Tournament rules poll: Demanding withdrawal?

[Garth Vader]

I vote against allowing the demand withdrawl. For basically everything Mark said.

It seems the only problem people have with disallowing it is the reputation hit when the defender hits the offending units. Like Mark said in a MP game the AI is a minor factor. Reputation is a minor part of that minor factor.

[buster]

Sorry about this - I had trouble with the forum and when my message finally came through it was here 4 times.
Forum leader please delete it.
[This message has been edited by buster (edited January 25, 2001).]

[buster]

Sorry about this - I had trouble with the forum and when my message finally came through it was here 4 times.
Forum leader please delete it.
[This message has been edited by buster (edited January 25, 2001).]

[buster]

same as above
[This message has been edited by buster (edited January 25, 2001).]

[buster]

same as above
[This message has been edited by buster (edited January 25, 2001).]

[buster]

I am clearly for not allowing use of demand withdrawal button.

Here is why:

It works under treaty and truce.
A player you have not yet met is considered at truce.
You have no initial "no status" you have an intial truce staus.

That means Joe is exploring in early game meets someone the other player hits demand withdrawal - bang he goes home. It even also works on probe teams and even if they are only at unofficial truce.

I did some tests on it at one time. Whether you get sent home or a vendetta results depends on your attitude towards the other faction. This one can be checked on the comm link. As far as I remember it splits at beliggerent where there is a 50% chance.
Mood is better - faction goes home, mood is worse vendetta results.

Now here is the real annoyance. There is no way I know of that you can lower your own mood. Being "withdrawn" also don't lower your mood. Meaning repetitively crossing the border and getting sent home does not worsen your mood (except in private).
Your mood is determined by the same algoritm the AI uses. You have no say in the matter. It depends on your factions preferences and the SE choices of the other faction mainly. It can take quite a while to lower - even if you are lucky and the other faction makes SE choices that are not liked by your faction.

In combination with this there is no "declare vendetta" button.

The only way to get to vendetta is to attack someone and you cannot attack them because you can't get close.
If you are playing against someone who really uses this it can get extremely annoying.

Else you have to get imaginative and do a ship attack from outside the border, rushing in finding something to bombard so that you get to vendetta and this button no longer works. (Cross your fingers that both of you have sea bases and not too far apart). You can also wait for planes (believers may never get them though if their harrasment tactics are made useless this way).

As far as I am concerned this is the most annoying bug of them all. The only reason it is so little heard about I think is that so few know it and use it - and that most players instinctively see that this is wrong somehow and agree not to use it.

Try playing against someone who knows exactly how to use (basically checks the mood of each opposing faction, runs down the list and demands withdrawal of all with better than beliggerent)and it will be the last time you choose a non-builder faction. (especially if the guy matches his SE choices to your factions likings just to not lower your mood - so that he can keep this up for very long).

Firaxis give me that declare vendetta button!!!

[Tau Ceti]

Just a quick post:

I do not think anyone wants this to be allowed under a truce. In fact, I will state right now that it is not allowed.

As for the other objection, it seems to be taken care of reasonably well by the 'declare vendetta via email/thread' solution suggested by Oniron and big_canuk.

(Also, are you sure it works on probe teams? I once demanded withdrawal from the AI for the specific reason that I wanted to get rid of the probe, but while a colony pod and some military units left, the probe remained.)

Longer reply planned, but it is late here, so I will write it tomorrow.

[big_canuk]

Hmmmm....

[Sarxis]

I think that allowing the option to give the tresspasing player the boot should be allowed, for the reasons stated previously in this thread. I know that allowing the AI to make this decision is not entirely palatable for most of us, but if an opponent decides to invade your land without being pacted and not being at war, then the option should be available to you.

[buster]

On humam opponents it works on probe teams as well as regular units.

It is easily tested by making a mini game (10x10 or so)and walking across borders demanding withdrawal.
Make a faction Angels so you have probe teams at start.

I did this test once and got way above 100 demand witdrawals with not one single instance of vendetta.

It takes some time (discovery and use of not liked SE settings) before moods start to lower and vendettas start occuring.

Kim

[buster]

Just a note - the test game was just a standard hotseat/pbem 7 humans (all played by me)no use of scenario editor needed.

[Tau Ceti]

I believe that the rules and conditions of MP should match SP as closely as possible. And normally, you can call someone up and demand their withdrawal. They can neither delay nor refuse to answer - the decision will be made immediately.

If demanding withdrawal is only allowed via emails, at least a one-turn delay is imposed, and you might not even get an answer. One turn may not seem like much, but I am not sure how many attacks actually occur across a 20-square wasteland. Often, that one turn can be all that is needed for the possible attacker to reach your cities. Thus, the delay in getting an answer can be a very real crisis for the defender. The attacker, on the other hand, risks absolutely nothing by walking straight into someone else's territory.

Mark, you say that by demanding withdrawal, I am assuming that the treaty is still in place. However, when you have had ample opportunity to break the treaty (just send an email or a diplomacy message), but have chosen not to do so, that assumption does not seem unreasonable to me. What you want is to get the legal protection of a treaty status even after you have, as you say, 'quite clearly' broken it. Now that is unreasonable.

When you enter into a treaty, you have agreed to respect the other faction's borders - a treaty is unique in this respect. The option to demand a withdrawal is the game's way of enforcing this. If the option is disallowed, the only thing someone can do is send threatening notices etc, which he can do in any diplomatic state anyway. Thus, removing it also removes the only diplomatic difference between a truce and a treaty, leaving only the commerce part.

If you want to be able to flagrantly violate borders everywhere you go without anyone being able to do a thing about it, that is easy. Don't sign treaties, use truces instead.

Does the option make it impossible for you to attack someone? No, not with the restrictions suggested by Oniron and big_canuk. It may be a slight problem if you intend to launch attacks across a large, empty area of land and you desperately need the element of complete surprise even several turns from now. In any case, that sounds like a fairly risky and desperate plan, so I doubt the possibility of demanding withdrawal will ruin anything significant. Remember, you have already lost the element of surprise once the defender can see your units. Why should it be the attacker's 'prerogative' to get at least one more turn after that to keep the defender in the dark, when that is not normal game behaviour?

The reputation/diplomatic situation point may well be minor in many games, but it could be a major crisis if, say, your attacker is pacted with your other neighbour Yang, who will immediately jump in to defend his pactmate, the victim of aggression. In any case, does it not seem reasonable to adopt a solution where it will ususally be the actual attacker that has to declare the vendetta?

Mis, hard work? If you could tell me how having to write a message like 'Demanded withdrawal of Impact Rover at (33,40). Game complied.' is any more work than writing something like 'OK, the game is up. I have spotted your Impact Rover at (33,40). Withdraw it now or suffer the consequences!' , I would be very pleased.

Ultimately, if withdrawal is demanded, the request will be answered by the AI. That is far from a prefect solution, but it is arguably the best one Firaxis could have made, given the limitations of PBEM. There are disadvantages with it, and those need to be assigned to one side or the other. Judging by the input and analysis on this thread, the disadvantages to the attacker are inconveniences at worst, while for the defender they can be costly crises. Allowing the demand withdrawal option also seems to mirror the conditions of SP more closely.

[buster]

Sorry but there is one assumption here that keeps popping up and which is false.

The reason it keeps coming is probably because it is so illogical that it is not there.

The false assumption is: "You can just cancel the treaty".

To put it simply - there is no option anywhere you can click that says cancel treaty. Just as there is no way to declare vendetta.

You can cancel a pact in the comm-link. If you have a treaty or truce you can now demand withdrawal. There is no option to lower the status.

The only way to lower the status is by attacking someone. And that does not mean saying I will attack you - it means assulting a unit or city of the other.

Once you have a treaty it will stay there until either you attack the other or the other attack you. If you both can't get close it will be hard.

It is of course so mindboggling stupid this was not programmed in that it is missed by most people, but it is nevertheless a fact.

The only other way I know to get into vendetta is to do so at the request of someone else. That means you reply "accept" to a request of "attack faction so and so" by another faction.

So the issue here is not is it fair to sneak attack when you have a treaty or should you lower it first.

The issue is: "Do you have a fair chance of in reasonable time attacking someone - sneak or not - if you have at some point earlier made a treaty with that faction" or said in another way: "is it fair that you are stuck with no way to change you own diplomatic status towards another".

As I see it - making it possible for another to prevent you attacking when at treaty also will make it extremely hard and in some cases impossible to get out of the treaty in any kind of reasonable period.

Personally I don't really care if I have to send a mail and if there is a delay.
I do care about having to avoid making treaties or pacts as I may end up in a situatuion where once made I cannot get out of them again regardless of what I do.

[mark13]

My point precisely, buster - by demanding withdrawal in hostile circumstances, the treaty is no longer fully active. I recognise your concern, Tau, but it is not a case of gaining the protection of thet treaty status, after it has been broken. What I am saying is that as the treaty status has been broken, demanding withdrawal should no longer be an option.

It really depends on how you want to play it. Although I find the logical solution to be disallowing this rule altogether, I would be happy to go with the declaration of vendetta by e-mail proposal. As long as it is properly enforced, this would act in the same way.

[Tau Ceti]

buster, the objection you raise has already been dealt with. We know there is no option to declare vendetta in the game itself, and we do not assume that one exists. The intention would be to simulate the existence of the option via an official declaration (as a thread post, good point, Mis!). This would make it illegal to demand withdrawal and you would have no trouble reaching each other, which solves the problem.

mark13, unless you have made a declaration of intent, the defender cannot know whether you want to end the treaty or not. The options are 'assume treaty holds unless it has been cancelled', which may sometimes cost the attacker a turn or so of surprise effect, or 'leave the defender without any knowledge of the situation and any means to do anything about it', which will always be costly to him. Given the different severity of the two situations, and the fact that the attacker already has perfect information about the size and intent of the invasion force, I think it seems better to assign the unavoidable disadvantage to him.

Mis, many good points (and finally some new ones!). Perhaps my statement about the relationship between SP and MP was a bit too broad, but I still feel that the rules should be as similar as possible. I notice that all of your examples are from diplomacy, which obviously must be different in MP.

But this is also a diplomatic situation. So what makes it different? In my opinion, primarily the time aspect. When negotiating trade treaties and technology trades, it rarely matters much that the standard negotiation procedures are slow, but in the case of a possible military invasion, the one turn can be absolutely critical.

In games with AI factions, the diplomatic repercussions can play a role. Then there is the point that disallowing demanding withdrawal leaves treaty status without any diplomatic significance.

I do not think it should be such a large problem to remember the change of status (of course, I have never had 20+ PBEMs at the same time! ) I for one tend to take declarations of war pretty seriously and not forget about them... you could always write a message to yourself on the map?

Now for your specific points.

a) Hmm. My initial reaction is that probe teams should not be withdrawn in the same way, and I did not think they were. buster's experiments indicate otherwise. Well, if probe teams are usually also withdrawn when you demand withdrawal from an AI, then I have no problems with it. Does anyone know?

b) This one is nasty, and probably the best argument against allowing demanding withdrawal that I have seen so far. It is clearly an abuse, but it is hard to say exactly where the limit should be. I have no good solution to his at the moment.

Then again, most of these examples really need the players to play quite dirty and use every trick in the book to bend rules to their advantage. How much fun is it to play against players like that anyway? We should be able to expect some sense of fair play...

And how often will the results be truly catastrophic? I mean, yeah, it is possible that someone builds a new base and you really want to withdraw and do your best but are stopped by fungus and the evil mind worms and all that, and just when you are one square away from your own territory, someone demands withdrawal and your unit is moved to the base you for some unknowable reason built in the middle of the ocean far away from everything else, but just how likely is it?

I still think the disadvantages to the defender are very real and will apply every time, while most of the supposed disadvantages for the attacker require rather extraordinary circumstances.

c) I agree.