Next AU course

[Dominae]

Originally posted by Modo44
Dominae, Pearl Harbor was an expected attack. Perhaps not in that form, but everything was leading to a war long before that day. And everyone knew it was coming.

Uh yeah, and that's why "everyone" let it happen. Hindsight is 20/20. In fact, Japan kept cordial relations up until the very end in order to keep the ruse going as long as possible (no, I am not only getting this from the movie!). Some people surely expected 9/11, but it happened anyway.

Edit: I am not saying either Japan or Al Qaeda were our allies, but simply that today you can still get burned if you let your guard down. Nathan wants a game where warfare is a formal affair.

[EDIT: This is an example of what Nathan was talking about. Relationships deteriorated, talks failed, both sides were preparing for war, and both knew it was inevitable. It didn't come out of the blue, and certainly not from a close ally. ]

That is all fine and grand, but I agree with Arrian that the real world is, in reality, far bleaker than anything that happens in Civ3 (save multiple ICBM attacks). To play a game where everyone respects alliances and cooperates to launch a spaceship to Alpha Centauri is far more unrealistic. I am sure Russia felt pretty put out when Nazi Germany turned on them completely opportunistically...the Soviets probably just wanted to launch a spaceship!

I am getting OT, sorry.

[Dominae]

Originally posted by nbarclay
To illustrate what can happen, consider an example from more recent history. In World War II, both England and the Soviet Uniion were allies of the United States. But even during the war, we recognized that our alliance with the Soviet Union was a temporary expedient, not part of a lasting friendship. In contrast, we expected to remain close friends with England.

There's the rub: define "close friends". In hindsight it is easy to say who was close friends and who was not; at the time it was "who did not attack whom". The U.S. and Canada actually fought wars, but historically we were more close friends than enemies.

I think you are downplaying opportunism in our history. Today it is far more difficult to do because everyone knows what everyone is doing and it is easy to dogpile any would-be aggressor. But historically we were far more barbaric.

[Modo44]

Arrian, by recent history, I mean closer to now. Have any big-time backstabs happened during WWI? Or shortly before? This is not about the difference in units. This is about a difference in attitude. Yes, attitude. It seems to me, those backstabs didn't happen at all for quite some time now. And the idea of deliberately attacking someone is kind of non-existent either. Or can anyone even consider any realistic alliance today, against the USA? I don't think so. But in a Civ3 PBEM, such an alliance would occur, no matter the cost, because that big guy is clearly running away with the game. That's what bothers me.

Sorry, but to me the reality angle is all that matters. Unfortunately, it requires players who have a similar understanding of the game. But hey, some people join those diplomacy games.

If you are asking about specific rules... that it's hard. Can't write "common sense" as a rule, right? I'd go for some restrictions about hostile acts (wars, embargos, sea blockades, whatever-I-forgot), but I didn't think much about it.


Dominae, Pearl Harbor was a surprise, yes, but a tactical one. The place, the time, the actions were unexpected, I agree. But Japan was the "bad guy" for some time before that happened (you know, occupying parts of China, and other places, not being very nice to people there - things like that). And diplomatic efforts by USA to calm the situation down were unsuccesful, right? Sure, the ambassadors might be "cordial" and smiling, but that's not a reason to trust anyone.

A similar thing happened, when Hitler "surprised" Stalin with Operation Barbarossa. [sarcasm] The darned fool started it a whole year before Stalin had expected an attack, can you believe it? And they were suuuch close friends before. [/sarcasm]

[Dominae]

Sigh.

History is too complex to be modeled by Civ3. If you think you can approximate it with a PBEM game, you will find yourself relying more on roleplaying than anything else. Why not formalize the rules of Nathan's game, like I am asking for? How about:

1. You cannot attack a civ without declaring war on them five turns prior.

2. You cannot declare war on a civ that you have had either Luxury deals, gpt deals, diplomatic deals, or traded techs with in the past 20 turns.

3. You cannot declare war on a civ unless they pose a significant martial threat to your empire. You must prove publicly that such a threat exists.

4. etc.

Again, I am not saying this type of game is bound to fail, just that you need to define it very precisely for it to make sense in the context of AU.

[Arrian]

There is a bit more to alliances in history than just naked, logical self-interest, yes. Yet the most-cited example of this, the "Special Relationship" between the US and the UK, is a) probably more self-interest than anyone wants to admit; and b) certainly the exception, not the rule.

...

On the subject of what ancient Greeks knew or didn't know about where they stood w/the other city states... ok, I'm not actually an expert on that. So I concede I may be assuming some things based on a somewhat pessimistic world view.

-Arrian

[Dominae]

Originally posted by Modo44
But in a Civ3 PBEM, such an alliance would occur, no matter the cost, because that big guy is clearly running away with the game. That's what bothers me.

And it bothers me that my Cavalry fall to a Pikeman on hill!

[Arrian]

Arrian, by recent history, I mean closer to now. Have any big-time backstabs happened during WWI? Or shortly before?

WWI.. not that I can think of, no. That was basically a MPP disaster, to use a Civ reference.

Come to think of it, no, I cannot think of a no-warning backstab in recent history, if you take out the WWII examples of Pearl Harbor & Operation Barbarossa (and yes, there was some warning of each... in fact Stalin's utter refusal to accept - or even seriously consider - what his intelligence people were telling him amazes me).

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Or can anyone even consider any realistic alliance today, against the USA? I don't think so. But in a Civ3 PBEM, such an alliance would occur, no matter the cost, because that big guy is clearly running away with the game. That's what bothers me.

Well, yes and no. There is a well-known idea called "containing American power." It's not something people have (yet, anyway) used military force to do, but it DOES exist, even amonst our closest allies. The simple fact is that nobody likes/trusts the Big Dog - even countries that have no particular desire to become the Big Dog. Considering that the USA has only been the Big Dog for (very roughly) about 60 years, and only been the supposedly unopposed Big Dog for about 15... well, I don't really think we can draw conclusions as yet.

I agree with you on the gang-up attack. It DOES seem a tad artificial and unavoidable in Civ. What just happened in the PTWDGI is a prime example. Legoland was #1. They had to be taken down. Simple as that, if you want to win. Since both GS & GoW do want to win... there ya go.

But the only way I see to have a game that doesn't go that way is to play it with like-minded players. Or a very detailed ruleset...

-Arrian

[Modo44]

Concerning Dominae's points.

Ad1
The 5-turn warning would be artificial, but I guess it is necessary. Otherwise we'd have to rely heavily on roleplaying (i.e. stories about hostilities, before actually going to war).

Ad 2
20 turn deals... Oh well, if you insist. My concern is, 20 turns is a very long period in the Industrial Age, and later. Again, this is probably necessary to give some bounds to the game.

Ad 3
Define "martial threat"...


Dominae, it bothers me too, that Cavalry can die on a Pike. But it's RNG - it may happen, but it doesn't have to. The ganging against the strongest player will always happen in a normal PBEM. What bothers me is the inevitable unrealistic thing, not the one that happens once in a while.

[Dominae]

Hm, good point re: inevitibility of ganging up on the strongest player. I guess I have come to accept this so thoroughly that I have incorporated it into what I consider good and bad MP play (i.e. if you paint a target, they will shoot you).

[Dominae]

Originally posted by Modo44
Define "martial threat"...

Cavalry, bombard units, ICBMs, and the like. Defensive units less so, unless you are amassing them in ridiculous quantities (you can do a lot of damage with 100 Infantry!).

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Dominae


Uh yeah, and that's why they let it happen. Hindsight is 20/20. In fact, Japan kept cordial relations up until the very end in order to keep the ruse going as long as possible (no, I am not only getting this from the movie!). Some people surely expected 9/11, but it happened anyway.

I'm one of the people who expected some kind of terrorist attack on the United States at some point. But there is a huge difference between expecting some kind of attack at some point and expecting a particular type of attack at a particular time. Actually, I would have been less surprised with some kind biological, poison gas, or even nuclear attack than I was at the tactic of hijacking airliners and ramming them into buildings.

The United States very definitely knew that relations with Japan were deteriorating, and that war was a distinct possibility. We even had the aircraft at Hickam Field (near Pearl Harbor) parked close together where they could be defended more easily against sabatoge by Japanese agents or sympathizers. (Which, unfortunately, turned out to be exactly the wrong move for the kind of attack that actually did materialize).

But the expectation was that if Japan did decide to go to war against us, their initial targets would be closer to home - with the Philippines a likely prime target. Their use of carrier planes to launch a surprise attack so far from their homeland came as a surprise in spite of our knowing that a war with Japan was a real possibility. Sometimes attacking in a different way from how an enemy expects can be just as effective as if the enemy didn't expect the possibility of an attack at all.

[quote[That is all fine and grand, but I agree with Arrian that the real world is, in reality, far bleaker than anything that happens in Civ3 (save multiple ICBM attacks). To play a game where everyone respects alliances and cooperates to launch a spaceship to Alpha Centauri is far more unrealistic. I am sure Russia felt pretty put out when Nazi Germany turned on them completely opportunistically...the Soviets probably just wanted to launch a spaceship! [/QUOTE]

I'm not saying that everyone should always respect alliances. Rather, my original idea was for players to keep each other apprised of how (from a role playing perspective) their peoples feel about each other, and to play accordingly. Thus, to follow your example, "Stalin" would know that his agreement with "Hitler" was a matter of purely pragmatic mutal self-interest, not a reflection of anything resembling genuine friendship between the two nations. Players would then have a choice of whether to give their partnerships a tone of genuine trust and friendship or just a tone of temporary mutal self-interest.

By the way, even the best of friendships would not necessarily be permanent. Players could roleplay a breakdown in relations if they so desire. But civs would not go from genuine friendship to war overnight. And in a game where the goal is not to win at all costs, there would be a lot less pressure for players to abandon a successful friendship and partnership just because their partner is ahead of them.

[Modo44]

Dominae, the basic "martial threat" definition would mean, that the USA of today is such a threat. Same goes for Russia, China. And that's before counting the ones with ICBMs, but with relatively weak conventional military. This one is not there yet, I think.

This brings out another point. While 100 Infantry can be considered a threat (and certainly fun ), it can also be considered a necessary defense, if a country is big. Consider the land forces of USA, and Mexico (chosing a neighbour, to make it simpler) - one could wipe the other out in a blink, right? This could happen to many countries neighbouring the "big guys", but they don't try to prepare a combined attack because of that. So, in addition to a large military, some sort of aggression is needed to become a "martial threat", IMO. Perhaps previous big offensive wars fought by someone, could be the additional reason leading to a counter-alliance?

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Arrian

But the only way I see to have a game that doesn't go that way is to play it with like-minded players. Or a very detailed ruleset...

Agreed. When I first proposed my idea,, my concept was not to expect everyone to play that way, but rather to offer a less cutthroat, more realistic game as an alternative for players who prefer to play that way. Players who want a more conventional PBEM environment would be free to play without any specal restrictions. I think that's probably a better way to do things than creating an expectation that all games follow special restrictions would be - at least unless all the players truly get in the spirit of things.

It seems to me that if players enter a diplo-game with a goal of getting away with as much as they possibly can without violating the letter of the rules in an effort to win, the entire project is probably doomed to fail. The spirit of the players and the goals of the game are too fundamentally at odds with each other.

Nathan

[Modo44]

Sure, you need players who feel the same about the game. But rules can still be helpful. Of course, you could just say you agree on the basic idea, but that can lead to misunderstandings.

Rules can make players see, how close their understanding of the idea really is. Also, they can give specific descriptions, that "remind" players to do the right thing. This would be valuable for those playing normal PBEMs as well. And, you can agree on banning some ugly semi-exploits, like combat-settling. It's better to have all that written down, IMO.