new mill game controversy

[sekong]

Actually you have other choices.
As Capo said, he is willing to accept in-game punishment, which I understand including forcing him to return the city he "occupied", but let the game going. At least you guys could talk about it.

As my experience of playing with him, almost everything have a price, therefore everything is discussable.

my 2 cents.

P.S. Personally, I think it's a good rule that declare war one turn before attacking, which make it a war between genetlemen ( or responsible countries). But you also have to be prepared for a sneak attack. Just make a severe punishment for it. If Capo or some one else did a sneak attack to me, I will offer him an all-out-war, which will at least ruin his enjoyment about DIPO.

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font>&lt;font size=1&gt;Originally posted by Curumbor Elendil on 04-13-2001 10:55 AM&lt;/font&gt;
OK, this discussion is rapidly becoming counterproductive. Let's just vote and get it over with.

On the one hand, we have Capo's proposal. We just keep playing as if everything is OK, he keeps the city he got by - unintentionally - breaking the rules and my mistaken thinking that he would follow the rules.

On the other hand, we have my compromise proposal. We replay the turn, everyone abides by the rules. Capo gets to attack after the "dead turn" you get when you load a simul game.

Post your votes here.


<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>


<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by sekong (edited April 13, 2001).]</font>

[Guest]

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font><font size=1>Originally posted by The Capo on 04-13-2001 08:16 AM</font>
(snip)
Why shy away from confrontation? This is GOLD in your game. Your game has no history, no contraversey, nothing. This is supposed to be Europe!?!?!? All Is see are a bunch of neutered leaders patting eachother's asses and doing nothing! At least I militarized and deployed, I gave your game some gusto, and now you want to go back because you don't want to deal with it? This is why HOTW kicks this game's ass in every regard: We've got balls.
Peace.
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

Actually Capo,I'm the only player to have played ALL sessions in BOTH of these diplo games and I can tell you that they BOTH kick ass man!!

They are my two favourite games at the moment... (sorry Aussies)

The turn-based HOTW2 allows for better negotiating, precipitating better story development, perhaps.

And any game involving Markus precipitates an element of power-gaming but that's OK too.

------------------
*deity of THE DEITIANS*
aka: half-assed dieticians
icq# 8388924

[Berzerker]

GNGSpam - <center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font>There were more then enough suprise attacks in history.
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

I didn't say they never happened.

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font>Agreed all parties saw war on the horizon, but this does not mean the attack did not shock them.
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

Which was what I said. The difference - with civ there is no horizon, just a ship loaded with troops shows up.

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font>The German blitz of Russia was a suprise attack. Pearl Harbor was a suprise attack. The German invasion of Belgium in WW1 was a suprise attack. The reduction of Fort Sumter in the Civil War was a suprise attack (The Union had a support ship not to far away, but was being held off because they didnt want to encourage hostilities. Had the ship Sailed to Sumter, it likely would not have fallen, not then, but the Confederates SUPRISED the north and attacked, reducing the fort before the Ship even knew what was going on)
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

I didn't say surprise attacks never happened, citing a few surprise attacks to debate a claim I never made is silly. And by your own admission, Sumter wasn't much of a surprise since the supply ship was ordered to stay back to avoid becoming a catalyst for war - some surprise And you ignored my point about Pearl, even American steelworkers knew the steel we were shipping to Japan would be coming back at us.

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font>Look, do I have to go on? That was probably the most ridiculous statement ive ever heard
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

Can you quote the most ridiculous statement you've ever heard?

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font>so dont try to funnel everyone that crap.
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

What crap? That most surprise attacks were preceded by signs indicating the impending war? Yeah, what crap

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font>Suprise attacks are not meerly throughout history, their a staple of it. While all sides knew war was coming, one cant launch an effective suprise attack without preperation, the actual attack was a "suprise".
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

You keep contradicting yourself, you say surprise attacks are a "staple" of history while acknowledging "all sides knew war was coming." Did you even read what I said or do you find it easier debating yourself? Try using quotes, they tend to be more accurate than the nonsense you invent and attribute to others.

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font>The world has a "declare one turn before you attack", but often aggressive nations only announce war with the sounds of their guns, and often in the most unexpected places.
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

And rarely did the targets of these surprise attacks fail to see the dogs of war approaching.

[The Capo]

Look, I am just going to leave the game.

I've caused enough problems, I don't want to continue them. I know my own personality, I won't give in at all here and anyone that has ever played with me probably understands this.

Further I think Curumbor continues to act in a childish manners, first he lambasts Chris for comming in with his thoughts which contradicted what Curumbor believed. But when cavebear comes in and applauds Curumbor's notions, it is welcomed. Further, Curumbor continues to disrespect people in a personal fashion. I have always respected Curumbor and his abilities, and will continue to do so. But I think he has a lot to think about, this is a game, it shouldn't be taken to heart this strongly. Even if I didn't do it intentionally, and even if it would wind up helping this game become better in the long run, I feel that I have ruined Curumbor's precious game.

So at this point in time I am going to do something that is hard for me, and swallow my pride. I am going to retire as leader of the French. I was so ambitious, ready to challenge the entire powerstructure of that game. Cur you have to listen to me, to what I am going to tell you...

STOP BEING A PANSY! Britain will never be defeated unless you grow some balls! Stop putting tariffs on him, stupid little bans and dumb coalitions against trade. Screw trade! You won't stop him, all he has to do is walk into your cities and trade. You have 36 freakin units, and 38 freakin cities bro! Build a damn army. The only way you guys will ever stop Britain from running roughsod over your continent is to slam his ass. I was his ally, but you must understand to me nothing is personal, it is all business, no matter how great and powerful and cool you were in that game to me you were simply a stepping stone, you were just the first empire that would succumb to the French army. I would have eventually ended Britain, the way you wanted to, but not in the same methods. You have to stop trying to only use words and bans. In the end they are only words, they are only ink, and it is only paper. If you want to topple Britain, topple them! You have to understand that you are only helping him. If you don't want to believe me go ahead. But I can garauntee you at your current rate you will perish. It will be the SS. Boadicca (or whatever) landing on AC, and your people staring up at the stars asking "Why?"

Well, I just told you why Curumbor. Its your job to end Britain.

Good luck.

Peace.

[The Capo]

BTW Berz, that post by GNG wasn't directed at you, it was directed at Curumbor.

[The Capo]

I think if anything, this thread and incident has taught us how a Diplogame should be handled in the future.

I think the idea of placing dehabilitating rules upon a game, especially one like this, is not the way to go. Diplogames have recieved a bad rap from the community lately, especially with newbies. I'm getting quite annoyed at hearing "Diplogames are just games without war right?" and comments like that. A Diplogame, should at least, encompass every aspect of Diplomacy. A Diplogame's greatness is not in its rules, but its players. If you add rules, add hinderances, you remove the key aspects of the Diplogame.

There are really only two ways to play Civilization; Deuls and Diplogames. Sure there are the varying ways to play against the computer, but as for MP games this is really it. A Diplogame isn't just a Diplogmae becuase it is called one, a Diplogame is where players use Diplomacy as well as other means to acquire wealth, power, or their various goals. That is really all it is, it has nothing to do with war, or the prescence of war, or how wars are fought. It shouldn't, becuase that takes away from the identity of the game. To restrict players in a Diplogame is to deny the Diplogame of its essence.

In HOTW for example, little to no restrictions are implimented. Throughout the Diplogames I've had I noted that city bribing (if done in a certain way) could become more of an annoyance and ruin the fun for other players who don't choose. So we set parameters; You could only bribe a city when it is rioting. The rationale behind this was simple. The game's explaination for a city bribe is basically that you are paying someone to rebel. A rebellion within the city, what if the city was super happy? The bribe could still occur. We figured that if the city is in riot the Rebel faction supposedly within would be in a much greater position to wrest control from the authorities therein. Thus adding more realism to the game.

However, the difference between our riot rule, and your war declaration rule should be noted. Yours is an accross the board NO, where the punishment is not as much an issue. Becuase you guys will just return to the turn beforehand and act as if the event never occured. In our game politics play a unique role, here is how one is punished: Whoever bribes a city that was not in a state of riot when it was bribed, will be subject to an in-game punishment which will be decided upon by the four most uninvolved players, the city in question will also be returned. Thus our punishment does not stop the game, does not effect the flow of the game, and will play a part in the politics of the game.

We made no restrictions on war, contrary to what you might consider a "staple" diplomatic rule. In our game the chance of a surprise attack is very real, the idea of war is very real. You must be prepared at all times to fight a war, from any front, without a moment's notice. That is the way we decided to play our game. I can agree with you on the point that if the players involved decided upon this rule together it should stand, however the vibe I receieved from most of your players (with the exception of one other who will go unnamed) said that the rule was not decided by everyone, but by one (at the most two) individual(s).

I think the perfect Diplogame has yet to occur, I don't really think it can or will ever occur. However to innovate each Diplogame is important, to allow more freedom of diplomacy is important, it is essential to the Diplogame. A good Diplomat can figure a way to use anything, whether initially bad for him or good for him, to his political advantage. The more chances for this you remove, the less Diplomatic the game is allowed to be. Speed is not an essential part of a Diplogame, speed ruins the Diplogame. A Diplogame musn't progress ultra-fast, time must be alloted for discussion, for Diplomacy to occur and thrive. Therefore I don't think Simulturn should or can really be used effectively in a Diplomatic setting. It forces players to be constantly watchful of the screen, it causes players to manage cities as much as possible, and it causes players to forego Diplomatic discussion in order to do these things.

That's my stance, I'll be back in a bit.

[Guest]

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font><font size=1>Originally posted by The Capo on 04-14-2001 10:23 AM</font>
Look, I am just going to leave the game.

<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

You can't Capo, please. Just accept the vote or compromise.
Elendil will.
It's very difficult planning out strats when the French keep changing their leader!

You've added heaps to the game. I understand how you operate a bit better now. And I know I can't always trust you as an ally, so that's good!
This game will really rock, especially when the French attack the British

RE-CONSIDER!!

You'd lose a lot in the community by copping out now. HOTW2 and this Millenium game will serve as good experience for redefining the rules of diplo-games, thanks to you in particular.
I also look forward to seeing CapTVK's spin on all the diplo-rules we've discussed in both these games.



------------------
*deity of THE DEITIANS*
aka: half-assed dieticians
icq# 8388924

[Guest]

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font><font size=1>Originally posted by markusf on 04-14-2001 12:16 PM</font>
hahahahaha capo your funny. me and bezerker will dwarf the british in every stat in the next 10 turns and diety knows it... that is why he is scare I love it when i am the only player who only knows how trade works. Ask bezerker how i sent 1 caravan to his city and it boasted his science output by 100 beakers.
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

Yeah, I think this is right - except for the scared bit - he he

But really, the Turk/German alliance, where each has ceded a city to each other for super trade purposes, are the real threat in this game. They are a huge threat to the old German allies, the Austrians who are caught between those two nations. The Turks would not have forgotten the aggression by the Austrians and the loss of cities in earlier years. Surely they seek revenge?


The Germans are supreme, have excellent Wonders and now the Turk Super Trade.
The British are not a threat. Absurd.
The British simply militarised for defensive purposes and to aid world trouble spots where the oppressed are victimised.
We have no desire to get involved in war. We prefer to settle matters diplomatically. Our French allies have rightfully reclaimed part of French Algeria and Queen Boudicca supports this action. However she requests Josef of the Austrians cedes the remaining part of Algeria to the French and we can discuss compensation for the Austrians, if QB's allies agree?

------------------
*deity of THE DEITIANS*
aka: half-assed dieticians
icq# 8388924

[markusf]

hahahahaha capo your funny. me and bezerker will dwarf the british in every stat in the next 10 turns and diety knows it... that is why he is scare I love it when i am the only player who only knows how trade works. Ask bezerker how i sent 1 caravan to his city and it boasted his science output by 100 beakers.

[GNGSpam]

Berz, I was under the impression you were saying Suprise attacks did not occur in History, sorry that I misread your statement.

My original and only point was that suprise attacks are quite historical. Now, yes, I agree, the drums of war were beating long beforehand. But that did not make the intial assault all the more shocking.

Hitler signed a Non-agression pact with the Soviet Union. As the assault began, Russian military officers refused to believe front reports of the assault. They did not even bother to inform high command. When the German ambassador gave the declaration of war, hours after the assault was sent underway, the Russian ambassador tore it apart and sent him out. While Stalin fully expected conflict with Hitler at SOME point in the future, he didnt expect it then.

The same could be said for Pearl Harbor. We knew war was coming, we did not expect it then. Not only was Pearl Harbor not on full alert, but the Phillipines were in a lax condition too.

Now in Civ, any sneak attack requires lots and lots of preperation. If the country can keep this build up to themselves, from no one else, and without anyone finding out, I think they should be rewarded and not punished. But lets face it, 4 times out of 5, in any diplogame including those without a 1 turn wait, war ends up happening for the same reasons it happens in History, some affront to national honor, or incident halfway across the world, etc. There are very few wars of naked aggression because Diplogames, like the world, tend to be self-regulating societies.

If someone did a total suprise attack for pure naked aggression, would you ever trust them again? I would think, or at least hope, the "world community" would punish the nation guilty of the suprise attack and naked aggression, to prevent this from happening to your own nation.

[Curumbor Elendil]

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font>&lt;font size=1&gt;Originally posted by The Capo on 04-14-2001 10:23 AM&lt;/font&gt;
Further I think Curumbor continues to act in a childish manners, first he lambasts Chris for comming in with his thoughts which contradicted what Curumbor believed.
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

I lambasted Chris because he kept bringing in irrelevant considerations. I warned him that I would "blow a freaking fuse" if I heard someone else say, "Yeah, but it's a stupid rule." If that's what you want to discuss, take it to another thread.

Also, who's being childish here? I apologized to you, proposed a compromise, and then a vote on the matter. You, on the other hand, insisted you were right and that you would never accept a compromise or a democratic solution.

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font>
STOP BEING A PANSY! Britain will never be defeated unless you grow some balls! Stop putting tariffs on him, stupid little bans and dumb coalitions against trade. Screw trade! You won't stop him, all he has to do is walk into your cities and trade. You have 36 freakin units, and 38 freakin cities bro! Build a damn army. The only way you guys will ever stop Britain from running roughsod over your continent is to slam his ass. I was his ally, but you must understand to me nothing is personal, it is all business, no matter how great and powerful and cool you were in that game to me you were simply a stepping stone, you were just the first empire that would succumb to the French army. I would have eventually ended Britain, the way you wanted to, but not in the same methods. You have to stop trying to only use words and bans. In the end they are only words, they are only ink, and it is only paper. If you want to topple Britain, topple them! You have to understand that you are only helping him. If you don't want to believe me go ahead. But I can garauntee you at your current rate you will perish. It will be the SS. Boadicca (or whatever) landing on AC, and your people staring up at the stars asking "Why?"

<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

We're all aware of the British threat. The trade bans are useful as a pretext for war. If Deity violated them, we could (and would) then declare war.

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font>
Well, I just told you why Curumbor. Its your job to end Britain.

<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

Well, because of my spot on the map I can't directly get at Britain. My job is to egg on Germany and France, and to help them out if I can. However, I in turn need help from other civs, like Turkey.

Well, I'm really sorry to see you go, Capo, believe me. You spiced the game up. I think our war would have been a fun one (though in the end I would have overwhelmed you because of my large production - currently 2nd in GNP - and treasury). I never take anything in the game personally, though I get very hot under the collar when I think the rules have been violated. The others in the game will remember that I proposed and carried out the improvement of Markus' terrain to make up for his early-game trade problems - while I was at war with him. I think the ability of us all to put bygones behind and focus on having fun playing will make this a great game yet.

------------------
Curumbor Elendil http://pantheon.yale.edu/~jps35/
ICQ 56126989
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by Curumbor Elendil (edited April 14, 2001).]</font>

[Curumbor Elendil]

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font><font size=1>Originally posted by GNGSpam on 04-14-2001 12:21 PM</font>
If someone did a total suprise attack for pure naked aggression, would you ever trust them again? I would think, or at least hope, the "world community" would punish the nation guilty of the suprise attack and naked aggression, to prevent this from happening to your own nation.
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

Actually, that's exactly what Capo did, and his allies supported him all the way. Not even a fig leaf of a pretext...

[GNGSpam]

Then everyone must have a desire to see you fall. Something you ought to remember in your future dealings....

[The Capo]

Alright, you know what?

I was speaking with CapTVK and Deity, and I realized something. This aint the Capo's style. I can't just quit! what's wrong with me! I've got my convictions here, I've got my cause here, I am going to stay and fight this because I think I am right!

Curumbor, here it is, this is the catch all of the game here. I want a vote and I want it now. So everyone that's in the game (Finbar, Capo, Deity, Curumbor, Markus, Berzerker, and Easthaven) please vote on one of these two things:

1) We continue the game from where we are now, I have the save so that won't be an issue. Everything stands, Algeria is French, the Franco-Austrian war rages on.

2) We agree with Curumbor and whatever he stands for. Replaying the session, or whatever.

I'd like to put one last thing up, this is from CapTVK who was reponsable for making the Diplo FAQ which is where this rule came from he says:

"I think replays only are in order when a game falls apart due to a player dropping out. If a player disobeys the rules (guidelines) he should work out something in the game like giving up gold, units, cities that sort of thing."

Like I said, I will only accept a punishment that occurs in the game. But Curumbor insisted that we replay, so we shall vote on it.

Do you vote for Capo's solution, or Curumbor's Solution.


I VOTE FOR CAPO'S!!!!!
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by The Capo (edited April 15, 2001).]</font>

[CapTVK]

just dropped by to see what this discussion was all about. I haven't read the complete thread but what it seems to boil down to is the declaration of war. As I pointed to Capo rules in a diplogame should be seen as Guidelines. They are intended to keep the game flowing, not hamper it.

Apparently some people believe that because war isn't allowed in a diplogame they don't have to focus on their military. Nothing is farther from the truth. Nations that don't keep up their defenses must be prepared to pay a price for that. Or better have some strong military allies to help them out if some "upstart nation decides to put their palace to the torch".


In the end it's only a game. Try to enjoy it.

Don't get mad, get even!


<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by CapTVK (edited April 15, 2001).]</font>