect your judgement. Start one if you'd like, I am always ready to fight one.

And don't forget that behind my Chinese rp there is a lot of another rp: Realpolitik.

Btw, don't worry, if I wanted to attack you I could come up with a multitude of reasons in no time.

Anyway, Alejandro is up.

[ISeeALL]

Ok, now it's all perfectly clear. I just took your roleplaying too seriously.

And you were right, Nilat, I still can't get used to the fact, that all 7 nations, not just 1 or 2 are intelligent and _can_ attack.

Well, let's see what comes out of all this.

[Eurisko]

Originally posted by ISeeALL
Ok, now it's all perfectly clear. I just took your roleplaying too seriously.

And you were right, Nilat, I still can't get used to the fact, that all 7 nations, not just 1 or 2 are intelligent and _can_ attack.

Well, let's see what comes out of all this.

Btw, you would probably like 2194 or Bonaparte.

Let me know if you would be interested in either scenario, as I certainly am (Germany in 2194 or Russia in Bonaparte, if you plan on starting either PBEM).

[Voltar]

IseeAll you are up in the other NWO pbem for like 5 days now....

[academia]

AMERICAN-INDIAN ALLIANCE!

After hours of intense negotiations, the United States of America and the Republic of India have formally signed a defensive alliance.

Representatives of India explained that the military actions carried out in Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka are part of their own "war on terrorism" campaign.

So, taking into account that both countries have the same enemy, it´s inevitable that we join forces and fight together against the terrorist scum.



----------------------------------------

In a few words, the USA announces that we will back up indian military in case of conflict with Russia or China.
If you attack indian forces, then America will intervene.

@eurisko and mikko:
please, don´t get mad!! i´m just doing this because i feel that a russia/china vs. usa/india conflict would be extremely interesting
so, if you still want to fight, let´s establish some engagement rules and bring it on!

----------------------------------------

Other affairs:

*The United States doesn´t recognize the the new nation of Aceh. Sooner or later, we´ll bring you real freedom and capitalism.

*We also ignore the "mercy callings" from Syria and Iran. It´s public knowledge that you are both terrorist loving states.

*Mosul liberated.

God bless America.