A Mercenary Team anyone?

[Octavian X]

Here the reference bit I was using to narrow down the traits: http://www.civfanatics.com/civ4/refe...er_picker.html

Agressive is obviously one of the traits we want. We can also eliminate Financial, since I'm betting the gold will roll in once our services are in demand.

[UnOrthOdOx]

Financial would mean more gold to support more troops which would hopefully translate into more jobs.

I'ld also not say Aggressive should be a given.

[UnOrthOdOx]

Probably better icon IMO

[Kloreep]

Aggressive does seem like a good one, but on the other hand, other traits would help our troops in other ways.

[polarnomad]

Bearing in mind that I have never participated in a democracy game before, and would have to learn the mechanics from scratch... I find the concept of a mercenary team extremely interesting and would love to join.

Of course, I will have many questions, and perhaps require some extra effort from the veterans here to be integrated properly before I can perform assigned functions effectively.

I would humbly accept a trial period, if required. After all not just any lost soul makes it past the grueling requirements of an elite mercenary unit...

EDIT: After having a look at the The Mercenary Team's members' timezones, I think I may cause you more problems than you would want to deal with... (GMT+2)

[UnOrthOdOx]

We would love to have you aboard.

Timezones?

pfft. No such thing as a problem with them. Most everything will be handled in the forum with plenty of time for discussion amongst all time zones.

Besides I'm notoriously 'off' of my scheduled 'timezone', playing at 4AM or some other nonsense.

Lack of experience is not a concern, we'll happily impart any knowledge we may have on anyone. And, no 'trial period' should be needed. We're not about excluding folks here. Our team's primary focus is fun. Excluding folks has never lead to that in my experience.

For anyone wishing to join, you need to join our civgroup in order to be authorized to view our forum.

You can join by clicking the join button at the upper right of the forum here, or by following this link and clicking join in the upper center here:

http://www.apolyton.net/civgroups/news.php?s=&civgroupid=80

[polarnomad]

Thanks UnOrthOdOx! Have joined and am awaiting authorization.

[UnOrthOdOx]

Granted. You should be able to access the private forum in the same place the 'join' button was previously.

I suggest subscribing to said forum so it can be accessed from your control panel, and not rely on clicking that private forum button so precariously close to the 'leave' button...

Not that I haven't accidentally removed myself from civgroups doing that before...

[Dominae]

I'm sorry, but I still have reservations about this whole concept. Perhaps you could explain some things for me!

As far as I understand, Team Mercenary wants to offer a "good service", but really it just wants to survive and make money (to survive). As such, it is much like any other for-profit company. It is thus very difficult for me to imagine Team Mercenary standing aside when its interests conflict with another nation's.

The claim that you have no interests other than contracts seems false: you also have an interest in the continuing success of Team Mercenary. When your promises posted in this thread conflict with the continuing success of Team Mercenary, which will break first?

Let me provide an example. Two teams want to go to war with one another. They both attempt to contract you out to fight for them. One team, smartly, promises a share of the spoils in terms of conquered land to expand into. The other does not. Who will you support? Let's assume that each team offers to pay for all your current troops (and can afford it).

How about another. You find yourself stuck alone on an island with just one other team. Game over. For a flat fee, that team can buy your troops to attack your lands with. For every Axemen you lose, your opponent gains one. Even if you make a policy not to hand over the units, your opponent can basically pay to have your units stand idle. Will you refuse such contracts?

And another. An opponent attacks you, and you are unable to properly defend. Will you ask for terms? What if those terms include, say, preferential rates, or favors, or maybe even vassalage? Would it be fair for a team to ask you not to accept contracts from another team? Why not?

I have no doubt that Team Mercenary was created with the best of (fun) intentions, and that you have acted honorably in the past. But there are some thorny issues that could come up because of your special status that could negatively affect the game (in my opinion).

I would prefer if Team Mercenary would instead declare itself a sovereign state (like all the other teams), not bound by any particular rules. You could still, of course, make it your team's goal to be "the" mercenary team, operating much in the same way. Your interests would be Team Mercenary's, though, not just its contract laws.

When it comes down to it, I guess this is a roundabout way of saying that I disapprove of the concept of a team that's not explicitly looking to win. Maybe I'm too competitive, but teams that are not interested in victory strike me as...awkward for the rest of us (or me, at least).

An extreme is example is the team that disbands its cities because its members are not having fun anymore, or hands their assets over to another team. Such big swings would ruin the experience for me, I'm afraid. I know there was a lot of bad blood over the PTWDG allied victory, which some players were simply not expecting as being within the spirit of a competitive game.

I apologize for the semi-rant. I'm not entirely opposed to Team Mercenary, I would just like the kinks worked out beforehand.

[UnOrthOdOx]

Originally posted by Dominae
I'm sorry, but I still have reservations about this whole concept. Perhaps you could explain some things for me!

As far as I understand, Team Mercenary wants to offer a "good service", but really it just wants to survive and make money (to survive). As such, it is much like any other for-profit company. It is thus very difficult for me to imagine Team Mercenary standing aside when its interests conflict with another nation's.

The claim that you have no interests other than contracts seems false: you also have an interest in the continuing success of Team Mercenary. When your promises posted in this thread conflict with the continuing success of Team Mercenary, which will break first?

Let me provide an example. Two teams want to go to war with one another. They both attempt to contract you out to fight for them. One team, smartly, promises a share of the spoils in terms of conquered land to expand into. The other does not. Who will you support? Let's assume that each team offers to pay for all your current troops (and can afford it).

From earlier in the thread:

For the sake of fairness as well, we will not engage in receiving territory for payment.

So, we will not be receiving 'spoils'. We reserve the right to determine sides however we deem fit in the case 2 teams contact us offering equal payment at the same time.

How about another. You find yourself stuck alone on an island with just one other team. Game over. For a flat fee, that team can buy your troops to attack your lands with. For every Axemen you lose, your opponent gains one. Even if you make a policy not to hand over the units, your opponent can basically pay to have your units stand idle. Will you refuse such contracts?

Well, assuming the team in question is playing to win, it's highly unlikely they have the gold to hire all our units for the whole game. Selling outright of units (gifting to another team) is going to need to be discussed in our forum. We'll post a policy on that publicly before we engage in it in-game. And, units deemed needed for our defense will not be up for sell/rent. We do need to defend ourselves.

And another. An opponent attacks you, and you are unable to properly defend. Will you ask for terms? What if those terms include, say, preferential rates, or favors, or maybe even vassalage? Would it be fair for a team to ask you not to accept contracts from another team? Why not?

We will not be vassals. Period. Nor can we offer preferential rates. Both those violate the founding notions of no permanent alliances or fair rates to all teams. We could offer X units in Y turns for Z length or something free perhaps.

No, we will not engage in 'don't accept from team X'.

Why? It's neither fair nor honorable.

We have accepted a "take no contracts out against us for X turns" contract before, and would continue to. You want to pay us not to attack, hey fine. However, we could not accept somethign in the order of "don't attack us ever again."

I have no doubt that Team Mercenary was created with the best of (fun) intentions, and that you have acted honorably in the past. But there are some thorny issues that could come up because of your special status that could negatively affect the game (in my opinion).

We have asked for no special status. We simply are telling you all how we are conducting our diplomacy.

I would prefer if Team Mercenary would instead declare itself a sovereign state (like all the other teams), not bound by any particular rules. You could still, of course, make it your team's goal to be "the" mercenary team, operating much in the same way. Your interests would be Team Mercenary's, though, not just its contract laws.

I thought that's what we had done. It just so happens Team Mercenary's interests may not include building spaceships or seeking global domination. And, each time we're hired, and deliver, IS a victory.

We may not play to win this game outright, no. We play to win respect for the concept, to adhere to it's precepts, thereby ensuring it continues in the next demogame. That is a far greater victory than some little note that Team X "wins" a game.

[Dominae]

Was it your intention to address the letter of my post, and not the spirit? I guess, since Team Merc already exists, you find this discussion irrelevant.

While some may disagree, the "victory conditions" of a game are very important. The reason is simple: they are part of the game "contract", part of its rules. Ever played Chess against someone that was not playing to checkmate you? How fun was it? Unless all players agree to the rules, there are bound to be problems when the players sit down and play.

What if I told you that Gathering Storm's victory condition in this game was to acquire at least one copy of every single Happiness resource? We would then quit, having "won". Or perhaps we would decide to have "won" after declaring always war with everyone and surviving 50 turns ("You couldn't kill us, haha!").

Many players are not joining this demogame because of a bad experience from the PTWDG. Whatever side of that debate you put yourself on, you have to admit it sucks that some people left with such a bad taste in their mouth. I want to avoid that.

I think it's essential to agree on what the goal of this game is (not just the meta-goal, "to have fun", which I take for granted) - it's victory conditions. And to me it seems natural that all teams should be striving to achieve this goal.

[Dominae]

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx
We have asked for no special status. We simply are telling you all how we are conducting our diplomacy.

I apologize if it seems that I'm on a mission to eliminate Team Merc from the game. That's not my intention.

Your quote above makes sense to me - I can go along with that.

However, the concept for your team does raise some issues regarding victory conditions that have not yet been satisfactorily resolved.

Please point me to appropriate thread if I missed the discussion.

[inamirrordarkly]

Being new to demo games I may end up mostly observing, but I would like to throw my hat (and sword) in with the Merc Team.

[UnOrthOdOx]

Originally posted by inamirrordarkly
Being new to demo games I may end up mostly observing, but I would like to throw my hat (and sword) in with the Merc Team.

Excellent. Welcome aboard. Please follow the instructions in this post to gain access to the team forum: http://www.apolyton.net/forums/showt...95#post4233095

[UnOrthOdOx]

Originally posted by Dominae


I apologize if it seems that I'm on a mission to eliminate Team Merc from the game. That's not my intention.

Your quote above makes sense to me - I can go along with that.

Good. I believe we are close to an understanding then.

However, the concept for your team does raise some issues regarding victory conditions that have not yet been satisfactorily resolved.

Please point me to appropriate thread if I missed the discussion.

It's going to come down to this, as there is nothing I can say to resolve your fears.

We fully intend to be standing at the end of the game.

We will not be gifting our territory to anyone, for any price. We will not 'roll over' for anyone for any price.

We also have no qualms about being hired by team X in a war that will net them enough territory for victory, however. We've stated that from the beginning, and put it up to a vote before our team was allowed.

The vast difference from the PTWDG is that you know where we stand. Now.

This is not GoW.

Now, weather teams take our position and decide to use it to their advantage or view it as a threat is up to them. We'll deal with their decisions on that front in game.