new mill game controversy

[SunTzu]

Well coming from a civer, i feel that the 'wait a turn for war' rule is stupid and unrealistic it's was made because people on the recieving end of war want to have one turn to move all of their units to the front which is unrealistic. Attacking at any time w/o warning is the way to go

[The Capo]

1) I'm not a sub I am a replacement.

2) My argument was that the rules were so complicated that I could not have been held responsable not only for the vague way they were presented to me but especially in the manner. Not to mention, I couldn't ask Cur because I was going to attack him, when I asked the other players I didn't hear the same things Cur is trying to say the rules were. Where are these rules written down at? Anywhere?

[Berzerker]

Markus, you and I traded maps after I got mad about your explorer seemingly in my way the whole night, lol. As for the surprise attacks being ahistorical, not true. How many surprise attacks were really surprises? In this game a transport can load up with units and hit a city on a moments notice, but in history, there are always indicators of impending attack. The only "surprise" about Pearl was that the target was Pearl instead of some other target a little closer to Japan or her immediate interests in Indonesia/Asia.

As for this controversy, replay... Taking a city with an engineer is still an act of war and the only reason the city was open for the engineer to take was the defender was trying to prepare for war, the very reason for the rule was to allow defenders 1 turn to prepare for war!!!

[The Capo]

As I've said, if you guys want to vote on it go ahead. But I will only accept an in game punishment, I despise replaying diplogames and punishing anyone in a diplogame OUTSIDE of the game, it is ridiculous. Things must happen in a consistent way. If this game was restarted because Curumbor lost an Explorer or something of that nature I doubt the credibility of this as a "Diplogame."

Things happen in the world, there's no replaying or turning back. There's no redos. Any diplogame that doesn't offer punishments for their rules is an ill-planned diplogame, any diplogame that expects the punishments to occur out of the game and expects for things to be replayed is an ill-planned diplogame.

Further Curumbor, I take offense to you implying that I am a "newbie" in the Diplomatic Genre. Especially comming from a guy who is responsable for this "masterpeice."

I told you guys that I am not playing a redo, if my punishment is not given to me DURING the course of the game in a diplomatic manner then I will not accept it. That's my stance. I think it is a fair stance, and is probably the best thing to happen to this diplogame.

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.

[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 markusf on 04-12-2001 06:06 PM</font>
Funny all this talking of "cheating" Curumber could you please show us WHERE you posted that you would be changing the attack stats of marines, artillery and other units? These changes showed up in the middle of the game, with no one being told...
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

Marines is the only unit I changed, and I changed that after you said, "I think we should make this change right away in the Eurodiplomacy game."

<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>
I just happened to look and notice the changes in the very last game u hosted. Evidently you and bezerker had my world map, i would love to figure out how that happened, since i didn't trade maps with ANYONE the whole game! Then the whole thing about attacking me.. It looks like to me your disregarding all your own rules, when you get something out of it. But when something happens to you that you don't like all hell breaks loose. ie you lost a caravan we have to restart, others loose a bunch of settlars, you say its no big deal and tell them to stop whining.
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

I don't think I have your world map; I have part of it. Frankly, I don't remember that caravan incident, either.

------------------
Curumbor Elendil
http://pantheon.yale.edu/~jps35/
ICQ 56126989

[Curumbor Elendil]

If I hear one more outsider say, "Your rule is stupid," I swear I'm going to blow a FREAKING FUSE!! This issue is utterly beside the point. The point is that it was a rule.

In every game I've ever played, if a rule was broken, then you replay. If someone forgets and bribes a city when it's no city bribe, you replay. Maybe if some rule was broken and five turns had passed, you seek some other remedy, that's still fair to the person who was damaged. But I'm asking that we replay the last turn. Deity even dropped during the turn, so using any savegame other than the very beginning of the turn is problematic just on those grounds.

------------------
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 13, 2001).]</font>

[Alexander's Horse]

And they call them "diplo games"

------------------
The Mod war on Spam is a war on Fun!

Expose those who snitch to the OT mods! Do it today!

[GNGSpam]

There were more then enough suprise attacks in history. Agreed all parties saw war on the horizon, but this does not mean the attack did not shock them.

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)

The Persian suprised the Medians. The Medians thought the Persians were their allies until the Persians slaughtered them.

North Koreas assault on South Korea was a suprise. Chinese entry into the Korean war was also a shocking suprise.

Look, do I have to go on? That was probably the most ridiculous statement ive ever heard, so dont try to funnel everyone that crap. 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". 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.

[Curumbor Elendil]

GNG, please shut the hell up. We are not debating the realism of the rule. You do that *before* the game. Now go play elsewhere; this is none of your business.

------------------
Curumbor Elendil
http://pantheon.yale.edu/~jps35/
ICQ 56126989

[Curumbor Elendil]

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.

------------------
Curumbor Elendil
http://pantheon.yale.edu/~jps35/
ICQ 56126989

[GNGSpam]

Actually, Berzerker and I were debating the realism of the rule Cur, but your comments were amazingly constructive and have shown me the light. Thanks

[Zylka]

I'll be happy to scavenge a spot if this game falls apart in argument

[Curumbor Elendil]

Sekong - yeah, the option of in-game compensation is there, and I would prefer doing that if we had played a couple of turns. But as we stopped playing that same turn, it would be no big deal just to go back and play it over. Any compensation deal would be bound to be controversial, and anyway, Capo already rejected returning the city with as much vehemence as he rejected the replay.

------------------
Curumbor Elendil
http://pantheon.yale.edu/~jps35/
ICQ 56126989

[cavebear]

I hesitate to post in another groups game thread or get involved in the disputes of it, but I have read the discussion carefully and have some thoughts on the situation.

1. The argument that there is a difference between "occupying" and "attacking" is weak, in my opinion. An undefended city is still the property of the Civ. There is no special "neutral" color assigned to it, it is only controlled by the possessing Civ, and the citizens/resources/assets of it only accrue to the possessing Civ. Any action to take control of the citizens/resources/assets of another Civ is an act of war and must be deemed an attack.

2. The rules of a game, however silly, illogical, or non-realistic, control the game. Breaking a rule of a game is not a matter for internal game negotiation by unilateral demand of one player. The rules exist pre-game and correction for rule-breaking may be appropriately assigned outside the game (replaying a turn, replacing a player, etc).

3. By the same token, rules must be known to all players ahead of time. That includes subs and replacements. Any changes to them during play must be agreed to by all players in advance.

4. In-game adjustments are always a possibility, if all players agree to the adjustments. This is logical because the players have the right to agree to change the rules in mid-play.

5. While there is no logical limit on the in-game negotiations that control play, Occam's Razor is still a useful guide. The least-complicated resolution of disagreements is usually the best. Given that the disputed action is in the current turn, replaying that turn would be the easiest and cleanest solution. If not that, then the next least complicated resolution is to undo the consequences within the game. Returning the inappropriately-acquired city(ies) plus "make-whole" fees would work well.

Hope this helps clarify the discussion...

[Curumbor Elendil]

Hey cavebear, thanks for your input. I was beginning to think I was crazy, as the only solution I saw as the logical and fair one was being trashed by almost everyone else! Maybe it'll sound more fair and logical coming from someone outside the game rather than from me as the one of the participants.

------------------
Curumbor Elendil
http://pantheon.yale.edu/~jps35/
ICQ 56126989