 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Maniac
|
 |
Gent, Belgium
Jul 1999 time: 06:31
|
|
I had a chat with Chaunk. This should be the PM he sent to Flubber:
quote: Hi Flubber,
As a member of the CyCon (Although somewhat nominally recently, at not at all now, see later) I would like to pass on my personal apology for the treatment of your faction in the demo game. Personnally, I felt we were not acting in the way pact brothers should. My personal opinion is that a diplomacy deal is a deal, and should be honoured to the end. We made several deals, almost all of which involved far more giving on your part and far less on the CyCon's part. And the discussion seemed to reflect the fact that there was little intention of following up on the deal.
This I find completely unacceptable.
As such I have left the CyCon. This message hasn't been posted in the CyCon forum, nor will it be, although I will be sending a similar PM to Maniac.
I believe the final straw was the accepting of Doc:Ini. As you said, this is standard practice, and any queries should have been straightened out. In fact, they were not even brought up with you to my knowledge.
My apologies, I wish you and PEACE all the best.
Chaunk, former Omicron-8. |
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Googlie
|
 |
Commanding Officer, CRYPTEIA
Apr 1999 time: 21:31
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Maniac
Googlie, would it fall under the rules of banning defection if we asked/demanded PEACE not to tell any other faction of this PM they received and its content? |
Flubber has already alluded to Chaunk's resignation:
quote: Maniac, I believed it was a cheat to accept a tech when the offer came with a note not to accept it unless terms were agreed. I have been corrected on that point. However the belief is not that far fetched as I believe a member of your own faction resigned over this matter |
I will post a note in the PEACE forum (where the original Chaunk PM was reproduced) forbidding onward transmission of its contents, either overtly or by covert hint
G.
[subsequent edit] I have posted this in the appropriate PEACE thread:
quote: Flubber et al
In this instance I think Chaunk was offside in giving the details as to why he resigned (given our analogous "defectors' information" rule) in that you obtained CyCon "inner working protocols" other than thru the game mechanics.
You'll find it ironic, I know, but I must rule that this information (as to why Chaunk left the CyCon) go no further than PEACE members.
I have also advised the CyCon of this ruling |
(I should prolly go offline for about a week, starting right now ..................)[/subsequent edit]
G.
Last edited by Googlie on 16-10-2003 at 06:13
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Kody
|
|
If life's standing still and your soul's confused
Jun 2003 time: 14:31
|
|
*bump*
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Kody
|
|
If life's standing still and your soul's confused
Jun 2003 time: 14:31
|
|
Well here's my impression that I recieved from reading their forum.
They saw themselves as playing the pirate strategy, where you meet everyone early and trade techs between each of the factions you meet. The precieved it as part of the strategy when playing the faction to milk as much of this early advantage as possible as it doesn't last.
From what I could see, at the time the cycon decided to spilt with the pirates, the pirates realised they needed to start making a long term relationship.
So the pirates started making moves to strengthen their pact with the cycon to include an joint victory. Ofcourse by that time it was too late as the cycon had already made up their mind that they didn't want to associate with the pirates.
The peace were playing straight with the Hive, not because of anything to do with the Hive. Rather by that time they knew they weren't the tech brokers anymore. Also there was very little to gain by "working both sides". They believed were far more likely to gain surivial from the faction that was gifting them ECs, and at least making a token effort to protect them than the one that betrayed them in the past.
Edit:
It was a token effect, because of the war preparations elsewhere, and because I think the turn player at the time didn't quite realise the amount of military would be required in protecting the Peace until it was too late.
I figured that to protect the peace we should have built 1 probe foil, 2 needlejets, 2 choppers, 2 missle foils.
Last edited by Kody on 20-06-2004 at 14:14
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Kody
|
|
If life's standing still and your soul's confused
Jun 2003 time: 14:31
|
|
Well I read your forum. I think what triggered it was the pirates trying to gain the advantage with tech trading with the cycon. They squeezed the Cycon for extra cash while trading and there was a whole ruckus about that. Also there was a time when the pirates traded industrial economics from the university and then tried to trade industrial economics with the cycon. I think the cycon knew that the pirates hadn't gotten IE from the AI and complained about not getting the university comm-frequency.
I don't actually see the pirates betraying the cycon at any stage, maybe I missed it. I do see the pirates squeezing the cycon for extra advantage during the first two trades I think. As the pirates were obviously only looking out for themselves with those two trades.
The cycon didn't like the first few trades and that seemed to set the cycon's tone for the rest of the diplomancy.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Hercules
|
 |
in Tir Na Og
Sep 2002 time: 05:31
|
|
One further point:
When I aquired Ind Econ from the AI there was only short time frame to leap frog to Ind Auto: like 2/3 turns. This gave rise to the perception ( in Cycon circles) of Peace always pressuring Cycon , which wasn't the case.
However as I now understand it. Cycon were already on a war route with Peace: they saw acquiring Ind Auto as a bonus exploitation of Peace en route to elsewhere.
If they had had experienced Pbemers in their midst they might have seen things in a longer game perspective. But that's life.
Last edited by Hercules on 21-06-2004 at 04:48
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Kody
|
|
If life's standing still and your soul's confused
Jun 2003 time: 14:31
|
|
I wasn't experienced, and I knew exactly what early trading and cooperations means.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000 time: 22:31
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Kody
I don't actually see the pirates betraying the cycon at any stage, maybe I missed it. I do see the pirates squeezing the cycon for extra advantage during the first two trades I think. As the pirates were obviously only looking out for themselves with those two trades.
The cycon didn't like the first few trades and that seemed to set the cycon's tone for the rest of the diplomancy. |
Kody thats exactly right. Read our boards and there was never a plan to backstab the cycon's . We were taking the long view and the Hive-Drone domination was so apparent that alliances were the only thing that make sense.
We negotiated hard but in the first deal we gave up a tech and 20 ec's for a tech. I am still hard-pressed to see where we gained advantage there.
Bottom line on the trustworthiness issue is to ask
1. Who gave techs based on the word of their pactmate
2. Who broke pact and attacked without any provocation.
The only lies I am aware of are
1. Indicating our research path-- I remember wanting to switch to plan nets and the poll indicated we would do that-- but johnd switched us to soc psych instead on the belief we had a deal to get plan nets-- I had to maintain that deception-- The cycon boards are crystal clear that they would have reneged if they ever caught wind we were not researching plan nets
2. There is a lot said about us lying about the source of ind econ but that took place during my August vacation-- Did peace lie about that?? herc??
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:31. Apolyton Time is 00:31. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|