 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
snoopy369
|
 |
Of the Peanuts Gallery
Apr 2004
time: 23:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Moonbars
If you don't want people in your land, just tell them that if they enter it will be war. Anybody who goes ahead deserves Death!
|
Of course. But the point Sabre makes is that you can't do this in-game against a human player; you must only do it through chat, and the game doesn't understand chat. The player that war is declared upon has an advantage in that his or her citizens gain a slight "happiness" from the war; just like the declarer generally gets a faster war weariness effect.
IE, if you attack someone for putting units on your territory, you give the person you attack happiness for his citizens, which leads to a slight advantage in the forthcoming war for that player.
---
Now my thoughts in more detail:
This is a minor exploit, but not one that needs the drastic fix Sabre suggests. I do believe that you remember the actions of the other player, and if he attacks you through this manner, you give him less room in the future, than someone who pre-declares war. But, it is an advantage strategically to allow the offensive player to enter anothers' land without declaring war; you might want to hope he doesn't notice, for example, or indeed hope to gain that war happiness.
If you're going to try and fix the exploit, I suggest a one or two turn allowed delay, like in-game SP. IE, you can be in one or two turn(s) inside the others' territory, but you must withdraw if asked, or declare war, on the turn after being asked, or two turns later if a 2 turn delay is allowed. (You might also allow a 2 turn delay to a single unit or any number of "non-offensive" units with power 0 like scouts (but not settlers), but a 1 turn delay to 2 or more military units power > 0.)
It should also be all or nothing. Deciding if something is an offensive incursion or just scouting is too complicated and debatable (even subjective). If you're in the territory of another, he asks you to leave (and you don't successfully negotiate permission to be there), you must head directly towards the outside border (or any other negotiated location) or declare war.
Also, you must consider "warrior-settler" tactics. For example, if I move a settler into or past your "area" (not cultural border, but say in the middle of two cities that are seperate), and settle a city, and you have a unit in the 9 square border of that city, 1) which turn is the first turn for these purposes (the turn I settle it, so you must vacate right away or declare war *on your immediate next turn*, or a one turn delay), and 2) do you rule that, since my warrior-settler is the aggressive move here, it is not really a violation of this?? I'd rule for #2, since I consider this to be an exploit of an exploit fix, but then you open a new can of worms in which you have to specifically define the situation this applies under.
Finally, you should specify the manner in which the defender must leave. Excepting the possibility of a negotiated direction (ie, promising to leave to the east, or something), it should be specified whether the defender must return through exactly the moves that brought him into territory, or through any direction that is equal in distance (ie, if you're 2 squares into the territory from all directions, but you could go either east or west, you can go either), or through any direction the defender requires of you. I vote either through the direction from whence you came, or through the defenders' direction. However, the middle option is the option that is "default", i'd suggest, since that's the Civ3 SP rule - and I suggest that it is a useful tactic to cross short amounts of territory. I don't personally prefer it, but it's probably closest to the SP rules.
That enough? 
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:35.
Apolyton Time is 00:35. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
19-10-2004 06:26
|