C3cdg1?

[Paddy]

Thank you.

A very good point you have made here.

[bongo]

I belive an in-game alliance will still be invisible to the target as diplomatic details is more limited during war, even when having an embassy (you need an embassy to view other folks alliances btw)

[snoopy369]

I am certain that an in-game alliance would be hidden from the third civ if both civs are at war with the third civ, as you can't have an embassy with a civ you're at war with.

[ormuzd]

but youmay have an embassy before the war and then these things could be seen. In other words you can't build embassy during war or investigate cities but if you already had an embassy you may have information about the diplomatic issues related to that civ.

Or at least I think so

[snoopy369]

No. Your embassy is closed during a war, and you can't see details about the civ's diplo, as far as I know. (For example, in a certain war i'm having with a certain Beta in another game, I can't see anything about his civ other than its war with me and my ally, although i had an embassy pre-war.)

Regardless, that rule didn't make the final exploit list - here ... it was part of my initial proposal, but not continued, particularly once some of the folk, like UnO, had weighed in who had more experience with DGs.

If it is something that everyone feels should be in the rules proper, we can add it now, I suppose, but please don't assume that everything from my proposal is a rule - that was made before anyone was in this game, remember, and it was written by someone with nearly no experience in Demogames.

[Paddy]

Thanks Snoop

[Aqualung71]

Thanks for the responses.

I wasn't sure what the final rules were so it was worth asking

On the Foreign Advisors screen, I always though what ormuzd said was correct. In fact, IIRC when you are at war with a civ with whom you previously shared an Embassy, the Embassy still exists but cannot be used (refer the Espionage screen which will still show the little building next to the civ's name).

Anyway, snoop seems to have specific experience on this matter, so it seems you cannot see all those lines going around the leaderheads

In any case, my point in raising this was not so much to tell a team that 2 others are allied against them (like, we kinda know that already ), but as a mechanism for the other teams who have Embassies to know.

Snoop - those 4 exploit items we voted on - are you saying they are the only rules at all? Clearly there are many other things you proposed in your first post that are not included in that exploit thread.

Regardless, interesting discussion

[snoopy369]

I'm saying they're the only rules we voted on (well, there are other rules voted on as well, like combat reports or things like that). Looking back at that list makes me wonder what i was smoking, although as i said i had little experience in DGs at the time "No OOG discussion of other civs w/o embassy" ... hah, right. Who here hasn't done that?

I think that, other than those exploits, we should follow general ethical principles ... and basic PBEM standards of conduct. Just nothing so iron-civer as those rules (that i ironically called 'not iron civer' ...

[Daddy-O]

So what is the ruling?

All I see, based on the vote totals is:

Snoopy369: No, Upgrade, Mapmaking, No
Paddy:
Beta: No, Upgrade, Mapmaking, No
Aqualung: Yes, No, Navigation, No
Conqueror: No, Upgrade, Mapmaking, No

So did we agree to the following?

No ship chaining
resource sharing for Upgrade
map exchange on Mapmaking
No to Accepting Peace and immediately declaring War

Are these the only rules? What has been decided about military and trade alliances without in game declaration?

I know if I assumed that all alliances were open and in game, I'd hate to be like A71's Desolation Row looking at the possibility of 2 civs in an alleged undeclared alliance against me.

If there has been a misunderstanding or unintended breach of the rules, do the team leaders need to confer as to what happens next?

Should a complete list of rules be posted for future play of this game?

[Aqualung71]

Interesting observation skrobism, though while I was interested in an interpretation of the rules, it doesn't much matter from a practical sense.

I will say however that it is clear that the Horde and Euphorica have been acting in a military alliance against us for some time, and that immediate disclosure of this fact by the Horde when they first declared war on us, instead of concocting some **** and bull story about our exploring Warrior straying into a battle zone 5 or 6 turns earlier, would have given us a lot more warning of their joint actions and perhaps enabled us to prevent them razing one of our cities

While we do not wish to make a big deal over this, it is of course up to the other teams to decide whether this undisclosed alliance was against the spirit of the game and hence unfair.

[EDIT: clearly the censors have never heard a kock and bull story ]

[Rhothaerill]

Originally posted by Aqualung71
While we do not wish to make a big deal over this, it is of course up to the other teams to decide whether this undisclosed alliance was against the spirit of the game and hence unfair.

While it is easy to go in now and start that in-game alliance, I don't think reprimanding Euphorica and the Horde for entering an "unfair" alliance is viable when none of us understood what the rules of the game were. Going in after the fact and deciding what our two teams did before the rules were clarified was wrong would be a bit hard to take.

In any case, how would you have better protected Sidon when Euphorica has been knocking on your door and tying up your units on the other side of your empire? For all you knew, Euphorica itself could have attacked Sidon as it is the closest city to our own lands.

[Krill]

It would have been a lot nicer if Euphorica and BOH admitted to the fact that they had an alliance when BOH declared war on DR. It would not have changed anything, so why not disclose the alliance?

As to the question "Are secret alliances unfair and against the spirit of the game?", alliances have to be kept secret, otherwise you are going to tell your opponent what is going on. So I don't have a problem with idden alliances.

Aqua, you should have been more paranoid

[Daddy-O]

re: Interesting observation skrobism

Not sure what that 'observation' is.

re: clarification of rules
Before moving forward I would like to know where the team leaders stand on the rules in general, outside of this particular case.

The leaders should confirm what the rules of play are and TOP them before we go much further in game.

[Daddy-O]

I'd like to add that I agree with Krill in that I have no problem with secret alliances. I think it adds to the espionage, and politics of the game.

[Rhothaerill]

Originally posted by Krill
It would have been a lot nicer if Euphorica and BOH admitted to the fact that they had an alliance when BOH declared war on DR. It would not have changed anything, so why not disclose the alliance?

That I can agree with. We probably could have formally declared the alliance. Though like you say it wouldn't have changed anything. Not protecting Sidon had no bearing on the alliance as it could have been Euphorica attacking it just as easily as BOH as I said above.

As to the question "Are secret alliances unfair and against the spirit of the game?", alliances have to be kept secret, otherwise you are going to tell your opponent what is going on. So I don't have a problem with idden alliances.

Agreed. As long as it's not an alliance to "end the game as co-winners" That brings about a completely different set of circumstances as happened in the PTWDG1.

Aqua, you should have been more paranoid