Do You Have a Code of Honor?

[Everyman]

This refers to a personal set of rules you abide by when playing against the computer. Here are a few examples from my own "code of honor."

(1) I don't draw first blood. I like to think of my civ as a peace-loving civ that resorts to warfare only when attacked.

(2) I try not to break treaties. (However, there are times when I provoke the AI into breaking them.)

(3) I don't build the Manhattan Project. For philosophical reasons. Also, I don't enjoy nukefests.

(4) I try to win before howitzers are available. IMO, howitzers are too powerful, so I try to win the old-fashioned way of bribery or destroying city walls and then killing off the defenders.

Of course, all items in my code of honor are negotiable.

Do you have your own code of honor?
[This message has been edited by Everyman (edited November 08, 2000).]

[Bohlen]

1) Only barb unit/city bribing allowed.
2) Honor an AI alliance until the AI breaks it and stabs me in the back.
3) No city poisoning.
4) Don’t drop nukes first.

Of course, any and/or all of these rules are thrown out the window mid-game depending on my mood at the time and how badly the AI is pissing me off.

[finbar]

I have to admit that I treat the AI in exactly the same way I know they will treat me - with contempt. An AI alliance, playing with MGE, isn't worth the software code it's written in. Which means, basically, I never enter into AI alliances.

------------------
Founder, ACS Pedantry Institute
Founder, ACS Gourmet Recipe Exchange
Troll & Hydey Wrangler
Mono Rules!
#33984591

I always keep a spotless reputation

[Mercantile]

I am with bohlen on this one

[ColdWizard]

1. I won't nuke them into submission.
2. Signing a peace treaty buys the AI at least 2 turns of peace.
3. I'll not break an alliance


edit: i forgot to mention this is less a "code of honor" and more a general tendency
[This message has been edited by ColdWizard (edited November 10, 2000).]

[Bereta_Eder]

No water poisoning
No nuclear missiles untill I get them in the head first (or untill it's evident that if I don't use them I lose
Never break an alliance first

well I almost always have spotless reputation. Unless I am real behind in size and need a sneak attack to win. Winning is most important after all!

I never use spies. I just never liked spy units. I never considered their actions very realistic. I prefer conventional warfare. Also why I never build manhattan project and never build nukes. I also never build cruise missles but that's mainly because I see them as a waste.

[East Street Trader]

I don't pay tribute.

[Ming]

Since the AI shows no honor, I don't either
(especially since your reputation has nothing to do with the scoring system)

I never poison cities, and usually don't nuke. But only because it's really not needed.

However, in MP... I don't break alliances, and any peace treaty I make is usually broken by the other player first. If I make a deal, I stand by it!

NO.

[kcbob]

Folks, the AI is trying to kill you. It is trying to beat you to AC. finbar said it best... treat the AI with contempt.

I'm also reminded of my days playing Risk. I would look at one of the other players and offer a treaty. Something along the lines of "If you don't attack me in Brazil for three moves, I won't attack you in North Africa for three moves." Then, one move later, I'd attack. Hey, all's fair in love and war, n'est-ce pas?

Now poisoning cities and building the Manhattan Project, I'd have to agree with you all on those. Bad move. Bad. Bad move.

------------------
Frodo lives!

[N35t0r]

1- Don't use nukes, don't build mahattan proj. (i do not like nukes, and i ensure i've built a SDI defense on all my cities before it is built)

2- I don't break alliances, but this is kept only due to chance.

that's about it, i guess...

I've never poisoned water, but it's only due to better oportunities.

[SetuSinger]

I never pay tribute to the AI!

I never start a nuclear war, if the enemy does not have nuclear weapons.

I never give my allied any techs if they demand so.

I always occupy all of the citys from a enemy, if he's a agressive guy and dangers the wealth and the freedom ( :-) ) of my civ!

[DaveV]

I'm with Ming on single-player ethics: whatever it takes to win. I usually keep a spotless rep for most of the game, but as soon as it becomes inconvenient I discard it like yesterday's socks.

I remember fondly our neighborhood Risk games from my youth. Like kcbob, we would declare very specific treaties: cease-fire between Alaska and Kamchatka for 5 turns. Unlike kcbob, I always felt obligated to abide by those treaties, both from the moral standpoint of keeping my word, and from the practical view of not establishing a reputation of being untrustworthy. Most of my MP experience has been in duels, with no quarter asked nor given, but I think a true MP game should be like those old Risk games: you keep your word and expect the other guy to keep his. If he doesn't, well, an elephant never forgets .

[Daddy-O]

I only play SP against the AI. So,

I treat the different civs the way they treat me.

Hostile Aggressive civs are treated with hostility, deceit, and - hopefully - total annilation and assimilation. I have no problem setting up Peace Treaties with these hostile to gain an advantage the attempt to crush them. My reputation be damned! I'm ridding the world of a menace.

Peaceful nations are allowed to live in peace with me. If I'm playing bloodlust I find it hard to wipe out a 4,000 year old ally. I usually retire at that point.

I hate peace treaties. I'd rather have a cease fire or war if I can't get a civ to agree to an alliance.

I don't attack when an ally requests it. I might say yes but rarely do. The AI never really helps me attack.

I never give away the gunpowder tech or other weapon related techs. Even peaceful allies can't be trusted with this too early. The AI tends to give it away to others too easily.

[Daddy-O]

kcbob,
The problem that you had there was that the other players could not seperate the 'game' from life. When I'm playing a competitive game, it is my goal to win. If the theme of the game is world domination and conquest, then breaking a treaty is just part of the game. Especially if the treaty is for just 5 turns. Why should I wait for the enemy to get into position to attack when I can hurt them now?

If someone doesn't expect that type of game play, you do run the risk of never getting that person to play with you again. I guess it depends who you play with, and what their expectations of gaming are.

I play games with people who are willing to get into heated yelling matches about game play - style and rules interpretation - but then walk into the kitchen for more beer, joke about this and that, then as soon as we return to the game table the 'fight' starts again. I see that 'fight' as part of the game. 'I can't believe you did that! You idiot!'

[kcbob]

quote: Originally posted by skrobism on 11-09-2000 01:03 PM I play games with people who are willing to get into heated yelling matches about game play - style and rules interpretation - but then walk into the kitchen for more beer, joke about this and that, then as soon as we return to the game table the 'fight' starts again. I see that 'fight' as part of the game. 'I can't believe you did that! You idiot!'

Exactly!!!

BTW. I'm attacking you in Eastern Australia.

------------------
Frodo lives!

[N35t0r]

quote: Originally posted by skrobism on 11-09-2000 11:50 AM I don't attack when an ally requests it. I might say yes but rarely do. The AI never really helps me attack.

The only time i do this is when i talk to them with this purpose.

I'm sure that this lowers your reputation less than if you just snak attack.

[Daddy-O]

We agreed that Australia was to be a combat free zone! You backstabber! What about the environmental effects? Think of the koalas - the kangaroos! You monster!

quote: Originally posted by HsFB on 11-09-2000 01:16 PM snak attack.

What is this? Cannibalism? Eat your enemies?

[Paulypav]

Don't break treaties, but I may encourage the AI to break the treaty for me

Generally don't build the manhattan project.

Don't start a nuclear war, but more than willing to retaliate.

Never poison cities.

Never give military advances unless I am well ahead on the tech tree. howitzers and tanks against legions and catapults gets boring pretty quickly.

Never pay tribute



------------------
“The American people have now spoken, but it’s going to take a little while to determine exactly what
they said.” — President Clinton

[kcbob]

quote: Originally posted by skrobism on 11-09-2000 01:26 PM We agreed that Australia was to be a combat free zone! You backstabber! What about the environmental effects? Think of the koalas - the kangaroos! You monster!

Waaahhh!!!

What do you expect??? After the way you attacked me in Brazil with two moves left in our prior treaty!!

Me a backstabber??? Et tu, skrobism?

------------------
Frodo lives!

[Daddy-O]

mmm snak attack

"Try handy Civ2 SnakPaks in Celtic, French, and now Russian-Berry Swirl. Get some today!"

[N35t0r]

note to self: sleep more than 5 hours a night

[Bohlen]

Address that note to me! Thanks to Civ, that's what I'm running on this week.
[This message has been edited by Bohlen (edited November 09, 2000).]

[Bohlen]

quote: Originally posted by DaveV on 11-09-2000 09:45 AM I'm with Ming on single-player ethics: whatever it takes to win. I usually keep a spotless rep for most of the game, but as soon as it becomes inconvenient I discard it like yesterday's socks.

This is, of course, true. However, doing whatever it takes to win makes a win TOO easy. My code of honor is more of an action limitation list in order to make the game more competitive.

And it has worked so far. Just when I thought I couldn't have any more fun playing SP, here come these artificial playing rules that I have to abide by. My code of honor has made the SP game exciting again.


[This message has been edited by Bohlen (edited November 09, 2000).]

[Sieve Too]

I only play SP. Code of Honor depends on whether I'm playing perfectionist/space or a military/conquest game. My first rule is I don't allow myself to switch what type of game I'm playing.

For military games:
1) No "cheats" (Bomber over stacks, airbase, etc)
2) No nukes.
3) No Republic or Democracy.

For perferctionist games:
1) All the military rules (except #3).
2) No more than 15 cities.
3) Must stay in Democracy.
4) Can't take over AI cities (bribery or force).
5) Can't start/declare war.
6) Accept all peace treaties/cease fires (even if I have UN).

Unlike many of the other posters here, I do allow Spies to poison the water. As a perfectionist, it's how I get rid of AI cities since I forbid conquest. Also, I sabotage and pillage AI civs mercilessly if they declare war on me. Oddly enough, since I don't ever take over their cities, the AI almost never sues for peace.

[Bereta_Eder]

I have to agree with Ming.

I don't poison cities because really in my way of playing that has little use most of the times.

I don't use nukes 'cause I know thigs can get messy

But I snak attack

[Mercantile]

I like to bully civs and i believe that periodically my relatively calm and peacefull nation has lapses of leadership, in which the odd terrorist act occurs. The finger is always pointed in the Mercantilian direction, but as usual we have "no comment"

------------------
Do you shovel snow in your birkenstocks?