 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
DeepO
|
 |
supporting Candle'Bre
Jan 2002
time: 06:18
|
|
Phh... this thing is progressing so fast, you spend on night at a bar and everything changed so drastically you can't even comment anymore. Oh well, who cares.
quote:
Originally posted by Master Zen
5) Would GS and Lego have been defeated if GoW and ND merely agreed to a "reach the game together before duking it out" pact? Yes. |
You fail to see the point. You just proposed a similar change of the game rules. A locked alliance until everyone is gone is one game, and no matter what kind of victory conditions you agree to after that is a second game. If you are first in a locked alliance, it doesn't matter one single bit how the game is ultimately decided, as it is effectively a second game. Whether you fight it out, or go for a UN win, or declare victory doesn't change the fact that the first game was rigged.
This is a very thin line, I know. Personally I think that Trip should have forbidden it before it happened, but I think it wouldn't have been possible. Aeson is right: we did discuss the possible alliance, but at the time (when Lego was gone), we felt it would have been offensive if we just mentioned to GoW:"If you are allied to ND, there is no point anymore of continuing, as ND and GoW together reached dominance. Maybe you could continue with us". In hindsight, maybe we better said it.
Do you see the effect of this? GS knew that we had to go for Lego, as left alone they would have won or at least be a lot stronger than us. We also knew that in going for Lego, we gave the game to ND, and they would become a tougher nut to crack. We also knew GoW would aim straight for nukes. There was no choice for us, the order in which we had to fight was fixed. And because nobody really has ever considered us a true partner (in order: Vox before declaring war, RP before accepting our 'help', Lego when trying to get them to fight on our side of the Bobian war), fighting was the last option.
So, you may think that we were easy in being your thugs to take out Lego (BTW, don't forget we invited you, and we put the most resources into the war. Without us there never would have been a Lego war), but we had no choice. If we knew there would have been a locked alliance, or if we even had realised that it was a possibility instead of something which should have naturally repulsed, even offended all teams, the game would have ended after the Lego war.
Would it make me feel a winner, after we had such a decisive victory? Not more than now. Our victory is that we were able to forge a large power from a tiny island, and got along superbly even with a lot of strong characters on the team. We never had one fight, not once names were called in our forum (well, between our own, of course. Cursing at MZ has become our national hobby  ). That is our victory. So, in-game we lost, and I personally have no problems with that at all. However you really have to think on your own position, because if you feel you won in a fair way, or even half-won in a fair way there might be one side of the story you just want to fail to see.
Last point: why we never asked for your help against ND: We did ask you how to continue after the Lego war. But frankly, we reached a point were we were a bit tired from the diplomacy side of the game. The last year or so up until the end of the Lego war, it basically came down to both CH and me doing the external side of things, and we were very busy right about then: CH with his band and the recording of his CD, and myself with finding a job. Both of us kind of let go of the chatter with other teams. This might have been the reason why you never felt it was formally asked, as it was discussed in team. But don't use that as a point right now, you could have suggested it to us and didn't. Instead, you either ignored all our important questions("Interest in sharing research?"), or made something up (your "ND doesn't like you having uranium" was hilarious). Don't put the blame on our side.
And frankly, I hate it to hear that this debate is only about whining and sore-loserism. What is important is that we settle this before ever starting something else. If we continue to view things differently, and are only able to decide on rules in hindsight, we are bound to meet the same problems again in every serious poly DG we start. So let's just for a moment try to see the other side of things, please. I understand GoW and ND's position on sharing a half-victory, as it would have been better then losing. I don't agree at all, but I see their point. Now please, try to see our point, try to get why this is so cheesy and gamebreaking to us.
DeepO
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Aeson
|
 |
orangesoda
Nov 2001
time: 22:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Master Zen
So obvious that we didn't even have that planned back then... |
quote:
Originally posted by GhengisFarb
1) ND and GoW were allied for a shared victory from almost the beginning of the game. |
quote:
Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx
No, it wasn't a shared victory, it was a "we'll have a big war between us at the end" alliance. |
Who's telling the truth?
quote:
Likewise another aspect where perhaps my view of this game differed than yours was that to me, this game doesn't prove anything definitive and thus I didn't see the need for there to be a sole undisputed leader. |
The definitive thing is that at the beginning of the game, every team set out with the goal of being the winner. The victory conditions were voted on, and all of them are single team conditions. One team will (would?) accomplish in-game victory.
Does it mean they played the best? That's subjective. Everyone's free to their opinion.
quote:
I doubt any of us would have considered an alliance with Lego at that stage. They were just too powerful. Heck, they STILL have the biggest score in the game right now!  |
So you see the pickle GS was in.
quote:
That's what I never understood about GS, why you witheld many things that if I were in your shoes I would have definitely considered. It would not have been insulting to us, heck, it would be a bit frightening since we'd be like "oh sh*t, they know". |
We thought it would be insulting. We obviously differ on that point, but it is how GS views it. It's the same reason we wouldn't accuse a team of cheating without proof. We didn't want to insult your team.
Besides, if we had sent that, and you realized "oh sh*t, they know", what difference would that make? You wouldn't have waited as long before acting against us. It couldn't have helped GS in the least, only hurt us. We certainly didn't want to frighten you...
quote:
Likewise I never understood why you never approached us for an alliance against ND. What was the worst thing that could've happened? We'd say no. |
By asking for an alliance, our plans would have been compromised. We wanted GoW and ND to think we were being passive and as small a threat as possible. It seemed to have worked for a while...
quote:
When it became obvious your reluctance to keep that Uranium tile (the first hint was your acceptance of my Lego-split map, despite handing you the Uranium - which I had no choice since keeping it on our side would look real crooked - I placed the border conveniently where an ND city could target it with artillery) they decided to strike RP. |
We knew that if we had Uranium, we became a much bigger target. We also knew there was no way we could defend the Uranium where it was, against GoW or ND, let alone both. You each had much easier access from your homeland to Lego, and much larger economies to produce units with.
quote:
Everything went to hell when you got Uranium. |
Exactly. That should make it very clear why we didn't push hard about Uranium on Lego.
Getting Uranium at that point screwed up what little chance our plans had of working. As an "irrellevent" team, maybe we'd get the chance at ND 1v1. The Uranium jumping diminished the chance of that perception being held.
quote:
It was this fact, that you weren't even willing to attempt to ally with us against ND, that made us think that you'd have used those nukes against us without fliniching if you had the chance. In our eyes that meant only one thing - you had to go, you had to go soon, and you had to go by whatever means necessary. |
I thought it was obvious we would lose the game in any war situation, as to win militarily we'd have to invade Bob, and invading Bob would always trigger "Bob for Bob". We'd basically have to beat ND and GoW, both with larger economies and militaries, in one turn. Even with nukes that couldn't happen.
The only way we'd have a chance in war was by signing up with ND or GoW against the other. We thought that was so obvious, that to try to sign either of you up would let you both know that we wanted war, and thus we would lose. Our only chance was to make you both think we didn't want war, and let the Uranium situation "obsolete" us, so we wouldn't be the default target.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Master Zen
|
 |
of naughty
Jan 2003
time: 23:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DeepO
Phh... this thing is progressing so fast, you spend on night at a bar and everything changed so drastically you can't even comment anymore. Oh well, who cares.
You fail to see the point. You just proposed a similar change of the game rules. A locked alliance until everyone is gone is one game, and no matter what kind of victory conditions you agree to after that is a second game. If you are first in a locked alliance, it doesn't matter one single bit how the game is ultimately decided, as it is effectively a second game. Whether you fight it out, or go for a UN win, or declare victory doesn't change the fact that the first game was rigged.
This is a very thin line, I know. Personally I think that Trip should have forbidden it before it happened, but I think it wouldn't have been possible. Aeson is right: we did discuss the possible alliance, but at the time (when Lego was gone), we felt it would have been offensive if we just mentioned to GoW:"If you are allied to ND, there is no point anymore of continuing, as ND and GoW together reached dominance. Maybe you could continue with us". In hindsight, maybe we better said it.
|
I think my previous assesment was correct: most GSers find a shared victory to be "breaking the rules" because most GSers have little or no multi-player experience. Have you ever played a PBEM DeepO? Aeson? Part of this is the reason most other teams felt GS to be so "rigid" during most of the game, because perhaps you guys felt this was just another SP game in terms of its mechanics. Take your terminology for example, use of the word locked alliance to describe the GoW-ND situation. First of all, its an incorrect term to use since a locked alliance in C3C terms means that two or more teams begin the game as allied and thus win cooperatively. This was not true in our case as we did not start the game allied and our "locked" alliance only occured during the final 1/4 of the game (time-wise).
Perhaps if more of you had multi-player experience you'd see such out-of-the-book situations are not only valid but actually quite commonplace. Things in PBEMs happen which would be outrageous to imagine happening in an SP game, and while a set of rules are usually defined (no trading of maps until the required tech is obtained, perhaps no use of fortifying or F1 exploits) everything else is not only valid but encouraged since MP gaming involves a dominance of not only in-game abilities but out-game ones also.
Like I said, there were so many things that were not done by-the-book in this game that I'm astounded that GS is finally complaining about them now that the game is over. Trading F11 info and unit stats without Intelligence Agencies is impossible. Yet it was done. Trading maps in which units were actually shown on screen is also impossible. It happened also. Alliances forged out of war are impossible in SP also and they were quite commonplace in this game (take the statement of Bobian unity when Vox landed, take GS-GoW's cooperation long before the actual Lego War started etc etc.). Try to have an allied civ "gift you" some cities for protection in SP like GS did to RP. And convince them to give them back in the end. Could a continental split have been possible too? I mean, about 1/3 of ND's "historical" territory - including two of their biggest cities - ended up being ours after the Bobian war. Try and get an AI ally to agree to that.
I'm not going to bother listing every single out-of-the-book situation which occured since my point should be more than obvious by now. These things happen in every PBEM and that is why the PBEM cracks are in a league of their own just like the SP strategy gurus are in another. They involve a different set of skills to be dominant, and mastering one aspect of the game does not guarantee that you'll be just as good in the other. Bad micromanaging might be compensated by good diplomacy (a skill which no matter how many SP games you play will never prepare you against a human). Likewise beating the AI at war on Sid will not necessarily prepare you when facing a human which will not fall for the AI's typical stupidites.
In conclusion, for an MPer, it was nothing out of the ordinary to find alternatives to victory. It was not "rule breaking" to act in such an unorthodox (pardon the pun UnO) fashion. Rule breaking to us means blatant cheating, everything else, from forging the most complex trading pact, to organizing secret alliances, to agreeing to win the game together, was definitely part of this game's strategy.
quote:
Do you see the effect of this? GS knew that we had to go for Lego, as left alone they would have won or at least be a lot stronger than us. We also knew that in going for Lego, we gave the game to ND, and they would become a tougher nut to crack. We also knew GoW would aim straight for nukes. There was no choice for us, the order in which we had to fight was fixed. And because nobody really has ever considered us a true partner (in order: Vox before declaring war, RP before accepting our 'help', Lego when trying to get them to fight on our side of the Bobian war), fighting was the last option.
|
You do realize that if you didn't have a partner to ally with that was because of your own doing? I'm not going to critizice your handling of diplomacy DeepO because I think both you and CortHaus did a wonderful job and it was an honor for me to scheme and fight alongside you. But I will criticize your diplomacy before that and it was not really what I would call good. I will point to two examples:
1 - Vox made a blatant act of aggression against GS. Under most circumastances this would have resulted in huge mass of support for your team. Why did the exact opposite happen? Because Vox not only used good pre-war diplomacy with everyone else, used some very good humor during the war, and acted very humble in defeat. GS on the other hand had acted like a hermit before the game, nobody knew who you were and what you wanted, hence no-one really felt any compassion that you got invaded. Then of course there were some rather un-diplomatic incidents during the war that made the rest of the teams side even closer to Vox.
now here's the flip side:
2 - When Vox invaded Bob the exact opposite happened. Not only did we manage to make them look like evil agressors but all three Bobian civs rallied in unison against them. And what was probably one of the finest diplomatic maneouvers in this entire game (kudos to GF for this) we got Vox to channel their strength against their neighbor subsequently not only dooming them (this was not our intention as we thought Vox would win) but saving our own skin (Vox could have probably defeated GoW and ND put together back then, and only distance might have saved RP).
Now, here's what I find interesting. Given the relative imbalance of power between the three main continents, the most likely one to have joined forces to win this game together should have been Vox-GS. Vox was the most penalized team by the RNG. GS was much more favored but still behind the other 4 powers then. A united Stormia/Estonia coupled with some good divide-and-conquer diplomacy vs GoW and ND might have gotten you a win, or at least gotten you closer to one. Just think about it, Vox's immortal strength against GoW/ND, and just 10 turns of mobilization by GS used agaisnt Roleplay. Goodbye Bob.
Don't blame me for never having considered this.
quote:
(well, between our own, of course. Cursing at MZ has become our national hobby ).
|
Suddenly I'm scared to have a peek in your forum 
quote:
Last point: why we never asked for your help against ND: We did ask you how to continue after the Lego war. But frankly, we reached a point were we were a bit tired from the diplomacy side of the game. The last year or so up until the end of the Lego war, it basically came down to both CH and me doing the external side of things, and we were very busy right about then: CH with his band and the recording of his CD, and myself with finding a job. Both of us kind of let go of the chatter with other teams. This might have been the reason why you never felt it was formally asked, as it was discussed in team. But don't use that as a point right now, you could have suggested it to us and didn't. Instead, you either ignored all our important questions("Interest in sharing research?"), or made something up (your "ND doesn't like you having uranium" was hilarious). Don't put the blame on our side.
|
I understand it was not your fault if your diplomacy slacked after the Bobian war. Real life tends to get in the way and you can't blame people for not being active because of this. Plus, you were very hard pressed to find someone as good as CortHaus for your diplomatic work - or yourself too since you had the added burden of being the turnplayer. This is truly one case of nothing more than bad luck, but it should not diminish the work you guys did manage when you were active.
As per why we didn't ask you for such an alliance was simple: we wanted to play the part of the guy sitting on the fence watching the other two clobber the hell out of each other and then swoop in to pick up your rotten carcasses. Even if we were not allied to ND, it would have been our best interest to remain neutral until a killer blow was landed by one or the other. And like I said to you, if GS was to intervene in Bob we would go to war against you. You accepted this and never complained, yet in your first paragraph here you seemed to suggest that such type of deals were also "rule breaking".
quote:
And frankly, I hate it to hear that this debate is only about whining and sore-loserism. What is important is that we settle this before ever starting something else. If we continue to view things differently, and are only able to decide on rules in hindsight, we are bound to meet the same problems again in every serious poly DG we start. So let's just for a moment try to see the other side of things, please. I understand GoW and ND's position on sharing a half-victory, as it would have been better then losing. I don't agree at all, but I see their point. Now please, try to see our point, try to get why this is so cheesy and gamebreaking to us.
DeepO |
DeepO, I never said all the debate was about sore loserism because I clearly mentioned both people who seemed to be honestly arguing the mechanics of the game and others who I honestly percieve to just be whining for the sake of it. The tone of each post is a clear indicator of who is who, and it should be more than obvious that posts like yours aren't senseless whining but thought-provoking arguments.
-MZ
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Darekill
|
 |
Zweibrücken
Oct 2002
time: 06:18
|
|
Why wait for the Fora to be open.
Here is the exact text of the B.I.T.C.H. which is written in our history books and also as a copy is in the hands of Trip.
GLORY OF WAR - NEU DEMOGYPTICA Allianz zum Sieg (A.Z.S.)
1)Die Nationen "Glory of War (GoW)" und "Neu Demogyptica (ND)", vereint durch eine gemeinsame Geschichte und gemeinsame Wurzeln in den heiligen Land Bob/Borconia, präsentieren hiermit die Ausrufung einer Allianz für den Rest des Spieles, mit dem ultimativen Ziel eines gemeinsamen Sieges mit allen möglichen Mitteln.
a) Zwei Nationen, ein Reich
Hinfort arbeiten die Staaten GoW und ND zusammen wie ein einziges Gebilde. Dies fordert eine Zusammenarbeit in jedem und allen Aspekten des Spiels.
b) Technische Kooperation - GoW und ND können gemeinsam forschen wenn es von beiden Seiten als notwendig angesehen wird. Technologien die von einem der Partner erforscht werden auf Wunsch dem anderen Partner ohne Kosten weiter gegeben.
c) Luxus und Resourcen Handel - GoW und ND werden mit einander alle Luxusgüter teilen die im Überschuß vorhanden sind. Jede Nation wird die andere Nation mit jeder strategischen Resource versorgen die sie selbst mehr als einmal besitzt und über die, die andere nicht verfügt. Für den Fall das eine Resource für beide Nationen nur einmal vorhanden ist, wird diese Resource nach absprache so geteilt das sie für beide Nationen nutzbar ist.
d) Arbeiter Hilfe - GoW und ND können einander um Hilfe von überschüssigen Arbeitern ersuchen um für die andere Nation Felder zu bearbeiten.
e) Gemeinsame militärische Verteidigung - GoW und ND werden automatisch einander zu Hilfe eilen wenn sie von einer anderen Macht angegriffen werden. Offensive militärische Operationen können gemeinsam unternommen werden sind aber nicht durch dieses Abkommen erzwungen. In allen anderen Fällen wird direkte oder indirekte militärische Zusammenarbeit wärmstens Empfohlen.
2) Gemeinsame Siegeserklärung
GoW und ND erklären hiermit die Absicht eines gemeinsamen Sieges, durch alle möglichen Mitteln. Unter den Umständen die das Spiel in seinen Verlauf bietet, werden beide Teams so zusammenarbeiten, dass ein Sieg entweder durch GoW oder ND mit voller Unterstützung des anderen erreicht wird. Sobald eine Partei den Sieg erreicht hat, wird diese Sieges Erklärung veröffentlicht und beide Seiten werden zum Sieger erklärt.
3) Gemeinsames Auftreten
GoW und ND werden die ihnen zur Verfügung stehenden Mittel der Kommunikation nutzen, um gemeinsam ihre diplomatische, ökonomische und militärische Politik mit anderen Teams abzusprechen. Eine Diskussion bezüglich der Details dieser Politik mit anderen Teams wird angeregt, wobei es keine Geheimnisse zwischen den Teams geben darf. Nichtsdestotrotz soll alles getan werden um von den anderen Teams nicht als Allianz erkannt zu werden.
4) Austausch über Spielinformation
Beide Seiten teilen die Informationen über ihr jeweiliges Reich mit dem anderen Partner. Dies schließt Detais über Zugprotokolle, Screenshots und F1-F11 Daten mit ein.
5) Geheimhaltungs Klausel
Diese Allianz soll von GoW und ND bis zum Ende des Spiels geheim gehalten werden wenn die gemeinsame Siegeserklärung von beiden Seiten veröffentlicht wird. Ohne volles Einverständniss beider Seiten sollen keine Details über diese Allianz sollen offenbart werden.
6) Änderungen und Ergänzungen
Dieser Vertrag kann, mit Ausnahme der gemeinsamen Siegeserklärung, im gegenseitigen Einverständniss geändert und ergänzt werden. Es darf allerdings kein Allianzende vereinbart werden. Der Vertrag muß durch Abstimmung beider Teams verabschiedet werden um in Kraft zu treten.
7) Zusätzliche Klausel (optional)
Beide Seiten verpflichten sich, sich regelmäßig Freitags zu treffen um über Essen, Frauen, sowie Fußball? und das Spiel zu diskutieren.
Gezeichnet:
Darekill
Ministerpräsident von Neu Demogyptica
GLORY OF WAR - NEU DEMOGYPTICA ALLIANCE FOR VICTORY (A.F.V.)
The nations of the Glory of War (GoW) and Neu Demogyptica (ND), united by a common history and shared roots in the sacred land of Bob/Borconia hereby present this declaration of an alliance to last for the remainder of the game, with the ultimate objective of a joint victory by any possible means.
1) Two Nations, One Empire
Henceforth the empires of GoW and ND shall work together as a single entity. This will require cooperation in any or all aspects of the game.
a) Technological Cooperation: GoW and ND may perform joint tech research when it is deemed necessary by both sides. Technologies researched by any side will be shared with the other on demand at no cost.
b) Luxury and Resource Trading: GoW and ND will share with each other all luxuries which are found in surplus. Each nation will also provide to the other any resources which it poseses more than once and the other one does not possess. In case that there is a resource which is available only once for both nations,it will be shared after consultation so that it can be used for both nations.
c) Worker Assistance: GoW and ND may ask for the assistance of surplus workers from the other nation for tile improvement.
d) Joint Military Defense: GoW and ND will automatically come to the other's assistance if attacked by an outside power. Offensive military operations may be conducted in unison but are not bound by this treaty. In other cases, direct or indirect military collaboration is strongly suggested.
2) Joint Victory Statement
GoW and ND hereby declare their intention of a joint victory, by whatever means possible. Under the circumstances presented as the game progresses, both teams will work together so as to allow a victory by either GoW or ND with full assistance from the other. Once victory is attained by either side, this joint victory statement will be made public with both sides being considered the game winners.
3) Common Front
GoW and ND will use their available means of communication to coordinate in unison their diplomatic, economic and military policies with other teams. It is encouraged to discuss the details of these policies by both nations, with no secrets held by either side. Nevertheless extra effort will be made not to appear as an alliance to the other teams.
4) Game Info Sharing
Both sides may share information about their empire with the other. This includes details on turn reports, images of each nation, and F1-F11 data.
5) Secrecy Clause
This alliance will be held secret between GoW and ND until the end of the game, upon which the Joint Victory Statement will be made public by both sides. No details of this alliance may be disclosed without the full consent of both sides.
6) Ammendments
This declaration may be amended with the consent of both sides except for the Joint Victory Statement. No termination clause may be amended. This declaration must be approved by voting by the members of both teams in order to take effect.
7) Extra Clause (Optional)
Each side will meet regularly on Fridays to discuss food, women and football? and the game.
Signed:
Master Zen
Emperor of The Glory of War
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Aeson
|
|
orangesoda
Nov 2001
time: 22:18
|
|
Just to be clear, I don't think ND or GoW broke any rules. I certainly don't think any of the alliances in the game were breaking any rules.
The issue with vassal states is a valid concern. But is it actually a problem, and if so, how to address it?
All teams in this game were, at one point or another, in a position where they weren't the team that looked to be in the best position to win. Should a team in a position that is unlikely to lead to a win have to just stop playing altogether so as not to assist someone else's victory? What point is "unlikely" unlikely enough to warrant their removal from the game? The in-game ruleset for governing this is when there is no chance to win, the team is removed. They are synonymous. I think that works fine.
As for the validity of the agreements themselves...
GS and RP had an agreement in place where RP was to support GS for the rest of the game as best it could in repayment for GS doing what it could to try to help RP. GS had a reason to try to keep RP in the game, gaining a potential supporter for the rest of the game. RP had a reason to offer what they did, keeping from being eliminated, and the possibility of becoming a thriving nation again. Would RP have ever turned on GS if the opportunity presented itself? I don't know. They agreed not to, they honored that agreement, but obviously agreements can be broken. In any case, RP still had the chance to make their own decisions about how to act.
That is the sovereignty of a team. The team gets to decide what is in their best interest. As long as that sovereignty isn't compromised (ie. another team playing their turns), then they are still a viable team working in their own best interest. I see no problem with that. Just as I see no problem with teams deciding to ally or help each other for any reason. The problem would be limiting team's sovereignty over it's decisions, not allowing it.
Last edited by Aeson on 06-06-2005 at 12:36
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Krill
|
 |
On a cold wet rock, in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean.
Dec 2003
time: 05:18
|
|
That is one old thread...
My view on vassals would have to be something along the lines of either not allow them, or allow them, but simply disallow a joint victory.
The advantage of allowing them is that it is possible to make use of land that would other wise be useless, and that you would have another vote in the UN.
Look at RP, the only way GS could have made use of their land was to place the FP in Elipolis. We had no chance of making that land productive otherwise. Lego had no way of making Voxtavia producive full stop, simply because of the sheer size of their continent.
And if the ISDG had carried on to a UN vote, without any other team being killed, Poly would have won simply as we had more allies. It would be the cheesiest way to win, no doubt, that (SOME) people would detest it though...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
UnOrthOdOx
|
 |
Hello....
Jun 2002
time: 22:18
|
|
Yeah... Too bad neither of you READ, or at least FOLLOWED that thread...
quote:
1. Dead - Sometimes you just have to do it. Their land is to good... or their empire is "inconvenient"... or you want to reduce your battlefront to just one or two borders... something. An important note here: Left over from Civ2, there's an almost automatic compulsion to clear your continent of foreigners... DON'T (at least not yet... read the rest of the post). Much more interesting and useful to leave them in place for other purposes, as below.
|
Nope, Lego nore GS killed the teams in question...
quote:
2. Vassal - It's a lot of fun being a bully. Beat'em up, intimidate, and you'll be able to extort what you want every 20 turns, or, failing that, just punish'em again and extort for peace (that's a lovely phrase). Vassals need to be left relatively healthy, and able to trade for techs with the other AI civs. A tough balancing act, but the good news is that vassals can be on other continents. Especially valuable later in the game, when you can be militarily strong enough to pull off a punitive intercontinental invasion. |
Neither was left healthy enough to make a very significant impact (other than perhaps a UN vote).
quote:
3. Punching bag - My personal favorite. I was in the US Marines, and we considered the Navy squids "training tools." These civs are for promotions and GLs exclusively. I want to beat them down to the point where they represent NO threat, but are healthy enough (and pissed enough) to send a steady stream of obsolete units my way. First, I want these guys ON my continent. Second, I will selectively deny them the resources to build resources for up-to-date, threatening attack units. Third, I'll orchestrate strategic alliances with every other AI civ I can, so they never get any help (actually, every civ on OTHER continents, so they get no help nor am I at risk of someone taking them out). Last, I'll decide the fields of battle... control all the high ground, and make sure that their only approaches are kill zones. When I take out their cities, I rarely capture and usually raze... keeps'em weak, and creates a heck of a warzone. |
*cough* RP But, neither Lego nor GS utilized this.
quote:
4. Client - A relatively weak civ that you can sell techs and old strategic resources too. I haven;t really created any of these, but they just seem to always be around. |
So...did you really 'sell' anything to them? Was it worth it? Either of you? I doubt it.
Vox made more sense IMO than the RP decision, though. Lego needed to take some heat off their lone big landmass at the time. Good PR move. I'm really missing what RP added to GS.
quote:
5. Lesser-developed nation - Meta-game concept. Help out the weak and far away, in order to harry the other world powers. Or just to watch glorious MPP-driven world wars. |
GS attempted this in the first RP war. Came close. Had you closed off that initial rider force, could have been a very different game...
That leaves:
quote:
6. World power - Not so much military threats, in that during early oscillating war you should have made all immediate neighbors into any of 1 through 5. These are the bad boys who might beat you to the punch in domination or the space race. |
Of which there are 2.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18.
Apolyton Time is 00:18. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
05-06-2005 12:25
|