MP C4DG Chat Poll 4: Fake Wars

[snoopy369]

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

[Jon Miller]

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

[ZargonX]

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?

[UnOrthOdOx]

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.

[Metaliturtle]

I'm cool with everything except #1, although I think hiring team mercenary to attack for this purpose may still be ok

[UnOrthOdOx]

Team Mercenary will not be hired for #1 no matter what rule is made.

[Krill]

Good to hear UnO

[Arrian]

#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

[Jon Miller]

I think that 4 is more wrong then 3

Jon Miller

[Kloreep]

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.

[Donegeal]

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).

[snoopy369]

#4 is edited into the above post.

Do we need a separate poll on "resource sharing", or is this agreed upon to be banned?

[Golden Bear]

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?

[snoopy369]

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

[BigFree]

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...