Teams that are Allies..... - Page 3

Hot_Enamel · October 3, 2003, 01:25

OK - Before I start my begging for forgiveness post...

It was reported, that a far north city (vox territory) was gifted to RP.

RP accepted it after us, so we didnt see it.
RP gifted it back to GS preaccepted, so again we did not see it.

This all occurred...1st round of the war I think.
If it wasnt done to warp units back to the GS capital, then why did it occur.

Again, must be old news now, so it should be so important.

alva · October 3, 2003, 01:30

Master zen, I think for time saving purposes

Personally,

Save SHARING(not playing) : no problem

Inviting other team members into each others forum : yes problem

notyoueither · October 3, 2003, 01:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Master Zen

Then why would you share it in the first place? You're admitting there's nothing that can't be shared through the forums, and also through other means like screenshots.

To save time in information sent, questions asked, responses sent, more questions asked... He seeks to speed the game, not give RP's position to some other team to play.

However, it is being opposed, so...

notyoueither · October 3, 2003, 01:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Hot_Enamel
This all occurred...1st round of the war I think.
If it wasnt done to warp units back to the GS capital, then why did it occur.

Two RP horsemen sent to Pamplona. And a gift of some GS cats to RP.

asleepathewheel · October 3, 2003, 01:39

The bulk of our army was already in the South, only a few units were left in the North to guard against a Vox uprising.

So, it wasn't to move our units.

As NYE said, we gave RP some cats and moved two horses to pamplona. I daresay those forces wouldn't help hold anything for very long. Oh, and their galley IIRC moved a few squares west, but that was just merely consequential.

Hot_Enamel · October 3, 2003, 01:40

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither

Two RP horsemen sent to Pamplona. And a gift of some GS cats to RP.

Ahh .. OK, I need a few hours to write up my "I am stupid what is your name" post.

asleepathewheel · October 3, 2003, 01:46

Quote:

Originally posted by Hot_Enamel

Ahh .. OK, I need a few hours to write up my "I am stupid what is your name" post.

I think we understand why you would think that, I think we would think the same thing as well.

However, keep in mind that there was a bit of time after the vox war and the evacuation plan was well into action, temperature was thawing there.

Also keep in mind our intergroup discussions on the RP war. Had RP not approached us, we likely would have moved to capture some outposts on Eastern Bob from them. Thus we had many knights within boarding range of our fleet. Our invasion force became a defensive force. Convenient, eh?

Aeson · October 3, 2003, 01:52

One thing that hasn't been addressed as far as I can tell...

In 1.27f the mobilization bug is fixed. Is it fixed in a PBEM like this where it's been going since 1.14f? I don't have a computer capable of quickly testing ('quickly' being anything under several frustrating hours of lag)...

If 'exploits' are going to be allowed based on the individual team's discretion, the mobilization bug would absolutely ruin the game if one team allowed it. I doubt any would, but the term 'spite' is being used, and that can never be underestimated. Even Vox could basically take on the world using this... every city (except the first one in the build queue, which would ideally be set to finish something every turn 'normally') could complete any unit/improvement/wonder every turn.

The other major exploit that comes to mind is the FP/OCN 'feature', which would allow a team lucky enough to get a Leader and has an FP back home to basically eliminate OCN corruption altogether. It's something that can double or triple the commerce and production a civ can produce.

Master Zen · October 3, 2003, 02:10

I think some cheats, like the mobilization bug, or a leader farming with an ally is so game-unstabilizing it would totally make me think twice about participating in this types of games since it gives such a huge advantage to the cheater there is no legitimate way of countering it.

notyoueither · October 3, 2003, 02:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Aeson
One thing that hasn't been addressed as far as I can tell...

In 1.27f the mobilization bug is fixed. Is it fixed in a PBEM like this where it's been going since 1.14f? I don't have a computer capable of quickly testing ('quickly' being anything under several frustrating hours of lag)...

If 'exploits' are going to be allowed based on the individual team's discretion, the mobilization bug would absolutely ruin the game if one team allowed it. I doubt any would, but the term 'spite' is being used, and that can never be underestimated. Even Vox could basically take on the world using this... every city (except the first one in the build queue, which would ideally be set to finish something every turn 'normally') could complete any unit/improvement/wonder every turn.

The other major exploit that comes to mind is the FP/OCN 'feature', which would allow a team lucky enough to get a Leader and has an FP back home to basically eliminate OCN corruption altogether. It's something that can double or triple the commerce and production a civ can produce.

Can you elaborate? I am not at all familiar with the first item you mentioned, and have only heard of the second in passing.

Harovan · October 3, 2003, 04:31

Another GoW type hitting my ignore list.

Arnelos · October 3, 2003, 05:27

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
Two RP horsemen sent to Pamplona. And a gift of some GS cats to RP.

I've noticed for a very long time that we successfully had Master Zen convinced that the reason for the Inchon operation was to transfer GS troops from one point to another in GS territory rather than to warp our 2 horsemen home to Pamplona (and get a few cats in the process).

Now why, after I think over a month of successfully hiding the real reason for the Inchon operation, did we have to go and spill the beans on that?

* Arnelos looks at the rest of this thread

oh...

Yeah, the real reason probably isn't as bad as the one they thought anyhow and knowing certainly dosn't tell them anything terribly useful anymore.

vondrack · October 3, 2003, 06:00

to Theseus for his honest post.

to NYE for revealing the Inchon mystery.

And another

to the attempt to codify what is allowed and what is not (though I believe that would be for some other demogame, not for this one - rules should not be set/changed midway).

Regarding the "valid arguments" for allowing another team access to your save... BF, there is little need for "valid arguments". From what I can tell, there is VERY little support for the idea, no matter what team posters are from. Simply put, vast majority of people involved in this game seem to feel against it (see the vote results).

I guess that's valid enough...

BigFree · October 3, 2003, 08:13

It seems people are opposed to this idea. The only thing I don't like about this oppostition is that most are saying, and I'm paraphrasing here, "it just doesn't feel right" Forget feelings. This is a game. It is supposed to be enjoyable. Copying down detailed notes about each turn and the passing them to another team; back and forth a few times per turn, does not add to the enjoyment of the game for me.

People usually oppose new/radical ideas to start off with. Maybe by the time the first Civ5 DG starts they will warm up to this a bit.

Arrian · October 3, 2003, 08:48

I'm glad we cleared the Inchon thing up.

It's funny how, in absense of the facts, speculation can conjure all sorts of dark things (this goes for us too).

Most of our forces were in the south. I had been practically screaming that we needed our attack force in position to load galleys and launch at a moment's notice... lest we lose our chance at capturing RP's coastal towns.

It just so happened that this was also useful for defending those towns.

-Arrian

Beta · October 3, 2003, 08:56

Quote:

Originally posted by asleepathewheel
The bulk of our army was already in the South, only a few units were left in the North to guard against a Vox uprising.

What!??? You didn't trust us???!!!

As vondrack has said, a big

to Theseus for the way in which he introduced this. To all those making a bigger deal out of it - well - mellow out, will ya.

BigFree - I am still opposed. I understand your point completely, but it really does sound more like two teams becoming one. The game is intended to imitate in an abstract way international and military affairs, and the complete sharing of all information is unrealistic. Even the closest of allies (say U.S. and Britain during WWII) did not have perfect co-oordination on everything, and even at times were competing (the old Montgomery vs Patton thing).

So, in-game co-ordination between allied teams, IMO, should not be perfect either, nor completely transparent.

And how far do you carry things. So in a multi team alliance, with complete info sharing and planning, the teams essentially become one. This to me would detract greatly from the experience.

Beta · October 3, 2003, 09:06

Oh - and BTW- I am generally opposed to all cheats, bugs, exploits - you name it. Anything that clearly wasn't the way the game designers intended, or any 'reasonable' (Togas and Arnelos will like this legal reference here) player would assume it should work.

The galley or caravel chain for example - uh no. Let me see, there must be umpteen historical examples of horses and men transferring from one ship to another in mid-ocean because well, the wind had stopped propelling that last one - but this is one is fine. C'mon.

That being said, I acknowledge that there are many historical innacuracies in the game - including the length of ship movement itself. But in any game design, the designers are trying to balance playability and realism. Civ3 is a magnificent example of that balance, but then it is incumbent upon the players to respect the intent of the game design, and the designers to eventually fix the cheats and exploits.

My 2 cents worth ...

GhengisFarb™ · October 3, 2003, 09:36

I think if one team allows another to play their turn (especially if its Roleplay seeing as to the general concept of their team) they should at least publicly announce that the foreign team member who will be playing their turn has been brought in as a "Military Advisor".

As to my PERSONAL opinion on the rest of this crap, ie the magic transportation of units, the multiple attack with catapults, and various assorted other strange occurences,

If the game allows it, oh well. Everybody can do the same thing so that pretty much evens out the gameplay. To say NO you can't do that lets the cheaters get ahead while the honest players get screwed.

Reloading and loading via SP are obvious "cheats" that no respectable person should want to do anyway. But the other stuff are things that can be predicted and taken into account when planning your strategy.

The more rules you make, the more likely someone will accidentily break one.

GhengisFarb™ · October 3, 2003, 09:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
Another GoW type hitting my ignore list.

You mean there was still someone on the GoW team who WASN'T on your ignore list?

Quote:

Originally posted by Arnelos
I've noticed for a very long time that we successfully had Master Zen convinced that the reason for the Inchon operation was to transfer GS troops from one point to another in GS territory rather than to warp our 2 horsemen home to Pamplona (and get a few cats in the process).

Why did they give you Catapults (that you didn't use) so that you could give them back to them in order for them to give them to GoW/ND.

Why was it so important for you to give GoW/ND a whole bunch of free Catapults?

Harovan · October 3, 2003, 10:24

Quote:

Originally posted by GhengisFarb
You mean there was still someone on the GoW team who WASN'T on your ignore list?

Is that a test whether you are on it or not?

Arrian · October 3, 2003, 10:31

Heh.

Psst - Beta, your PM inbox is full.

-Arrian

GhengisFarb™ · October 3, 2003, 10:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Sir Ralph

Is that a test whether you are on it or not?

I know I'm on it. I just assumed the rest of GoW was on it too.

Who's up for starting a "Teams that are Axis" thread?

Aggie · October 3, 2003, 11:27

Thanks for clearing up the facts of the inchon exchange.

Though the transport of those catapults did have a significant impact an the war and their movement is no less questionable than it would have been for defensive units. I personally don't care either way, it just gives us more catapults in the long term.

The only reason I brought this up in the first place is that a person who has always seemed reasonable in the past accused us of impropriety and I felt obligated to respond.

Also an observation.
1)GS had units preparing to invade RP along with us.
2)GS gave us some catapults, that will certainly be used against RP(and also against themselves)
I think RP should reconsider their options. I have a suspicion that with GS as your ally, you life expectancy is really low. It's not to late to change. I can be merciful and a suitable peace with us is possible. Remember all that the GOW is always for always for the glory of peace.

Aggie

Master Zen · October 3, 2003, 12:05

Quote:

Originally posted by Arnelos
I've noticed for a very long time that we successfully had Master Zen convinced that the reason for the Inchon operation was to transfer GS troops from one point to another in GS territory rather than to warp our 2 horsemen home to Pamplona (and get a few cats in the process).

Fooling me sure makes you feel better doesn't it?

Master Zen · October 3, 2003, 12:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Arrian
I'm glad we cleared the Inchon thing up.

It's funny how, in absense of the facts, speculation can conjure all sorts of dark things (this goes for us too).

Yes, that is why a post-war "AAR chat" would be great (and funny).

From our point of view, what would be the reason for the city gifting? We had no clue that there were RP horsemen in your island. It seemed only logical that it was to shift a large part of your army down south.

GhengisFarb™ · October 3, 2003, 13:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Aggie

Also an observation.
1)GS had units preparing to invade RP along with us.
2)GS gave us some catapults, that will certainly be used against RP(and also against themselves)
I think RP should reconsider their options. I have a suspicion that with GS as your ally, you life expectancy is really low. It's not to late to change. I can be merciful and peace with us is possible.
Aggie

I'm going to have to second this comment.

Arrian · October 3, 2003, 16:22

Arnelos · October 3, 2003, 16:25

Quote:

Originally posted by Master Zen
Fooling me sure makes you feel better doesn't it?

See, that's the thing... we didn't even set out to fool you. Our ideal goal was that no-one would even notice the transfer (though we figured that Lego and Vox just might notice). Unfortunately, you DID notice the transfer. That you came to the wrong conclusions about it wasn't our doing at all. The only thing I did was keep my own mouth shut when you started spouting in the chatroom about GS warping units around inside their territory.

So I don't think we get credit for fooling you at all. The only thing that happened was that you came to the wrong conclusion and no-one interjected to correct you.

BigFree · October 3, 2003, 16:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Aggie
Thanks for clearing up the facts of the inchon exchange.

Though the transport of those catapults did have a significant impact an the war and their movement is no less questionable than it would have been for defensive units. I personally don't care either way, it just gives us more catapults in the long term.

The only reason I brought this up in the first place is that a person who has always seemed reasonable in the past accused us of impropriety and I felt obligated to respond.

I can't help but to set you straight once again; "you" being GoW. The Cats that GS gave to us are not the ones you captured. I will not go into any more detail than that. You should assume that all your assumptions are only half right or half wrong, either way, you don't have the complete picture and prolly never will if GS and RP have any say in the matter.

Quote:

Originally posted by GhengisFarb
I think if one team allows another to play their turn (especially if its Roleplay seeing as to the general concept of their team) they should at least publicly announce that the foreign team member who will be playing their turn has been brought in as a "Military Advisor".

GF: NOBODY WAS GOING TO PLAY ANYONE'S TURN FOR THEM. THE IDEA IS TO EXCHANGE INFORMATION IN THE MOST EFFICIENT MANNER. GS WOULD NOT PLAY RP'S SAVE NOR WOULD RP PLAY GS'ES SAVE. IS THAT CLEAR NOW?

GhengisFarb™ · October 3, 2003, 17:03

I don't know why you're attacking me, I wasn't even against it.