 |
| |
|
|
punkbass2000
|
 |
Waterloo, ON, Canada
Feb 2002
time: 00:20
|
|
I agree with Dom here. Beyond the fact that any real hard and set rules would be dificult to implement/enforce, what's the point of this diplomacy game as an AU course? Assuming you're just generally joining random games outside of AU for the simple fun of it, you're probably not going to end up in many games with any sort of code (except exploits). I mean can sympathize a bit, I personnally don't like the way some things go and wouldn't want to just destroy someone's empire on turn 10 (which just happened to me in a Sengoku-mod PBEM), but if it's later in the game (like turn 50 in my AP RoR PBEM), it's rather fun to slwoly eat away at those upstart Romans with their fancy Wonders and UUs. Very tactical, huge stacks of artillery and generally only taking a city every five turns or so. But it's still a lot more fun, and I can do this while still playing honourably. I even declared war before I entered the territory, just for the hell of it (well, yes, the AI players would hate me for not doing it properly, but my rep's shot from when the goddamn Romans went to war with the Celts). But it's worth it, cause once every few days you get make this your battle report 
Rome:
4 Garrison killed in Veii.
1 Legion3 killed in Veii.
Veii captured.
Garrison SE of Mycenae bombed to 2/4 and then killed.
3 Legion3s killed in Tarentum.
2 Garrison killed in Tarentum.
Tarentum captured.
1 HC killed W of Rhodes.
Macedon:
3 HC killed S of Veii.
2 HC retreats S of Veii.
2 Swordsmen killed W of Tarentum.
1 HC killed SW of Tarentum.
1 HC retreats SW of Tarentum.
1 HC killed in Miletos.
1 HC killed W of Rhodes
|
|
| |
|
|
|
nbarclay
|
 |
Huntsville, Alabama
Dec 1999
time: 23:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dominae
There is something distinctly unstrategic about not playing to win; how can you "strategically" play for fun? |
The real difference is not a question of whether or not strategy is involved, but rather is a question of what goal the strategy is aimed at pursuing. In a conventional game, the goal is not merely to build up a successful civilization of your own, but also to stop any other civilization that threatens to reach a victory condition first. In contrast, in a more realism-oriented game, the goal of trying to make one's own civilization as successful as possible remains, but trying to block other civilizations from being more successful does not take on nearly as high a priority. In addition, the desire for realism constrains what strategic options are considered acceptable to a certain extent.
Even without "victory" being the top priority, all of the basic strategic elements of Civ are still present. A civilization that uses good strategy in REXing, build priorities, diplomacy, military action, and so forth will be more successful than if it used poor strategy. It's just that the strategy is aimed at a different goal, with success measured in terms that do not require the weakening or destruction of any civilization that's more successful.
Thus, there is a lot that can be learned about strategy within the context of a diplo-game or simething similar. Some of what is learned might be useful only in the context of other diplo-games, but then again, isn't some of what is learned in conventional PBEM games applicable only in other conventional PBEM games? So I don't see any inherent incompatibility between such a game and the goals of Apolyton University.
One other interesting thing about a diplo-game type setting is that with winning a much lower priority, players might feel more free to share strategic thoughts while the game is still going on. To whatever extent that happens, if it would happen, it would be good for learning.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by nbarclay
The real difference is not a question of whether or not strategy is involved, but rather is a question of what goal the strategy is aimed at pursuing.
|
It is in my civ's best interest: to subjugate the other nations of the world; to control a source of every single Luxury; to control all the Wonders; to be the technological leader by a wide margin; to build a bunch of nukes before anyone else does; to launch a spaceship that will prove the Ultimate Power of my people over all others once and for all.
Unfortunately, those are in the best interests of the other nations of the world as well. Whatever shall we do? Well, I could form a temporary "alliance" with my neighbor to ensure that some third civ does not fulfill its best interests to a greater extent than we do ours. And this third civ could form an "alliance" with a fourth civ to do the same against us. In short, we could engage in competition.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by jshelr
There are huge areas of cooperative strategy that human games make possible and that are not possible in AI games.
Just to show one example: In a game with players of equal skill, the starting conditions will produce wildly different civ sizes. I'm not sure that your population count really proves how macho you are in such circumstances.
For me, the really good civ player is the one who does the best possible job with the starting spot he or she gets. Is this utopian thinking? Why would anyone bother to commit lots of effort to a bad starting spot?
A larger country will have resource advantages, but consider that the corruption model often makes two small and beautiful civs stronger than one civ that is larger than the two put together. And the 4-turn tech floor enhances this effect.
It will often be the case that the leaders of two civs form a bond, such as the one you achieve with your teammates in sports, and that players can have fun by supporting the efforts of the other and also by overcoming communications problems to achieve the best joint efficiency possible.
With this kind of cooperation predominating among leaders, civ games can ultimately have the same kind of ebb and flow that history has actually had.
So, I think it would be useful for AU to explore the ways that humans can cooperate with each other in a civ game to overcome the effects of bad starting spots and other setbacks. |
I think you have mistaken my point of view (either that or you have abandoned defending Nathan's proposal for a PBEM game).
What I am saying is that, IMO, for PBEM games to within the scope of AU, they need to be competitive. Nathan's game, while it may very well be competitive on some level, does not really (as Sir Ralph pointed out) make explicit the rules of engagement, and so does not in its current form lend itself to useful strategic comparison. I thought you were defending the idea that PBEM can be "fun" without being competitive, which I agree with, I just do not think those games should be a part of AU.
What you just posted (and what I just quoted) is more a defense of the strategy that arises from competition between human players, i.e., questions of diplomacy. I completely agree with you that this is, as of yet, a hugely unmapped territory (at least, to my knowledge) in the realm of Civ3 strategy. And you are quite right good diplomacy will take you further than excellent population stats (having been part of a couple of demogames and a few PBEMs of my own, I do understand this).
For PBEM games to a part of AU, however, I think they need some sort of standardization so that players can usefully compare their experiences to those of others. This is why I initally disliked the proposal that we all just started a bunch of PBEMs willy-nilly and use the AU forum as a tracking thread. However, if we were to start a bunch of PBEMs on the same map and set checkpoints for reporting (mandatory reporting!), I would be the first on board.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
nbarclay
|
|
Huntsville, Alabama
Dec 1999
time: 23:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dominae
It is in my civ's best interest: to subjugate the other nations of the world; to control a source of every single Luxury; to control all the Wonders; to be the technological leader by a wide margin; to build a bunch of nukes before anyone else does; to launch a spaceship that will prove the Ultimate Power of my people over all others once and for all. |
Not necessarily. Even in single-player games, a civilization is often much better off financially and scientifically leaving some major rivals intact as trading partners than it is wiping them out. Similarly, in a multi-player game, consider how much more quickly a spaceship can be built with two or three civilizations working together to research the necessary techs than with the civs diverting economic effort toward fighting each other. In the game, as in the real world, two allies can be stronger and more prosperous than a single civ resulting from one having gobbled up the other.
quote:
Unfortunately, those are in the best interests of the other nations of the world as well. Whatever shall we do? Well, I could form a temporary "alliance" with my neighbor to ensure that some third civ does not fulfill its best interests to a greater extent than we do ours. And this third civ could form an "alliance" with a fourth civ to do the same against us. In short, we could engage in competition. |
It is the part I emphasized in bold that makes Civ unrealistic. In the real world, nations generally seek to maximize their prosperity in absolute terms, not to prevent another nation from being more prosperous than they are at all costs.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
Nathan, I think what you are getting at is that you want a PBEM where cooperative victories are allowed. Is this not like any other PBEM? To my knowledge, there are no hard rules against this. While it might seem "unfair" for two players to cooperate so fully, any other two players are allowed to do the same if they so wish.
Where I think you are taking the idea a bit further is the case where one player feels that the cooperation is not worth it anymore, and decides to go for it alone or with another partner (possibly involving a backstab): you do not think this should be allowed. But who is to say what is best for my civ but myself? If I'm a third-world power, what is wrong with my banding together with other civs (if they are so willing) to prevent another civ from achieving its goals? Maybe that's the best means I have of increasing my power in absolute terms (kill the big guy, divvy up his land).
It is the very fact that Civ3 is a game that is the source of the problem here. A game cannot be completely realistic. What prevented the Russians from attacking the U.S. when it was clear the latter was going to win the race to the moon? I'm guessing it was the value judgement that such a goal was not worth an associated loss of life (or economic drain). There are no such ethics in Civ3. Indeed, it would be pretty darn cool to set up a game where a player loses "points" based on the number of units/population he or she destroys (like inverse VPs or something). But such a game requires some rules so that everyone knows how it is supposed to work.
I am not opposed to your diplomatic game idea per se, I just think that for it to be AU-playable you need to define what "realistic" means in game terms. Otherwise you are roleplaying what "realistic" means, and IMO there is no strategy in that.
Last edited by Dominae on 16-12-2004 at 21:02
|
|
| |
|
|
|
punkbass2000
|
|
Waterloo, ON, Canada
Feb 2002
time: 00:20
|
|
I would agree that being co-operative could be beneficial for a Spaceship win, and all allies involved could easily claim victory. I don't think the same could be said for other voctory types (except maybe Diplo.). I also think it would be very unlikely for this situation to occur in a competitive game, especially since for there to really be any "game" left there would have to at least one other significant civ that is not part of this alliance. It would be interesting for a scenario to occur where one large, Communist human civ was racing for a domination victory and harrassing an alliance of at least two small, productive human civs that were racing for a spaceship. However, as I say, an epic game that has (at least) three surviving, strong human players in the Modern Age is a tall order indeed without a very constricting ruleset. Even with a ruleset similar to what you have proposed, I still don't think it's concrete enough to generally create this sort of scenario. Unless you're going to ban warfare outright, there are always honourable and realistic reasons for war other than bring down the leader, like as I posted above about my RoR PBEM.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Arrian
|
 |
Kneel before Grog!
Jul 2001
time: 00:20
|
|
quote:
Dominae, it's not that I want a team victory condition per se, but rather that I want the potential for stable, long-term friendships and partnerships in which the players can be honest with each other. That's very hard to have in a game where the goal is for a single civilization to win, where the only way to win is to make your "friends" lose and the only way your "friends" can win is to make sure you lose. |
I have a similar distaste for the way CivIII plays out in MP/PBEM. I don't think it's unrealistic at all, actually. Perhaps my view of History is darker than yours, Nathan, but it seems like distrust, intrigue and eventual backstabbing are par for the course IRL as well as in Civ.
That being said, I still don't like it. I don't find it fun. I HATE the zero-sum game, when it's not against the AI.
-Arrian, just chipping in with my $.02
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by nbarclay
Dominae, it's not that I want a team victory condition per se, but rather that I want the potential for stable, long-term friendships and partnerships in which the players can be honest with each other.
|
There is always such potential in PBEM games. You just need to find a player/partner who thinks as you do. Requiring it is the tough part, which is my very point.
quote:
That's very hard to have in a game where the goal is for a single civilization to win, where the only way to win is to make your "friends" lose and the only way your "friends" can win is to make sure you lose.
|
Elaborate on your rules for ensuring this does not happen and I might warm up to your idea.
quote:
And on a related note, I don't like the way Civ's rules allow a seeming close friend to engage in a backstab with no warning of any kind. In the real world, there are almost invariably significant tensiions of some kind as a precursor to a surprise attack.
|
What you want is a game where Japan declares war before attacking the U.S. at Pearl Harbor. I quite like the fact that the threat of backstabs in Civ3 MP keeps everyone honest with respect to adequate defenses and meaningful alliances.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Modo44
|
 |
in western Poland
Jul 2004
time: 06:20
|
|
Arrian, is the more recent history just as bad? Because what we are talking about here, is a late-game backstab, not something that happens in the Ancient Age. It happens in the PBEM game, but did it happen in the real world as well?
My history knowledge is not very good, except for WWII, so maybe I don't know some facts from other periods. But I do know, that the "surprise" attacks that happened during WWII were not unexpected at all. Sure, they sometimes took forms unexpected to the attacked countries, but the hostility was clear and plain long before the fighting took place. Is WWI any different to that? How about earlier wars?
Dominae, Pearl Harbor was an expected attack. Perhaps not in that form, but everything was leading to a war long before that day. And everyone knew it was coming. [EDIT: This is an example of what Nathan was talking about. Relationships deteriorated, talks failed, both sides were preparing for war, and both knew it was inevitable. It didn't come out of the blue, and certainly not from a close ally. ]
Last edited by Modo44 on 16-12-2004 at 23:02
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Arrian
|
|
Kneel before Grog!
Jul 2001
time: 00:20
|
|
quote:
Arrian, is the more recent history just as bad? Because what we are talking about here, is a late-game backstab, not something that happens in the Ancient Age. It happens in the PBEM game, but did it happen in the real world as well? |
Of course it did. At least in the sense that everyone was out to get everyone else, and your ally one year might be your enemy the next. The ancient Greek city-states, for instance, were constantly jockeying for position.
In the real world, alliances exist because two or more states have common interests. Once those interests diverge, the alliance is doomed.
I think many of us wish that weren't so. And in Civ, which is of course fantasy, we hope to make it not so. We crave real partnerships & alliances to the very end. Some of us, anyway.
I *do* agree with the point about "surprise" attacks rarely being totally unexpected. But then again, I'm not sure that's really something we should be concerned with in Civ until the era of 3-move units and railroads (when such an attack can destroy an entire empire in 1 turn). For much of the game, the defender WILL have a chance to respond. Yes, the attacker may have a strategic advantage, but that's normal, really. The surprise attacks in history, even if they were suspected, DID convey advantages.
But anyway, IMO the "reality" angle isn't that important. The question that matters to me is "can we set up a game to play out in a manner we will find fun?" I'm coming into this discussion late, so I don't know if there have been concrete suggestions on rules or whatnot. If so, please direct me to them.
-Arrian
|
|
| |
|
|
|
nbarclay
|
|
Huntsville, Alabama
Dec 1999
time: 23:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Arrian
Of course it did. At least in the sense that everyone was out to get everyone else, and your ally one year might be your enemy the next. The ancient Greek city-states, for instance, were constantly jockeying for position.
In the real world, alliances exist because two or more states have common interests. Once those interests diverge, the alliance is doomed. |
I'm not an expert on ancient history, but didn't the Greek city-states (for example) know more or less where they stood with each other at a given time? Keep in mind that with history that far back, it's easy to view shifts that took decades or even generations to develop as "sudden" because the overall timeframe we're looking at is so long.
To illustrate what can happen, consider an example from more recent history. In World War II, both England and the Soviet Uniion were allies of the United States. But even during the war, we recognized that our alliance with the Soviet Union was a temporary expedient, not part of a lasting friendship. In contrast, we expected to remain close friends with England.
I would imagine that situations among Greek city-states were much the same, with leaders generally having a good idea of whether an alliance was a matter of lasting friendship or of setting aside differences temporarily against a common foe. Maybe I'm off base projecting what I know of recent history onto ancient times, but I don't think human nature has changed so much as to eliminate all similarities.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Modo44
Dominae, Pearl Harbor was an expected attack. Perhaps not in that form, but everything was leading to a war long before that day. And everyone knew it was coming.
|
Uh yeah, and that's why "everyone" let it happen. Hindsight is 20/20. In fact, Japan kept cordial relations up until the very end in order to keep the ruse going as long as possible (no, I am not only getting this from the movie!). Some people surely expected 9/11, but it happened anyway.
Edit: I am not saying either Japan or Al Qaeda were our allies, but simply that today you can still get burned if you let your guard down. Nathan wants a game where warfare is a formal affair.
quote:
[EDIT: This is an example of what Nathan was talking about. Relationships deteriorated, talks failed, both sides were preparing for war, and both knew it was inevitable. It didn't come out of the blue, and certainly not from a close ally. ] |
That is all fine and grand, but I agree with Arrian that the real world is, in reality, far bleaker than anything that happens in Civ3 (save multiple ICBM attacks). To play a game where everyone respects alliances and cooperates to launch a spaceship to Alpha Centauri is far more unrealistic. I am sure Russia felt pretty put out when Nazi Germany turned on them completely opportunistically...the Soviets probably just wanted to launch a spaceship!
I am getting OT, sorry.
Last edited by Dominae on 16-12-2004 at 23:41
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by nbarclay
To illustrate what can happen, consider an example from more recent history. In World War II, both England and the Soviet Uniion were allies of the United States. But even during the war, we recognized that our alliance with the Soviet Union was a temporary expedient, not part of a lasting friendship. In contrast, we expected to remain close friends with England.
|
There's the rub: define "close friends". In hindsight it is easy to say who was close friends and who was not; at the time it was "who did not attack whom". The U.S. and Canada actually fought wars, but historically we were more close friends than enemies.
I think you are downplaying opportunism in our history. Today it is far more difficult to do because everyone knows what everyone is doing and it is easy to dogpile any would-be aggressor. But historically we were far more barbaric.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Modo44
|
|
in western Poland
Jul 2004
time: 06:20
|
|
Arrian, by recent history, I mean closer to now. Have any big-time backstabs happened during WWI? Or shortly before? This is not about the difference in units. This is about a difference in attitude. Yes, attitude. It seems to me, those backstabs didn't happen at all for quite some time now. And the idea of deliberately attacking someone is kind of non-existent either. Or can anyone even consider any realistic alliance today, against the USA? I don't think so. But in a Civ3 PBEM, such an alliance would occur, no matter the cost, because that big guy is clearly running away with the game. That's what bothers me.
Sorry, but to me the reality angle is all that matters. Unfortunately, it requires players who have a similar understanding of the game. But hey, some people join those diplomacy games.
If you are asking about specific rules... that it's hard. Can't write "common sense" as a rule, right?  I'd go for some restrictions about hostile acts (wars, embargos, sea blockades, whatever-I-forgot), but I didn't think much about it.
Dominae, Pearl Harbor was a surprise, yes, but a tactical one. The place, the time, the actions were unexpected, I agree. But Japan was the "bad guy" for some time before that happened (you know, occupying parts of China, and other places, not being very nice to people there - things like that). And diplomatic efforts by USA to calm the situation down were unsuccesful, right? Sure, the ambassadors might be "cordial" and smiling, but that's not a reason to trust anyone.
A similar thing happened, when Hitler "surprised" Stalin with Operation Barbarossa. [sarcasm] The darned fool started it a whole year before Stalin had expected an attack, can you believe it? And they were suuuch close friends before.  [/sarcasm]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
Sigh.
History is too complex to be modeled by Civ3. If you think you can approximate it with a PBEM game, you will find yourself relying more on roleplaying than anything else. Why not formalize the rules of Nathan's game, like I am asking for? How about:
1. You cannot attack a civ without declaring war on them five turns prior.
2. You cannot declare war on a civ that you have had either Luxury deals, gpt deals, diplomatic deals, or traded techs with in the past 20 turns.
3. You cannot declare war on a civ unless they pose a significant martial threat to your empire. You must prove publicly that such a threat exists.
4. etc.
Again, I am not saying this type of game is bound to fail, just that you need to define it very precisely for it to make sense in the context of AU.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Arrian
|
|
Kneel before Grog!
Jul 2001
time: 00:20
|
|
quote:
Or can anyone even consider any realistic alliance today, against the USA? I don't think so. But in a Civ3 PBEM, such an alliance would occur, no matter the cost, because that big guy is clearly running away with the game. That's what bothers me. |
Well, yes and no. There is a well-known idea called "containing American power." It's not something people have (yet, anyway) used military force to do, but it DOES exist, even amonst our closest allies. The simple fact is that nobody likes/trusts the Big Dog - even countries that have no particular desire to become the Big Dog. Considering that the USA has only been the Big Dog for (very roughly) about 60 years, and only been the supposedly unopposed Big Dog for about 15... well, I don't really think we can draw conclusions as yet.
I agree with you on the gang-up attack. It DOES seem a tad artificial and unavoidable in Civ. What just happened in the PTWDGI is a prime example. Legoland was #1. They had to be taken down. Simple as that, if you want to win. Since both GS & GoW do want to win... there ya go.
But the only way I see to have a game that doesn't go that way is to play it with like-minded players. Or a very detailed ruleset...
-Arrian
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Modo44
|
|
in western Poland
Jul 2004
time: 06:20
|
|
Concerning Dominae's points.
Ad1
The 5-turn warning would be artificial, but I guess it is necessary. Otherwise we'd have to rely heavily on roleplaying (i.e. stories about hostilities, before actually going to war). 
Ad 2
20 turn deals... Oh well, if you insist. My concern is, 20 turns is a very long period in the Industrial Age, and later. Again, this is probably necessary to give some bounds to the game.
Ad 3
Define "martial threat"...
Dominae, it bothers me too, that Cavalry can die on a Pike. But it's RNG - it may happen, but it doesn't have to. The ganging against the strongest player will always happen in a normal PBEM. What bothers me is the inevitable unrealistic thing, not the one that happens once in a while.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
Hm, good point re: inevitibility of ganging up on the strongest player. I guess I have come to accept this so thoroughly that I have incorporated it into what I consider good and bad MP play (i.e. if you paint a target, they will shoot you).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Modo44
Define "martial threat"...
|
Cavalry, bombard units, ICBMs, and the like. Defensive units less so, unless you are amassing them in ridiculous quantities (you can do a lot of damage with 100 Infantry!).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
nbarclay
|
|
Huntsville, Alabama
Dec 1999
time: 23:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dominae
Uh yeah, and that's why they let it happen. Hindsight is 20/20. In fact, Japan kept cordial relations up until the very end in order to keep the ruse going as long as possible (no, I am not only getting this from the movie!). Some people surely expected 9/11, but it happened anyway. |
I'm one of the people who expected some kind of terrorist attack on the United States at some point. But there is a huge difference between expecting some kind of attack at some point and expecting a particular type of attack at a particular time. Actually, I would have been less surprised with some kind biological, poison gas, or even nuclear attack than I was at the tactic of hijacking airliners and ramming them into buildings.
The United States very definitely knew that relations with Japan were deteriorating, and that war was a distinct possibility. We even had the aircraft at Hickam Field (near Pearl Harbor) parked close together where they could be defended more easily against sabatoge by Japanese agents or sympathizers. (Which, unfortunately, turned out to be exactly the wrong move for the kind of attack that actually did materialize).
But the expectation was that if Japan did decide to go to war against us, their initial targets would be closer to home - with the Philippines a likely prime target. Their use of carrier planes to launch a surprise attack so far from their homeland came as a surprise in spite of our knowing that a war with Japan was a real possibility. Sometimes attacking in a different way from how an enemy expects can be just as effective as if the enemy didn't expect the possibility of an attack at all.
[quote[That is all fine and grand, but I agree with Arrian that the real world is, in reality, far bleaker than anything that happens in Civ3 (save multiple ICBM attacks). To play a game where everyone respects alliances and cooperates to launch a spaceship to Alpha Centauri is far more unrealistic. I am sure Russia felt pretty put out when Nazi Germany turned on them completely opportunistically...the Soviets probably just wanted to launch a spaceship! [/QUOTE]
I'm not saying that everyone should always respect alliances. Rather, my original idea was for players to keep each other apprised of how (from a role playing perspective) their peoples feel about each other, and to play accordingly. Thus, to follow your example, "Stalin" would know that his agreement with "Hitler" was a matter of purely pragmatic mutal self-interest, not a reflection of anything resembling genuine friendship between the two nations. Players would then have a choice of whether to give their partnerships a tone of genuine trust and friendship or just a tone of temporary mutal self-interest.
By the way, even the best of friendships would not necessarily be permanent. Players could roleplay a breakdown in relations if they so desire. But civs would not go from genuine friendship to war overnight. And in a game where the goal is not to win at all costs, there would be a lot less pressure for players to abandon a successful friendship and partnership just because their partner is ahead of them.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Modo44
|
|
in western Poland
Jul 2004
time: 06:20
|
|
Dominae, the basic "martial threat" definition would mean, that the USA of today is such a threat. Same goes for Russia, China. And that's before counting the ones with ICBMs, but with relatively weak conventional military. This one is not there yet, I think.
This brings out another point. While 100 Infantry can be considered a threat (and certainly fun  ), it can also be considered a necessary defense, if a country is big. Consider the land forces of USA, and Mexico (chosing a neighbour, to make it simpler) - one could wipe the other out in a blink, right? This could happen to many countries neighbouring the "big guys", but they don't try to prepare a combined attack because of that. So, in addition to a large military, some sort of aggression is needed to become a "martial threat", IMO. Perhaps previous big offensive wars fought by someone, could be the additional reason leading to a counter-alliance?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Modo44
|
|
in western Poland
Jul 2004
time: 06:20
|
|
Sure, you need players who feel the same about the game. But rules can still be helpful. Of course, you could just say you agree on the basic idea, but that can lead to misunderstandings.
Rules can make players see, how close their understanding of the idea really is. Also, they can give specific descriptions, that "remind" players to do the right thing. This would be valuable for those playing normal PBEMs as well. And, you can agree on banning some ugly semi-exploits, like combat-settling. It's better to have all that written down, IMO.
Last edited by Modo44 on 17-12-2004 at 01:44
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:20.
Apolyton Time is 00:20. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
16-12-2004 18:38
|