20-04-2005 21:04									#421
	Tired of ads?

wow... we finally have war... and we have a Con sighting

	21-04-2005 06:27									#422
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

howdy con

	13-05-2005 01:26									#423
	Remove this text

Howdy

I only come around once in a while.

Beta doesn't let me do much anymore

	20-06-2005 07:53									#424
	Re: C3cdg1? Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by snoopy369 Diplomacy: % No OOG contact until IG contact % No Map Sharing until Map Making (or discussion of specific directions, ie distances AND compass direction, one or the other is ok w/o mapmaking) % No OOG military coordination unless IG alliance % No OOG resource trading embargo unless IG alliance or tech embargo (when available) (Trading embargo OK with Embassy) % No OOG discussion of specific units, undiscovered techs, or other civs w/o Embassy

I'd like a clarification and confirmation of the rules we are using as per Snoopy's original post, specifically:

1. When is map info sharing allowed (there was some talk of leaving it until Navigation)?

2. No military coordination allowed unless an in game alliance is declared?

3. No discussion of specific military units without an Embassy?

Thanks

	20-06-2005 08:11									#425
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

1. Map sharing allowed with mapmaking

2. Military coordination when there is an in game alliance.
It does not say alliance needs to be openly declared in game.

3. Indeed, Embassies required.

Hope that helps you.
Wonder if that will help your nation though

	20-06-2005 09:08									#426
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

In-game alliance I believe means that an alliance must be declared through the diplomacy screen.

	20-06-2005 09:16									#427
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Where does it state that?

	20-06-2005 09:53									#428
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

It doesn't state it anywhere, but I believe that's the definition:

OOG - out of game. Anything not governed by the game mechanics/engine, ie, email or chat discussion where teams agree things or make plans between themselves

IG - in game. Governed by the game mechanics/engine. Limited to the things you can do in the diplomacy screen, such as ROP, MPP, military alliances, trades of techs and luxuries one currently posseses, etc.

In other words for example, if there is a military alliance, then it must be declared "in game" by the civs agreeing to it in the diplomacy screen. This indicates those teams may be (but not necessarily) coordinating military action against a common enemy. If there is no alliance declared in the diplomacy screen, then those teams cannot coordinate military action.

That is my understanding, and I hope we can get some clarification from other admins/players/organisers.

	20-06-2005 09:59									#429
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

So thus a alliance would require an embassy, that certainly makes sense.

	20-06-2005 10:20									#430
	Increase Your PM Length

Not only an embassy, but also a Military Alliance declared in-game via the diplomacy screen. For example, have you and Euphorica done that?

	20-06-2005 10:29									#431
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

How would you have that done?

	20-06-2005 10:40									#432
	Put an end to popups!

Then clearly you have not declared an in-game alliance with Euphorica, and so it seems you may be in breach of the rules regarding military coordination.

That's why I aasked for a clarification in the first place.

Perhaps other teams would like to comment on this.

	20-06-2005 10:47									#433
	Got spare money?

Perhaps you could answer the question

"How would you have that done?"

you are a tad smug in jumping to conclusions... yet again...

and if there is an alliance, do you have an embassy? so how would you know?

still interested: "How would you have that done?"

	20-06-2005 10:53									#434
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Aqualung71 Not only an embassy, but also a Military Alliance declared in-game via the diplomacy screen. For example, have you and Euphorica done that?

You say here a "Military Alliance"

Could you possibly explain how this is shown in the diplomacy screen?

	20-06-2005 11:05									#435
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Paddy the Scot you are a tad smug in jumping to conclusions... yet again... and if there is an alliance, do you have an embassy? so how would you know? still interested: "How would you have that done?"

No, not being smug at all. I raised a query on the rules, and if you read the terms I have used such as "may" and "it seems" you will see I haven't jumped to any conclusions at all.

As to how it is done....open the diplomacy screen with the civ with whom you are wishing to enter into a military alliance, and click on "Military Alliance against......" whichever team it is. Then, anyone who has an embassy with you or your ally will see the alliance connector in the foreign advisor's screen.

	20-06-2005 11:54									#436
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Thank you.

A very good point you have made here.

	20-06-2005 13:17									#437
	Full PM-box? Change here!

I belive an in-game alliance will still be invisible to the target as diplomatic details is more limited during war, even when having an embassy (you need an embassy to view other folks alliances btw)

	20-06-2005 13:35									#438
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

I am certain that an in-game alliance would be hidden from the third civ if both civs are at war with the third civ, as you can't have an embassy with a civ you're at war with.

	20-06-2005 13:44									#439
	Inflate your Upload Space

but youmay have an embassy before the war and then these things could be seen. In other words you can't build embassy during war or investigate cities but if you already had an embassy you may have information about the diplomatic issues related to that civ.

Or at least I think so

	20-06-2005 13:52									#440
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

No. Your embassy is closed during a war, and you can't see details about the civ's diplo, as far as I know. (For example, in a certain war i'm having with a certain Beta in another game, I can't see anything about his civ other than its war with me and my ally, although i had an embassy pre-war.)

Regardless, that rule didn't make the final exploit list - here ... it was part of my initial proposal, but not continued, particularly once some of the folk, like UnO, had weighed in who had more experience with DGs.

If it is something that everyone feels should be in the rules proper, we can add it now, I suppose, but please don't assume that everything from my proposal is a rule - that was made before anyone was in this game, remember, and it was written by someone with nearly no experience in Demogames.

	20-06-2005 14:00									#441
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Thanks Snoop

	20-06-2005 14:38									#442
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Thanks for the responses.

I wasn't sure what the final rules were so it was worth asking

On the Foreign Advisors screen, I always though what ormuzd said was correct. In fact, IIRC when you are at war with a civ with whom you previously shared an Embassy, the Embassy still exists but cannot be used (refer the Espionage screen which will still show the little building next to the civ's name).

Anyway, snoop seems to have specific experience on this matter, so it seems you cannot see all those lines going around the leaderheads

In any case, my point in raising this was not so much to tell a team that 2 others are allied against them (like, we kinda know that already ), but as a mechanism for the other teams who have Embassies to know.

Snoop - those 4 exploit items we voted on - are you saying they are the only rules at all? Clearly there are many other things you proposed in your first post that are not included in that exploit thread.

Regardless, interesting discussion

	20-06-2005 14:51									#443
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

I'm saying they're the only rules we voted on (well, there are other rules voted on as well, like combat reports or things like that). Looking back at that list makes me wonder what i was smoking, although as i said i had little experience in DGs at the time "No OOG discussion of other civs w/o embassy" ... hah, right. Who here hasn't done that?

I think that, other than those exploits, we should follow general ethical principles ... and basic PBEM standards of conduct. Just nothing so iron-civer as those rules (that i ironically called 'not iron civer' ...

	20-06-2005 21:07									#444
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

So what is the ruling?

All I see, based on the vote totals is:

quote: Snoopy369: No, Upgrade, Mapmaking, No Paddy: Beta: No, Upgrade, Mapmaking, No Aqualung: Yes, No, Navigation, No Conqueror: No, Upgrade, Mapmaking, No

So did we agree to the following?

No ship chaining
resource sharing for Upgrade
map exchange on Mapmaking
No to Accepting Peace and immediately declaring War

Are these the only rules? What has been decided about military and trade alliances without in game declaration?

I know if I assumed that all alliances were open and in game, I'd hate to be like A71's Desolation Row looking at the possibility of 2 civs in an alleged undeclared alliance against me.

If there has been a misunderstanding or unintended breach of the rules, do the team leaders need to confer as to what happens next?

Should a complete list of rules be posted for future play of this game?

	20-06-2005 21:33									#445
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Interesting observation skrobism, though while I was interested in an interpretation of the rules, it doesn't much matter from a practical sense.

I will say however that it is clear that the Horde and Euphorica have been acting in a military alliance against us for some time, and that immediate disclosure of this fact by the Horde when they first declared war on us, instead of concocting some **** and bull story about our exploring Warrior straying into a battle zone 5 or 6 turns earlier, would have given us a lot more warning of their joint actions and perhaps enabled us to prevent them razing one of our cities

While we do not wish to make a big deal over this, it is of course up to the other teams to decide whether this undisclosed alliance was against the spirit of the game and hence unfair.

[EDIT: clearly the censors have never heard a kock and bull story ]

	20-06-2005 21:42									#446
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Aqualung71 While we do not wish to make a big deal over this, it is of course up to the other teams to decide whether this undisclosed alliance was against the spirit of the game and hence unfair.

While it is easy to go in now and start that in-game alliance, I don't think reprimanding Euphorica and the Horde for entering an "unfair" alliance is viable when none of us understood what the rules of the game were. Going in after the fact and deciding what our two teams did before the rules were clarified was wrong would be a bit hard to take.

In any case, how would you have better protected Sidon when Euphorica has been knocking on your door and tying up your units on the other side of your empire? For all you knew, Euphorica itself could have attacked Sidon as it is the closest city to our own lands.

	20-06-2005 22:21									#447
	Support Apolyton

It would have been a lot nicer if Euphorica and BOH admitted to the fact that they had an alliance when BOH declared war on DR. It would not have changed anything, so why not disclose the alliance?

As to the question "Are secret alliances unfair and against the spirit of the game?", alliances have to be kept secret, otherwise you are going to tell your opponent what is going on. So I don't have a problem with idden alliances.

Aqua, you should have been more paranoid

	20-06-2005 22:22									#448
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

re: Interesting observation skrobism

Not sure what that 'observation' is.

re: clarification of rules
Before moving forward I would like to know where the team leaders stand on the rules in general, outside of this particular case.

The leaders should confirm what the rules of play are and TOP them before we go much further in game.

	20-06-2005 22:29									#449
	Remove this text

I'd like to add that I agree with Krill in that I have no problem with secret alliances. I think it adds to the espionage, and politics of the game.

	20-06-2005 22:47									#450
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Krill It would have been a lot nicer if Euphorica and BOH admitted to the fact that they had an alliance when BOH declared war on DR. It would not have changed anything, so why not disclose the alliance?

That I can agree with. We probably could have formally declared the alliance. Though like you say it wouldn't have changed anything. Not protecting Sidon had no bearing on the alliance as it could have been Euphorica attacking it just as easily as BOH as I said above.

quote: As to the question "Are secret alliances unfair and against the spirit of the game?", alliances have to be kept secret, otherwise you are going to tell your opponent what is going on. So I don't have a problem with idden alliances.

Agreed. As long as it's not an alliance to "end the game as co-winners" That brings about a completely different set of circumstances as happened in the PTWDG1.

quote: Aqua, you should have been more paranoid