Tournament rules poll: Demanding withdrawal?

[big_canuk]

RE: Misotu's list

c) I agree too, but notification must also accompany the game file in the email. Sometimes(usually), I don't read the thread until after I play my turn.

[Misotu]

:big grin: I'm afraid there won't be so many new points here but I am trying to find a compromise that I can feel comfortable with. I've been swayed by the territory arguments, I must admit. I suppose I have always really thought of treaties as primarily economic rather than territorial arrangements. Which is, of course, quite wrong.

And yeah, I could make a note on the map

My real problem is that I don't feel that the proposed solution hits the right balance either.

I just re-read the thread, and my head is hurting pretty badly now, but I genuinely think that this is a better compromise, and I've given my reasons:

1) Defender detects intruders in territory

2) Defender sends in-game message and publishes on the thread intention to demand withdrawal next turn unless attacker agrees to withdraw immediately, using a route and in a time frame specified by defender

3a) Attacker complies - no further action unless attacker deviates from withdrawal plan, in which case defender may demand withdrawal immediately with no further notice.
3b) Attacker does not comply - defender demands withdrawal
3c) Attacker does not comply and declares vendetta via the thread and an in-game message. Defender may not demand withdrawal.

Defender:
+ Gains advantage of ability to use demand withdrawal.
- Must wait one turn to use it

Attacker:
+ Is not forced to declare intentions in advance
+ Is able to declare vendetta rather than withdrawing
- Can no longer just waltz around others' territory, popping pods, expanding map data and causing problems unless they *really* want a fight.

I know people don't like the idea of a one-turn delay much and I understand the reasons. But I think this disadvantage to the defender is being given far too much weight. If one turn is *that* critical, then I have done something wrong. Like not noticing 8 impact rovers until they parked up next to the trance scout defending my HQ It's my fault that I didn't notice them moving up through the fungus for the last 8 turns!! - if I had done my job properly, I would have a)found them and bought myself 8 years warning
b)threatened to use demand withdrawal, and found out how serious they were

In any event, you won't even get the option to demand withdrawal unless it's a land attack. Under either system, if I have a transport packed full of troops, I can land right next to your HQ and attack immediately - nothing you can do. I can do the same with drop. I can do the same with x jets. And I can keep my treaty with you until the last moment I can even land somewhere close by, declare vendetta in-game/on the thread and then hang around for a turn or more if I like, gathering my forces together, destroying your improvements and whatnot.

If the original suggestion is implemented, you will see a lot of transports being built, since land attacks will be almost completely ruled out as a proposition I suppose it could make for some interesting naval battles though - people have often bemoaned the lack of real naval presence in the game

I really do find it hard to imagine a situation where a delay of one turn is truly catastrophic for the defender, except where the defender has made a prize-winning contribution to the gravity of his own situation, or the attacker has been so clever that he really deserves some benefit from it

The current proposal almost insists that the attacker declare his intentions *before he has even reached your territory*, because he cannot risk being detected after he has, say, spent 5 or 10 years crawling towards you. Especially in the earlier part of the game, there are not necessarily roads/rivers to carry the attacker along, making progress painfully slow. Being plucked up and dumped back where you started, with no opportunity to refuse to go, is not an inconvenience, it is a serious handicap and, in my view, far more serious and with far more impact on the game than the one-turn delay. It's a lot more turns, for a start Depending on the map positions, an attack can easily be set back 5, 10 years or more this way, conferring huge advantage on the defender who not only now knows an attack is on its way, but has all the time in the world to prepare for it

If you don't want to risk this, you are forced to declare vendetta in advance, which ... ah ... gives the defender all the time in the world to prepare for it.

Your only other option is to refuse to enter a treaty when you first meet on the basis that you *might* need to attack at some point, thus signalling your general leanings even earlier and depriving yourself of trade benefits with every potential future victim.

So, it seems to me that we have win-win-neutral for the defender, lose-lose-lose for the attacker. That can't be right.

Right now, the argument seems to be that a one-turn delay for the defender is so unacceptable that it justifies:

a) Removing the ability of the attacker to declare vendetta rather than complying with a request to withdraw (contrary to SP)

b) More or less forcing the attacker to declare his intentions well in advance, either by refusing treaty or by posting a declaration of vendetta, because the turn-disadvantage risks of not doing so are just too great.

I don't think this is balanced, and I think accepting the one-turn delay enables us to make a reasonable adjustment in favour of the defender without huge disadvantage to the attacker.

(Ducks and runs)


*************

Um ... just to throw a small spanner in the works, I was pretty sure that I'd had some MP games where I cannot see other human borders. Just played one (AXT019) and sure enough ... they are not displayed I can send Tau the game file if you're interested in seeing it, and then we'd know at least whether it's specific to my system I suppose.

I don't know whether this particular game has strange settings that would account for this, but I can see the AI borders and my own. I'm pretty sure that this is true of some of my other games too, but this is the only one I've checked so far. Rather tricky for the others if they are in the same situation, since Oniron and Mark13 have bases just 6 squares apart and I cannot see where one territory begins and the other ends ...

[Misotu]

In the game I write "remove this" on the map to request a withdrawal ... Not that anyone takes any notice of course - they just carry on popping pods in my territory, dammit

You know, MP does not work like SP in many, many ways so I'm not sure why keeping the game as close to SP as possible would be a goal? It isn't even really possible, to be honest. And in any event, being able to cancel a treaty by email does not resemble SP!

In SP, I do not exchange emails with my opponents

In SP, I am limited to the diplomatic options in the menus.

In SP, I cannot speak to other factions unless I have their comm fq.

In SP, I cannot choose which tech to offer to another faction unless I am lucky and it is one of the two techs displayed on the in-game screen. Constant frustration!

In SP, I can give a base to another faction or indeed demand one from them. This is actually quite a serious omission in the MP game, in my opinion.

In SP I can call up my pact mate and ask them to declare vendetta on my enemy. If they comply, they are at vendetta. But if a human player complies in MP, they are *not* at vendetta. In fact, any treaty they have is still in force! As I know to my cost in a current game. This is a real blinder - I can't declare vendetta to intervene on behalf of an ally ... *but the AI may choose to do it for me!!!* Now how does this make any sense at all?? I'd be very wary of attributing intent to the game designers in the area of MP ...

um

Not that I want to labour the point or anything

Aside from the differences between the MP and SP game, it is a fact that the MP game treats human and AI players differently. SP rules still apply to the AI in MP as far as I remember. Which makes it all a bit of a hotch potch really.

While the ability to demand withdrawal from a human player exists in MP, I'm far from convinced that this is because the designers took a considered decision that it was necessary for the MP game. I think it's just as likely that they either didn't consider it, or could not disable it, or left it there so human players can still demand withdrawal from an AI faction.

Still ... I suppose allowing it would open up new defensive moves. I can send a colony pod out towards your units just outside my territory, found the base and ... hey! You're in my territory! Back you go to that tiny sea base with no transport foil 27 squares away, heh

I don't really think it makes sense to be able to demand the withdrawal of probe teams. It's not the same as having an army of recons marching through ... In the SP game I think you actually have to "catch" probes, and then you get the option to boot them out or destroy them ?

I don't have particularly strong feelings either way on this. I think I'd vote not to allow it if pushed. But I do hope that, when we have a rule, it will be one that is easily understood and complied with. I get confused enough as it is and I think a number of posts here indicate that people are having a hard time getting their heads round this "you are treatied in the game but in fact you are at truce/vendetta because you changed your status by email" stuff Now *that* is what I think is hard work, there's nothing in the game to remind me and you know, some of us are in rather a lot of games. I'd *really* like to keep it simple - and I'd also like to know what the rules would be on:

a) Probe teams

b) Demanding withdrawal in the turn that borders have been altered - can I have time to withdraw from your territory once you have changed your borders and placed me involuntarily in violation of the treaty? How long - perhaps I cannot do so immediately - native life, stuck in fungus, whatever ...

c) The procedure for changing status outside the game ... an email would not be sufficient in the case of a dispute. Suppose it doesn't reach the other player? I'd suggest that it would need to be a mandatory post to the thread.

[Oniron]

The way I see it, there are three categories of reasons which would lead a player you have a treaty with to have a unit in your territory:

1) To commit an act of treachery. This would include attacks, pillages and most probe team actions.

2) By mistake. This includes not seeing your borders, retreating from mindworms, and being in an area that has been added to your territory after the unit got there, and hasn't yet had the time to pull out.

3) To your detriment but possibly not enough to justify a war. This would include pod popping, interactions with the native life and sitting on your resources. It also includes crossing your borders to get somewhere else without seeking your approval first, and lurking around for new or updated map data.

In the case of 1)
The offender wants: war w/o warning, no withdrawal.
The defender wants: war w/ warning or withdrawal.
Against A.I.: war or automatic withdrawal.
Tau Ceti's solution: war if the offender signals in time (but defender might take the reputation hit although the defender might also gain warning), war or automatic withdrawal otherwise.
Offender gains wrt A.I. defender: reputation if war
Defender gains wrt A.I. offender: warning if war

In the case of 2)
The offender wants: no war, manual withdrawal.
The defender wants: no war, withdrawal.
Against A.I.: war or automatic withdrawal.
Tau Ceti's solution: manual withdrawal if the defender understands the situation (this could be helped by the offender communicating), war or automatic withdrawal otherwise.
Offender gains wrt A.I. defender: possibility of manual withdrawal.
Defender gains wrt A.I. offender: none.

In the case of 3)
The offender wants: no war, no withdrawal.
The defender wants: war or withdrawal.
Against A.I.: war or automatic withdrawal.
Tau Ceti's solution: war (but defender might take the reputation hit) or automatic withdrawal.
Offender gains wrt A.I. defender: reputation if war.
Defender gains wrt A.I. offender: none.

In summary, although Tau Ceti's solution might seem to favor the defender's wishes more than the offenders', it arguably favors the offender overall with respect to the solution used against the A.I. which is that provided by default between humans. This is without even taking into account the obligation on the defender to locate units before demanding withdrawal, which isn't required against the A.I.

All in all though, I think it is as just a solution as can be found, and I suggest that we implement it.
[This message has been edited by Oniron (edited January 27, 2001).]

[buster]

As all arguments seem to have been mentioned, I just have one request:

Let us please have a simple rule that is clearcut.

I have spend too much time arguing rules with other players in ongoing games already because they were either not made or in some cases too complicated to remember and somewhat un-intuitive.

Personally I prefer the "just don't use the button" solution because it is simple even if not completely fair.

It of course forces you too assume that units coming into your territory can be hostile and to act sooner to protect yourself as you won't have sending the home as an option.

Reversely the other knowing that you are in that in position would probably have sent you a communication explaining what he is doing if his intentions are not hostile.

If however the majority favours some "not ok under truce", "ok under treaty after some sort of message" I only request that the rule is made as simple as possible.

Finally - it is not clear to me if final decision is made by vote or string leader decision.

If it is voting thing I suggest a list of the suggested solutions and then a vote. Maybe in a new string so newcomers don't get lost in this one as the argumants are getting so technical that I have read most several times to comprehend them.

This could then be the aguments string. If it is not a vote I have no further arguments to add - just my plea for simplicity and clearness.

[buster]

One final peace of information - for whatever it is worth - in Single player AI probe teams seem not to be affected by demand withdrawal.

(I succeded in finding one savegame - where I had an AI probe in my territory and on demanding withdrawal got the "have no millitary units in your territory" reply and the probe stayed).

[Misotu]

Oniron, your analysis is interesting but you have skated over the key issue, which is that of advance notice. Since this is the area of greatest disbenefit to the attacker, this is rather a gaping omission

I'm still struggling to understand why a one-turn delay is *so* critical to the defender that it justifies denying the attacker the right to refuse to withdraw. I really think that this is the central point.

I second Buster's suggestion that we move to a vote on a separate thread ...

I suggest that we vote first on whether the use of demand withdrawal should be permitted at all and then vote on implementation if the majority favour allowing use.
[This message has been edited by Misotu (edited January 27, 2001).]

[Oniron]

quote: Originally posted by Misotu on 01-27-2001 10:10 AM Oniron, your analysis is interesting but you have skated over the key issue, which is that of advance notice.

I don't think so. I have repeatedly mentioned it in the only situation where it matters: in the case of 1). In both other cases, warnings are insignificant: in the case of 2) because a warning can only benefit the offender and so would be given anyway, and in the case of 3) because the offender doesn't seek war and thus won't warn anyway.
[This message has been edited by Oniron (edited January 27, 2001).]

[big_canuk]

May I suggest changing the first post of this thread to the voting post. (similar to the poll on the CivIII page). Tau, MarkG might have to give you a hand with that (::slap me::, what am I talking about, you can prolly do it just fine). Maybe I'm asking alot. I know I wouldn't have a clue how to do it.

I think the accompanying discussion is vital to making an informed decision. This thread could also be referenced from the stratagy page, if we want more input.

[Oniron]

quote: Originally posted by buster on 01-27-2001 07:52 AM Finally - it is not clear to me if final decision is made by vote or string leader decision.

It was my understanding that Tau Ceti was using this discussion to poll our opinions and obtain arguments relating to the action of demanding withdrawal before possibly adding new rules to his tournament system in which we are playing. This includes a show of hands of the participants in order to get a rough idea of who thinks what. If a representative vote was to be held, it would require all active players to voice their opinions, which would probably only occur if a notice was posted in each game discussion, if it was posted in the polls section of the forum page, or if it was posted as the SMAC page poll.

I think that a decision by Tau Ceti would be preferable to a vote, as he has the best interest of the tournaments at heart. It might be possible, for example, that promoting treachery between humans and allowing them to roam freely in each other's private territories even when united by a treaty of friendship would alienate people. Tau Ceti can look at the bigger picture of benefit to the AC-Multiplaying community whereas we might mainly focus on our own games.
[This message has been edited by Oniron (edited January 27, 2001).]

[Oniron]

Double post.
[This message has been edited by Oniron (edited January 27, 2001).]

[Tau Ceti]

Hmm, this needs a reply...

I started this thread intending it to be the vote on the issue, with the most popular alternative being implemented. As this thread has shown, the case is a lot more complicated than I thought at first (the arguments in my first post are pretty much everything I could come up with at the time!).

Despite Oniron's arguments above, I still think a vote would be best, both because I am not entirely sure which option I prefer and because I do not want to saddle players with very unpopular rules. So I suggest a system of preferential voting where each player lists the options in order of preference. The primary votes are compared, and the least popular alternative is taken out. Those who voted for it will instead get their secondary votes counted in the showdown between the two other alternatives. That accomplishes the same as Misotu's suggestion, but only requires everyone to cast votes once.

If we are to ever reach a conclusion, the new vote thread must be just that - a vote thread, with no further discussion. Therefore, clear, concise and good wording of all alternatives is very important. I believe this will be done best by those who support the alternatives, and would thus, if I may, ask mark13, Misotu and Oniron to write

• The precise wording to be used in the rules document
• A short (!) list of the pros of their preferred alternative
• A short (!) list of the cons of the other two alternatives

The above arguments should be emailed to me and I will then put everything up in the new vote thread, together with a link to this thread for those who wish to see the entire discussion and the complete arguments. Would that be OK with you three?

big_canuk, thank you for your faith in my abilities, but that poll system is somewhat out of my league. While I could probably copy and modify MarkG's code, I have a feeling I would also need to set up a script to handle the results, and for security reasons, it would probably need to be located on the Apolyton server. Plus I do not think it can handle preferential voting. So good old-fashioned ballot counting will be used.

Now, it would be an advantage if we could get quite a high turnout here, to make the vote more representative. There are volumes of text on this thread, but it is all written by 5-6 people, and that is a little low... At the moment the best I can think of is to post a notice and a link on all the active game threads to attract attention. Does anyone have any other ideas?

Mis, you only get to see other humans' borders if you have met them (been adjacent to their cities/units) or have been given their commlink frequency.

[Hobbes_One]

Ummmmmmmmm heck my head hurts! (Thanks for the invite Misotu- just what I needed! LOL)

I think I need to print out these pages before I make further comments- real paper is still preferable for in depth reading! I await the 3 summaries with interest!

However, just 1 small addition to Oniron's 3 situations (and a very erudite summary it was): sometimes the game engine moves your units in a very weird way. In the first Aminita game (ACOL) I was stuck on an island with another human player & I distinctly remember that when I moved a unit between 2 of my cities the game engine- (to avoid fungus & whatnot I guess) moved the unit onto the other players territory & I had to reassure them that i had no hostile intentions. I can't remember my then current diplomacy level. I guess this is a subset of 2 anyway.

Not that this situation is terribly important I guess.

Furthermore, I inherited a tournament game- AXT025 I think, where again 2 human factions were stuck on a small isle. I had a unit in the other player's territory (I iunherited it that way) which because of zones of control due to base location on a penninsula I could not return to my own territory & I had to ask for a pact (which we have maintained)in order to move it.

I find that I don't use treaties much with human players. If someone is my friend then I prefer to pact. If not then I leave diplomatic relations at truce level. (Like others though, I often wish there was a "declare vendetta" button.)

** Another irrelevent aside: in one of Tom Clancy's recent novels, a character Chavez, makes the observation that International Relations could best be defined as one nation screwing the other. **

Probe teams should clearly (IMHO) be treated differently to other units. However, not all non-probe units provoke the same reaction in me either: to me there is a difference between a pod-popping scout rover or larval MW & a squad of synthmetal missile invaders or something. I react differently towards them to!

In some ways I see this discussion as moot- we have always had in MP games, the option of using the comlinks or via email of asking for withdrawal of foreign units anyway. This is especially effective if you move your units out to meet the others!- which would be a natural result, I would have thought anyway.

In my opinion the demand withdrawal button is kinda unnatural (though I will admit, occasionally convenient!) & our goal shouldn't necessarily be to make the AI & human player interactions identical (that is what it seems is the goal of this debate) as they are fundamentally different- as Misotu has pointed out, anyway.

Now that I look back I'm not sure this post makes any sense at all..... My apologies. I plead the fact that it is kinda late over here.

Hobbes

[Misotu]

Sorry for the delay in replying, I was away over the weekend. I like Tau's suggestion for the vote. I think we should make an effort to contact people to let them know that this is going on - I've been trying to remember to mention it to the people I'm in games with and I'll make more effort on that now. The more votes, the more representative and like Tau says, that's a good thing.

I'd be happy to write up the thing I proposed (although actually my first preference is probably for not allowing it. )

[mark13]

Hmmmm....I've been away too long - what was I proposing again?

My argument, in a (rather large) nutshell:

The use of the 'demand withdrawal' feature should not be allowed in MP tournament play. Although a treaty is, in essence, a pact of friendship, either side should be able, at any time, to break that pact.

In my mind, the 'demand withdrawal' option can only be applied where both parties are willing - and we are sure that both parties are willing. If a hostile unit enters someone else's territory, there will, of course, be diplomatic repercussions. As I have earlier mentioned, the 'demand withdrawal' option can only be applied where the treaty is fully active, and both parties are willing. The defender, at this point, does not know this - and as such the option cannot be applied.

Assuming the guilty party is willing to be withdrawn, he should do so manually - not only will this make the diplomatic side of the game more hands-on, but it nullifies one of the game's so-called 'cheats' - recalling a unit back to the nearest base. Although this is not the main issue, I can see this rule being manipulated into a quick way back to base - something we don't want.

Also, as we all know, treaties are there to be broken, and it seems unjust to me that a defending base, caught by surprise by an offending unit, will be able to rely on the 'demand withdrawal' button to teleport him out of there. If the defender has neglected to defend his base, that is his problem, IMO. Having the rule disabled would intensify diplomatic situations, and encourage pacts - making the game not only more exciting, but a lot more dangerous. Can't be a bad thing, IMO.

Some of the disadvantages include a small reputation hit - this disadvantage, however, is so small as to be negligible. If that is the price to pay for a just game model, then so be it, IMO. Also, the one turn delay is an issue, with the defender having to wait one turn before formally declaring war - as I said before, the defender should be prepared for an onslaught in any case.

****************************

Pros for my proposed system:

- A greater freedom of movement for the attacker
- Stays true to the mechanics of war and peace
- Encourages diplomatic relations via e-mail, rather than just the in-game system
- Leaves less down to the ineptitude of the AI

Cons for my proposed system:

- One turn delay in the diplomatic negotiations - could be costly
- Treaties are less effective, and more easily broken
- Small reputation hit for the defender - is it not the reputation with the AI factions that hurts, though?