Tournament rules poll: Demanding withdrawal?

[Tau Ceti]

One issue that is not currently addressed by the tournament rules is whether or not demanding withdrawal from a human player via the commlink menu is allowed. I would be interested in seeing what people's attitude to this is, so let us have a vote! This poll will run until next Sunday (the 28th), 24:00 EST.

Arguments for allowing it: You are supposed to stay out of other people's territory when you have a treaty, and this mechanism allows the other player to control that you comply with it. If it is not allowed, all he can do is send you threatening notices, and it is not possible to get an immediate withdrawal the way you usually can with the AI and the AI with you. I also believe few would want to go to war over the smallest border violations, but they may be quite unwelcome, especially if the offending units are close to a base. Without the option, people could gamble on the unwillingness of others to go to war and keep units more or less permanently in others' territory. Last and probably least, if the option is forbidden and war breaks out because of the border violations, then the wrong player (the defender) will take the reputation hit, which may hurt his diplomatic chances with the AI. It will also mean that the border offender's pactmates will join in the war automatically, as they consider the offender the victim of aggression.

Arguments for forbidding it: The AI makes the decision whether to withdraw or not, and it bases it primarily on its opinion towards you, your SEs and so on. The aggressive factions will be less likely to withdraw, regardless of the style of their human player. It is also standard practice to forbid anything that leaves a player's reaction up to the AI.

So, what will it be? Allow or forbid? Vote below, and feel free to supply your own arguments...

[Misotu]

I must admit, I'm looking forward to seeing opinions on this. It has been done to me in the tournament, and I didn't mind particularly although it was *very* inconvenient.

But then, in another game, it would have been very useful to use it against another player but, somehow, I couldn't bring myself to do it.

So I'm truly undecided about this. But I think there needs to be a ruling ...

[Oniron]

I vote for allowing it.

I agree with Tau Ceti's arguments and would add that this option has been implemented mostly with human players in mind, as demanding withdrawal from the AI can be done within negotiations. The fact that the AI complies at its own discretion reflects the efforts of the programmers to bridge the divide between AI and human opponents in diplomatic communications. In particular, it emulates wishing a treaty for the wallet but a truce for the agenda, which a human can do through threats, bluffs and convoluted agreements.
[This message has been edited by Oniron (edited January 22, 2001).]

[mark13]

I vote for against. If it were possible to call a treaty off by other means than to attack, it would be OK - but it's not. It would not be an uncommon tactic, if this were to be allowed, to have virtual impunity from human attacks by demanding withdrawal every turn (assuming before D:AP). As such, if this were to be outlawed, demanding withdrawal would be done in human negotiations (i.e. e-mails) and not decided by the not-terribly-bright AI. This would, IMO, be a lot fairer, and would make for a much more interesting game.

[Misotu]

Oniron, although you're right to say that demanding withdrawal can be done in negotiations with the AI, it's also true that the AI refuses to speak to you a lot of the time. I've always assumed that menu option was available to get round the problem of the ignoring AI, rather than for human vs human play?

What I'm really not sure about, though, is how demanding withdrawal works in MP between different factions, and what the likely outcomes/impact on the game would be. The AI actually has the option to declare vendetta if you demand withdrawal. As Mark points out, you can't get out of a treaty currently unless you attack, so this would be a major change. But it is more likely to do so under some circumstances than others, depending on the AI "mood" and the factions involved.

If the AI did declare vendetta, the first player would typically send an offer to reinstate the treaty via the comm screen. If accepted, then the net result would be that the first player would lose nothing - while the player who had "declared vendetta" would lose a year's commerce income.

It might not be a problem, I'm just very hazy about how it would work. Is there anyone out there who has used it repeatedly in MP and could give us a flavour for what impact, if any, it has on the game overall?

[Oniron]

I suggest we make the rule as follows: it is allowed unless one of the two players has declared war on the other through email or negotiations.

[big_canuk]

If it works the same way as in SP, (ie, we have at least some idea of the outcome), then I think we should allow it. The best outcome is that the computer acts properly, and the aggressor gets the vendetta (s)he wants, or is removed if bluffing.

The worst outcomes are no worse than disallowing it. A bluffing aggressor, gets penalized commerce income(and maybe the destruction of a unit or two). If you want to bluff (or if you want war), you take that chance.

The aggressor that wants to start a war can just do it, or if the computer decided to withdraw against his(her) wishes, just has to try again.

If you need to move a unit through a treaty mates territory, you can always get permission first. This is my land, and if you tresspass, you will suffer the consequences.

[Googlie]

I have only used it once, in MP, (was Lal against a human Believer) - AI pulled the rover back to base (respect your territory, don't want an incident, etc) and the player thanked me 'cos the transport he'd sent the rover on had been destroyed by an IoD and he was afraid i was going to go to war over his continued presence.

But on the whole, I'd vote against the feature - I think the fewer things the AI gets to do that we can do ourselves the better.

IMHO it's no different than the election bribing rules commonly implemented (typically forbidden, with the player calling the election having to alert everyone by e-mail before the call, so that proper negotiations can take place, bribes, IOU,s etc)

This should also apply to the player asking the other to expel the unit so that it instantaneously returns to the nearest base - that too, IMO, should be disallowed.

G.

[big_canuk]

The problem with disallowing it, and relying on emails and other diplomacy to get someone to withdraw is what do you do if the other human doesn't attack, but doesn't leave. It gives the bluffing/attacking player a huge advantage to wait until the time is exactly right to strike. No waiting to bring up units. They are already there.

What is the defender to do. Either wait to be pulverized by a superior attack, or start a war he likely doesn't want, and take the reputation hit.

I think the penalties and risks should go to the attacker, not the defender. If you intend to attack, either outright do so, or risk being sent back to base. If you intend to bluff, then risk loosing commerce income for one turn.

Edit: If you cannot get to your oppenent in 1 turn (or choose not to launch a surprise attack) then simply email a "declaration of war". In that case your opponent of course could not "demand withdrawl".

[This message has been edited by big_canuk (edited January 23, 2001).]

[Misotu]

Hmm ... this is interesting. You are persuasive, Big_C ...

[Oniron]

quote: Originally posted by mark13 on 01-23-2001 12:11 PM The top and bottom of it is that if an attacker wants to attack he should be allowed to do so, without having a defender withdrawing his troops for him every time. If the attacker sneaks in unnoticed, of coruse, that is his prerogative, and I can foresee a scenario in which the defender demands withdrawal every turn, and the units automatically going back to base each time.

As both big_canuk and I have pointed out, this can be resolved by a declaration of war through email or negotiations. If two people are at war (even if the game displays otherwise) they would not be allowed to demand withdrawal. Otherwise they would.

[mark13]

The only problem with that, IMO, is that it would negate the element of surprise - i.e. if it takes 4 turns (say) for the invasion force to reach its destination, the defending player would be ready for it....

[Misotu]

Now this is also a good point. Not much element of surprise if you have to declare your intentions well in advance

[Oniron]

quote: Originally posted by mark13 on 01-23-2001 07:26 PM The only problem with that, IMO, is that it would negate the element of surprise - i.e. if it takes 4 turns (say) for the invasion force to reach its destination, the defending player would be ready for it....

This is normal.

Consider you are playing against the A.I. Turn 1a the A.I. enters your territory. Turn 1b you ask the A.I. to withdraw, it refuses and declares war on you. If the A.I. attacks on turn 4a you have 3 turns (1b, 2b and 3b) to prepare.

Now consider you are playing a human. Turn 1a the human enters your territory and declares that he/she is at war with you. If the human attacks on turn 4a you still have the same 3 turns to prepare.

[Misotu]

But I think Mark's point is that currently human players tend to be a little more subtle and crafty than the AI

The "demand withdrawal" option has a sneaky side-benefit, in the sense that it will tell you *whether* there are units belonging to another faction in your territory. Thus, someone using this option at regular intervals can guard against some forms of surprise attack. This would remove an interesting element from the game, surely?