 |
|  |
 |
|
snoopy369

|
 |
Of the Peanuts Gallery
Apr 2004 time: 23:35
|
|
Hmm, true. Although i'd counterargue to Rommel that the AI does that all the time, *with* an alliance.
Perhaps I'd suggest that until one party declares war, any agreement is 'under the table', but once one party declares war, both must do so, if there is an agreement to attack? 99% of the time this would be moot, but this would keep people from pulling off "surprise" attacks.
Unless you're supposed to be able to pull off surprise attacks like that (ie one person attacking, and then the other person waiting until the right time and positioning forces and whatnot at peace, and then attacking, all the while the first person knowing it will happen), in which case this would be stupid. I'm really quite unsure on the ethics of that.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
smellymummy
|
|
i think it means that 3 players have a faster turnaround that 4...
btw paddy sure is leading with 314 ! 2nd place only 214 points? I wonder what that game looks like
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Rommel2D
|
|
ACS Staff Member / Hosted Site Admin
|
 |
Upper Midwest
Feb 2003 time: 23:35
|
|
Discussion continued from Coliseum B thread, starting with this post.
quote: This discussion isn't about rules, it's about etiquette. The basic idea behind point 1-2's optional sub-points was that PBEM diplomacy is such a dominating part of the game, it can usually overshadow every other part of the game. By adopting these limitations on diplomatic conduct, my hope was that more emphasis would fall upon strategic gameplay, while still allowing enough leeway for diplomacy to compensate for bad luck.
The 'embargo' announced above was clearly counter to the spirit of this ettiquette. There is no way to force any player to trade with another, but my hope was that prior to Nationalism, embargoes would only develop in extreme cases, when the disparity was so obvious that no announcement or explicit agreement would be needed between the players.
This game is a special case. Neither jshelr nor Bongo, as mid-game replacements, were explicitly asked to review and accept the etiquette/exploit list and take a stance on the options. This is my fault for not being thorough enough at that point in the game.
The fact that none of the three players involved questioned the issue themselves indicates a clear problem with 1-2d. Is it just a matter of raising awareness or is this an unworkable idea?
|
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|