Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

MP C4DG Chat Poll 4: Fake Wars

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • MP C4DG Chat Poll 4: Fake Wars

    There was a question over whether "fake wars", or wars fought with some purpose outside of actual military victory (complete or partial) over the opponent, should be permitted.

    There are multiple possibilities here.
    • Fake wars for Experience: ie, to train units against warriros
    • Fake wars for City razing: Asking another civ to raze a misplaced city for you.
    • Fake wars for other deceptive purposes (ie, to make the rest of the world think you're fighting, when you're allies).
    • Declaring war to cancel a deal that "cannot be currently canceled" (b/c it hasn't run its course - 10 turns or whatever the time span is)?


    Any of these can be singled out as permitted (or denied), or the blanket statements "No war may be undertaken for any purpose other than military or strategic advantage over the declared on civ." (or similar), or "Wars may be declared for any purpose." (or similar)

    Discuss
    <Reverend> IRC is just multiplayer notepad.
    I like your SNOOPY POSTER! - While you Wait quote.

  • #2
    I think I would only be OK with 3...

    going to war for war's sake is ok (like their is no express interest in killing the other team), but there shouldn't be masses of low quality troops dying on purpose (too gamey)

    JM
    Jon Miller-
    I AM.CANADIAN
    GENERATION 35: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

    Comment


    • #3
      1 and 2 are certainly not acceptable. 3 needs more clarification: what constitutes a deceptive war? Can two teams not announce that they are at war and move troops around towards each other? Or is it only illegal if units are actually engaged in combat?
      I make movies. Come check 'em out.

      Comment


      • #4
        Personally, I don't see 2 as being a problem. You want to move the city 2 tiles to the left, having someone raze it is now the only option to do so.

        I don't really see there being a great NEED for it, but don't see a reason to really punish someone that severely for a mistake in placement. The loss of settler + time spent is enough a punishment IMO.
        One who has a surplus of the unorthodox shall attain surpassing victories. - Sun Pin
        You're wierd. - Krill

        An UnOrthOdOx Hobby

        Comment


        • #5
          I'm cool with everything except #1, although I think hiring team mercenary to attack for this purpose may still be ok
          First Master, Banan-Abbot of the Nana-stary, and Arch-Nan of the Order of the Sacred Banana.
          Marathon, the reason my friends and I have been playing the same hotseat game since 2006...

          Comment


          • #6
            Team Mercenary will not be hired for #1 no matter what rule is made.
            One who has a surplus of the unorthodox shall attain surpassing victories. - Sun Pin
            You're wierd. - Krill

            An UnOrthOdOx Hobby

            Comment


            • #7
              Good to hear UnO
              You just wasted six ... no, seven ... seconds of your life reading this sentence.

              Comment


              • #8
                #1 is right out.

                #2 strikes me as something that is highly unlikely to come up, but if I had to choose, I'd say no.

                #3 I'm undecided about.

                What about #4 - declaring war to cancel a deal that "cannot be currently canceled" (b/c it hasn't run its course - 10 turns or whatever the time span is)?

                -Arrian
                grog want tank...Grog Want Tank... GROG WANT TANK!

                The trick isn't to break some eggs to make an omelette, it's convincing the eggs to break themselves in order to aspire to omelettehood.

                Comment


                • #9
                  I think that 4 is more wrong then 3

                  Jon Miller
                  Jon Miller-
                  I AM.CANADIAN
                  GENERATION 35: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    1 is definitely not okay.

                    2, not sure. UnO makes a good point, it's about the only way to move a city now.

                    3, I see no reason to disallow other types unless someone comes up with a specific one that must not be allowed.

                    4, depends on whether we want the 10-turn game mechanic to also rule our multiplayer game. If we allow it, we may have to address the issue of two teams sharing a single resource by continuously making and breaking a deal.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      4) I feel that we should not let a SP mechanic effect what we are doing in a no-ai MP game. If the only way to break a deal is war, then one turn wars should be allowed. If it is a case of resourse sharing (two teams using one source of say copper), then no. But if one team has two sources and is giving one to another team and that team nolonger wants it, then its ok (like GoW/ND with iron during the Great Bobian War in the PTWDGI).
                      Founder of The Glory of War, CHAMPIONS OF APOLYTON!!!
                      1992-Perot :(, 1996-Perot :(, 2000-Bush :), 2004-Bush :|, 2008-Obama :|, 2012-Obama :), 2016-Clinton :(

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        #4 is edited into the above post.

                        Do we need a separate poll on "resource sharing", or is this agreed upon to be banned?
                        <Reverend> IRC is just multiplayer notepad.
                        I like your SNOOPY POSTER! - While you Wait quote.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Hmm. 1 turn wars don't sound good. #4 might be OK but with a ten turn war as penalty.

                          Snoop-dog, why did we have the chat if we are going to revote all these things?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            The chat was to discuss the issues. Not every team agreed in the chat, nor had some of the options really been passed by the teams' constituents. Things you entirely agreed on aren't being polled
                            <Reverend> IRC is just multiplayer notepad.
                            I like your SNOOPY POSTER! - While you Wait quote.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Fake wars for any purpose=bad

                              Jus too many ways to exploit it.

                              If you make a deal that will last for 10 turns you had better plan for the consequences of those 10 turns.

                              Just my opinion...
                              http://i266.photobucket.com/albums/i..._burn_shot.gif

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X