Announcement

**DeepO** · November 25, 2002, 09:06

well, it goes a little off the subject of this thread, but I have a specific idea about sneak attacks: I think it would be a strategically wrong thing if we would warn people 1 turn in advance that they will be attacked by us, so in that case sneak attacks (as in attacking in the same turn as war is declared) are the way to go.

But there is another point, which I consider the honor part here: I'd say that whoever we are planning on attacking, whatever the situation, we warn them in the same turn of the coming war, and offer them some deal so they can stop it before it started. You can call it extortion, but I would never extort anything: it's just an option they have to avert war, and never is bluf (is this English?). And the price we ask can very well be higher then our objectives: we could ask for half their cities, all techs, all gold. If they disagree, We attack, and slug it out.

There is no reason why it has to be in the same day as we want to start a war, if some other team has its turn between us and the one we are attacking, we could send it after the target's turn has finished, and before our started. If they don't respond, or send us away, we go to war as planned.

DeepO

**FrustratedPoet** · November 25, 2002, 13:25

Originally posted by DeepO
and never is bluf (is this English?)

Yes, but it's "bluff".

I think that's a fine idea, it is only the sporting thing to give our targets a chance to save themselves. We should only offer them a pre-emptive truce if we really intend to attack, of course, I agree with that part too.
Lying is bad, m'kay?

**Meshelic** · November 25, 2002, 17:58

I agree with all said here.

Preemptive strikes when the situations looks really really bleak sound good as well, in a time where war cannot be averted.

In the words of Nikita Krueschev "We will bury you"

(planning to use that quote later before a declaration of war, muwahaha)

**Dominae** · November 26, 2002, 10:38

The only problem I see with a "half-turn forewarning" is that the other teams could delay. If we tell them that our turn is coming up and they'd better give us Monarchy or else, they could stall until their turn.

I think this is a minor point. However, it goes to show that there will be times for pure sneak attack, and times for extortion (and, of course, times for peaceful negotiations). I hope honour will not prevent us from doing either.

Dominae

**DeepO** · November 26, 2002, 13:19

I'm not sure about the pure sneak attacks, but perhaps this is only my isolated view: I would make it part of our charter that we never sneak attack, and always leave the others the chance to back out (given they are willing to pay the price). I agree it needs some more thinking as to when or how we would be going to send ultimatums, but in principal it seems a very honorable thing to do, one of the few things we as a team could distinguish ourselves in.

Of course, this doesn't rule out sneak attacks completely: if we ask for all a team's cities (except the capital), within half a day time, they aren't likely to go for it, leaving us a classical sneak attack anyway.

DeepO

**Dominae** · November 26, 2002, 13:26

If we do agree not to do sneak attacks, that's fine with me. I'm just saying that I have no qualms about them. If civs are smart enough about intelligence (weird phrase, I know), they'll know when a "sneak" attack is coming. That's part of the game.

Asking for all a civ's cities right before our turn sounds to me less honorable than just sneak-attacking in the first place. It's like we're pretending to give them a chance to react, when in fact we're not.

Dominae

**DeepO** · November 26, 2002, 13:37

Well... I figured that those deals, like all other diplo deals, would be negotiable. By starting with asking them all their civs, we could diminish our price a bit, an leave them 2

No, the example is a bit extreme, but in many cases we have a primary objective (:take the city with the iron), and a few secundary ones. If we would be able to get our primary goal(s), and a few of our secundary ones in a bribe, it would be good for both sides. The only thing we don't get is any leader...

DeepO

**ManicStarSeed** · November 27, 2002, 15:24

This just in..

As the newly appointed ambassador to Vox Controli (AKA Jon Millers team), I have been studing some of the public mateial out there on this group.

Current Members:

BetaHound
Dissident
Eli
flash9286
Jon Miller
Wittlich

The group looks like there is a bit of forum experience with some newcommers sprinkled in.

They are the smallest of the teams out there. They will likely see (potentially) more growth as other teams clamp down on "registration" and gravity takes over. This could lead to a group of people with chips on their shoulders with something to prove (flash for example). I hope not if only for thier own enjoyment. If true, the potential for instability can be quite high.

Expect them to be the least organized team.
It seems that they operate in a non-linear power structure. Any one of them can speak for the team. They seem to relish the idea that there is no organization. Time will tell if this is an advantage or disadvantage. Assuming they do not grow, I do not expect a lack of structure to be too much of a problem. If there is growth, they will suffer growing pains, you kow.... the ones that are happening for many of the teams now.

We will likely have to PM their leader (if there is one) and force the single point of cotact issue once it comes to it.

The small team can mean efficency, but all signs point to scattered.

That is it for now.

Mss

**Meshelic** · November 27, 2002, 16:21

Very interesting. Their leader is surely Jon Miller. Every person who has started a team so far has been the first to lead them.

Eli and Betahound are somewhat familiar to me, although I don't remember them in the C3DG...anyone know anything about these people?

**Theseus** · November 27, 2002, 19:23

Wittlich and Dissident have been around, mostly in General.

**notyoueither** · November 27, 2002, 19:47

Dissident, Eli, Jon Miller, and Wittlich have all been around and are well known on some other fora (esp OT).

None are particularly expert at Civ3, but all are avid civ'ers AFAIK. Perhaps they are just more quiet about their skills than others.

I regard them as quite dangerous due to erratic behavior. I believe their plan is to alternate the player's hat on a monthly basis. Each member of the team will enjoy absolute control while playing. They may refer to the others for advice, but nothing I've seen would require that. That means that while Jon or Eli or Diss are playing, we may be able to live and let live (I get along with them and they generally get along with most people) flash could totally change everything on a whim if and when he gets the hat. For that matter, there could be no assurances that any of them would not totally reverse their stance towards us at any changing of the player.

For those reasons, I would put them quite high on our priority list for elimination if practical, even though Jon Miller and I get along very well and are almost 'friends' from other places. I knew he was thinking of launching a team, and I encouraged him.

**ManicStarSeed** · November 28, 2002, 15:07

NYE
Thank you for stating that more clearly.

Mss

**Theseus** · November 30, 2002, 17:27

If they're going to be Persia and start anywhere near us, we will want to take them out ASAP, whether alone or in concert with another team.

**Meshelic** · November 30, 2002, 17:39

Man, the first eliminated team is going to be sore for sure. It's too bad, but that's life...or at least that's Civilization for ya.

Announcement

Jon Miller's Team Intelligence

Jon Miller's Team Intelligence

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment