The Issue of "Bravery" and "Cowardice"

Arnelos · July 22, 2003, 03:17

The issue of "bravery" and "cowardice" has been brought up by a number of people of late and it's worth noting something interesting about this.

RP Team might claim that ND could have used their UU's and their GA to take on RP Team by themselves and it's a mark of "cowardice" that they were so afraid of Spain that they felt compelled to enlist the support of GoW... a fair fight was too scary for them, they needed overwhelming odds or they were too chickens--t to do it.

RP Team might make the same claim of Glory of War, who despite their name, has been too "cowardly" to invade anyone until they could gang up with someone else.

GoW could claim that RP Team has been supposedly "cowardly" in other areas, such as the Lux war or the Vox war.

ND could claim that RP Team's tactical actions this turn have been "cowardly".

RP Team could claim that when GoW's army ran away from the battle we prepared for them on Watch Mountain rather than charging the mountain with their stack of riders, that they were "cowardly".

GoW could claim that RP Team's consigning of Bilbao to defeat was "cowardly".

It is my argument that NONE of these actions are fairly described as "cowardly" because the adjectives brave and cowardly have no place in inter-state relations. In international relations, "Cowardly" is most often merely a derogetory term used by one's enemies to describe prudent actions in one's own interests. "Brave" is merely a term people use to justify their own foolish actions.

If ND had attacked RP Team alone, some might call it "brave", but it would have been foolish.

If GoW had attacked RP Team alone, some might call it "brave", but it would have been foolish.

Many things RP Team might have done in the past concerning Lux or other things might have been called "brave", but would have been foolish.

RP Team could certainly have simply allowed many of their cities to be captured freely by the enemy or attempted pointless tactics we know would fail utterly in the face of overwhelming ND odds. Some might have called this "brave", but it would have been foolish.

GoW could have attacked RP's Army sitting on top of Watch Mountain and some might have claimed this "brave", but it would have been foolish.

RP Team could have, when GoW's army ran away, chased after it this past turn rather than writing off the city GoW went after and some might have called the chase "brave", but it would have been foolish.

I'm sure more examples of this will undoubtedly crop up over the course of this war. The enemies might refer to each other as "cowards", but it should be recognized that this is a pretty lousy form of whining. For, as the Roman historian Livy shares with us concerning the Punic Wars and Rome's "cowardly" tactics:

"Never mind if they call your caution timidity, your wisdom sloth, your generalship weakness; it is better that a wise enemy should fear you than that foolish friends should praise" - Livy (Roman historian, 59 B.C.E. - 17 C.E.), quoting Fabius in The War with Hannibal

---------------

So cheers to our enemies and let us settle matters upon the field of battle.

Harovan · July 22, 2003, 04:27

Quote:

Originally posted by Arnelos
RP Team might claim that ND could have used their UU's and their GA to take on RP Team by themselves and it's a mark of "cowardice" that they were so afraid of Spain that they felt compelled to enlist the support of GoW... a fair fight was too scary for them, they needed overwhelming odds or they were too chickens--t to do it.

No insults!

Hot_Enamel · July 22, 2003, 06:21

I have no issues deciding if an action should be defined as brave or cowardly. Each team acts in whatever manner best increases their chances of winning.

Arnelos, if you wish to have a lively discussion, then your question should be

Were any of the above examples "In the spirit of the Game" or "exploitation of the game mechanics."

Note that I believe nothing could be listed as illegal, as there were no rules agreed to at the beginning of the game, but for example...RP could claim GoW's use of a "loophole" to attack while in a MPP as not within the spirit of the game

Regs

Donegeal · July 22, 2003, 10:33

I like this so far. So long as everybody continues to not let this game effect the personal relationship that we have with each other, this will continue to be fun, win or loose.

History Guy · July 22, 2003, 10:48

(puts gun away)

You're right, Donegal.

(wipes tear from eye)

GhengisFarb™ · July 23, 2003, 06:26

So is it "Bravery" or "Cowardice" that causes a team to give up two of their cities in bribe payment to another team for aid? What's wrong? Didn't anyone like you and want to come to your aid without bribe cities?

Arnelos · July 23, 2003, 08:18

Quote:

Originally posted by GhengisFarb
So is it "Bravery" or "Cowardice" that causes a team to give up two of their cities in bribe payment to another team for aid? What's wrong? Didn't anyone like you and want to come to your aid without bribe cities?

Bribe? If that's our "bribe", it's a pretty lousy one...

We realized we simply didn't have the troops to defend those cities, so we were basically faced with the Lux Invicta dilemna. Do you lightly defend them and let them fall to the enemy that way? Do you raze them so at least they won't fall into the enemy's hands at all? Or do you gift them away to another civ that your enemy must declare war on to take the city?

We chose the last of those options. Not because the measly trade GS would get out of them would be anything highly influential, but because we'd rather GS be picking up 1 trade per turn than ND or GoW picking up far more and using them as military bases against us if it was even possible to avoid that. And who knows... if GS were to hold on to them and by some miracle we survived the war, perhaps we could eventually buy them back? Almost certainly not, but it's better than nothing.

At the very least, it at least creates/created a chance that the cities would "survive", but not in ND/GoW hands.

As for GS, I'm sure they don't mind the extra 1 trade/turn, though they serve little other purpose right now. It's interesting to note that we originally offered to give cities to both GS and Lego, but Lego turned us down due to an agreement with ND. Their loss. At worst they would have picked up a few turns of needed happiness when ND declared war on them

DeepO · July 23, 2003, 08:28

I will certainly not comment on our reasons to accept the cities in public, but one thing you might have overseen, Arnelos: if you lose a city, you lose happiness in WW. Indeed, you gain happiness when someone declares war on you, but those two effects cancel each other out to large extent.

DeepO

Hot_Enamel · July 23, 2003, 08:37

*** This is NOT an official position of the GoW. ***

I had this happen in a PBEM. It is a cheezy tactic.
In my game, my response was that the transfer of ownership was not recognized, and I went ahead and conquered all of the cities.

In my opinion.. it is an abuse of the game mechanics.

Boo ... Hiss ... @ RP

*** Personal opinion only ***

{edit - But not an illegal move BTW}

Arnelos · July 23, 2003, 08:57

Quote:

Originally posted by Hot_Enamel
*** This is NOT an official position of the GoW. ***

I had this happen in a PBEM. It is a cheezy tactic.
In my game, my response was that the transfer of ownership was not recognized, and I went ahead and conquered all of the cities.

In my opinion.. it is an abuse of the game mechanics.

Boo ... Hiss ... @ RP

*** Personal opinion only ***

{edit - But not an illegal move BTW}

It should be noted that there exist historical precedents for this type of thing in the medieval and even Rennaisance world... cities and provinces being ceded to other powers for their protection. In Middle Age Europe, for instance, the solidified "nation-state" did not yet exist and changing patterns of fealty of various local barons and other nobility, especially inside the states of the Holy Roman Empire, was not entirely uncommon. Especially during the wars of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation in the 16th Century and early 17th Century, some cities switched fealty multiple times and not just due to siege.

It wouldn't even be unrealistic to argue that the local nobles might declare fealty to another state if the one they currently owe fealty to cannot protect them and does not mind the change of allegiance given this fact.

There are also examples from Chinese history, etc.

UnOrthOdOx · July 23, 2003, 09:08

As long as we're spouting personal opinion here:

I congratulate RP on making a brilliant move. Once again they are showing that they are the unquestioned king of diplomacy and international puppeteering in this game

GhengisFarb™ · July 23, 2003, 09:30

Quote:

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx
As long as we're spouting personal opinion here:

I congratulate RP on making a brilliant move. Once again they are showing that they are the unquestioned king of diplomacy and international puppeteering in this game

Are you calling GS a "puppet"? Are more appropriately, saying that Roleplay views GS as their puppet?

UnOrthOdOx · July 23, 2003, 09:40

The way the whole thing was written its hard to argue otherwise.

They gave cities for Tech and gold. However, to others it appears that GS has fully supported RP and is now fighting against them as well. Logic would seem to dictate for those teams to immediately attack GS, since they now appear enemies as well, thus ensuring GS DOES enter MILITARILY into the war without RP having to acutally persuade GS to commit Militarily, since we all know GS will not stand for their cities to be violated.

It was a smart move. Took advantage of GS's code of honor, the attitudes of the teams they are facing, and the outward APPEARANCE of what was going on, despite what the deal actually entailed.

But again, this is just my opinion.

Hot_Enamel · July 23, 2003, 09:55

Quote:

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx
As long as we're spouting personal opinion here:

I congratulate RP on making a brilliant move. Once again they are showing that they are the unquestioned king of diplomacy and international puppeteering in this game

Boo ... Hiss @ Unorthodox

GhengisFarb™ · July 23, 2003, 10:42

GS = "Gathered Stuffing" a favorite puppet of the Roleplay Puppeteering Carnival.

alva · July 23, 2003, 10:58

As long as it is Rio style, who cares...

Harovan · July 23, 2003, 11:33

Actually, the puppeteering is now official. Togas was caught red-handed. See the S.P.I.N. thread.

UnOrthOdOx · July 23, 2003, 11:45

And a very good story at that.

GhengisFarb™ · July 23, 2003, 11:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
Actually, the puppeteering is now official.

Sir Ralph publicly making it official is about as much as you can hope for.

Nuclear Winter · July 23, 2003, 11:51

We couldn´t help...
We Spaniards are all bug fans of pupets....
Ain´t it true mr Watermelon?
´´Yes it is Nuclearis Winterius the III´´
Besides, puppets are the only ones who spell our full Roleplay names!!!

OliverFA · July 23, 2003, 15:56

Why are you so surprised at the fact that we gave the city to GS? The cities were clearly lost, so we decided to offer them to GS and Lego. Anything better than leting the invasors get them...

And I am also surprised how our invasors, who attack them without any reason or honour, expect them to behave honorably in return. Spain has not given any reason that justifies this attack. The only reason that has been pointed is what ND considers "a fair distribution of the land". If you feel like "a fair distribution" is to own all the GS or all the Lego lands, will you attack them only for that reason and call them "arrogants" because they have "your" lands?

You didn't behave honourly with us, so don't ask us to do the same. When this idea about giving the cities to Lego and GS was proposed it seemed a very good idea to me. Why would we just wait until the cities are taken by the enemy? Do you want us to surrender right now and give the control of all Spain to you? (It is a rethoric question, I know that the answer is "yes"

) Honestly I didn't believe you were fool enough to attack them, but I secretly wanted that you did

GhengisFarb™ · July 23, 2003, 16:16

GoW's grievances against Roleplay are very numerous, quite possibly more than ND's. We have a Thread of Grudges you know, and this war should redeem many of the "Grudge Posts" in that thread.

UnOrthOdOx · July 23, 2003, 17:02

Quote:

Honestly I didn't believe you were fool enough to attack them, but I secretly wanted that you did

That was my point exactly. It was perfectly obvious that Spain wished to play a game of smoke and mirrors to place ND and GoW in a position where what appeared the most logical choice was to attack the new GS cities. A smart move, and I was not surprised at all.

Well, I was surprised that Santiago was not more heavily defended, frankly, but other than that, I figured Bilbao would be disbanded or sold.

However, as you have already acuurately described:

Anything is better than seeing those cities in the hands of your enemies.

Therefore, I thank you for ensuring that they LEFT the hands of our enemy. And without so much as a fight! I honestly hope you continue to cooperate so fully in the future, for the quicker you disband or sell your cities, the quicker we can be done with this.

Then again, this is but one man's opinion, not an official team one.

Master Zen · July 24, 2003, 00:33

/me wonders if GoW is ever going to capture a city in this war...

Anyway, some of uss were quick to call RP cowards not necessarily for the stunt they pulled but WHEN they pulled it. I would expect a nation in its death-throes to go the extreme, but on the first turn of battle, and especially a city which looked to be so well defended??? What was the point in building its walls and surely whatever number of defensive units were in place... giving up Santiago so easily might even cost you the war sooner than you think.

Hot_Enamel · July 24, 2003, 01:12

*** Hot_Enamel wonders if GoW is ever going to kill anything in this entire game !! ***

The Glory of War
Actively involved in every war in the game
Lux war = 0 kills
Vox war = 0 kills
RP war = 0 kills so far

bongo · July 24, 2003, 04:20

The war has only just started. I firmly believe you will end up actually killing units in this war. Unless RP are going to copy the Lux strategy letter by letter

Arnelos · July 24, 2003, 04:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Master Zen
I would expect a nation in its death-throes to go the extreme, but on the first turn of battle

You see... that's just the point. Is it better that we held onto some foolish false hope of survival in the face of overwhelming odds or that we saw the writing on the wall for what it really was and acted logically in accordance with that realization?

Afterall, 11th hour desperate measures generally fail.

Master Zen · July 24, 2003, 05:12

Quote:

Originally posted by Hot_Enamel
*** Hot_Enamel wonders if GoW is ever going to kill anything in this entire game !! ***

The Glory of War
Actively involved in every war in the game
Lux war = 0 kills
Vox war = 0 kills
RP war = 0 kills so far

well, we did capture Trip

(that alone compensates for our not-so-glorious war record...)

Master Zen · July 24, 2003, 05:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Arnelos

You see... that's just the point. Is it better that we held onto some foolish false hope of survival in the face of overwhelming odds or that we saw the writing on the wall for what it really was and acted logically in accordance with that realization?

Afterall, 11th hour desperate measures generally fail.

So RP is that weak...

We're still accepting surrenders

(although please let us at least kill someone so we can have a kill in our record

)

GhengisFarb™ · July 24, 2003, 06:42

Actually, we did kill one Lux Warrior in the Lux War and capture one Lux Worker (Trip).