Posts: 7,658
Threads: 31
Joined: Jun 2011
I don't think we should aim for the moral high ground. There is no moral high ground victory condition. Even if everyone hates us because we're winning I don't see a reason to put ourselves in a box on the basis of morality. We should stick to our deals because yes, that is the thing to do -- this isn't a win at all costs kind of thing, if you win the game and lose all respect from everyone there's not much point in playing, so I'm not saying we should go that route. But when the other team isn't adhering to an agreement then you don't have a functioning deal. So forget the morality it isn't relevant. We're in this game to win it just like CFC. We're not going to NAP-stab and break our deals because that isn't how we operate.
But we're also not seeking to win the biggest nice guy award. Letting someone run all over us just because we're busy and it's inconvenient to address the problem doesn't make it the right move. How many times should you let a bee sting you before you kill it? I don't see how we're going "internet tough guy" by telling them to knock it off and issuing a concrete penalty for if the don't correct their behavior. I think it's an appropriate response to someone who is obviously flaunting and invalidating an existing agreement. It's tactically not convenient, but if they start pillaging around the German capital and other new holdings while they are in revolt and inflict massive economic damage that way, what then? At that point it's too late to redress the problem, they'll have already gotten away with it.
I still maintain that the correct course of action is to tell CFC to stop pillaging immediately and that any future pillaging in "neutral" territory in the BFCs of our captured cities WILL be viewed as a violation of our NAP and a declaration of war, and our response will be exactly in proportion to a full war declaration even if the game engine does not recognize it. Then we can snark and say "run and tell THAT, homeboy" or "we hate your face" or whatever rageness our hardliners agree to.
Posts: 15,319
Threads: 112
Joined: Apr 2007
Chatting with Yossarian now, it's pretty much going as expected. Chat log will be posted when it's done. Anyway, a few more stray comments. I'll be blunt, hopefully it's not taken as overly harsh or aimed at anyone in particular (it's not meant to be).
1) No, we are not going to say something that will result in a burned bridge with CFC. Never burn bridges in diplo, that's how you lose games. I've seen it happen a lot, and I won't let us do it. It gains us nothing and potentially makes the game harder to win, so it's irrational.
2) We asked for this by giving the Spanish team Ivory. Not that I think that was a bad decision, but the moralizing I've seen a couple times in here is sort of hilarious when we basically just did the same thing to them - adhering to the letter of the agreement but not the spirit (in trading ivory to Zulu).
3) Neither our team nor CFC wants to "declare the NAP void" or declare war right now. Suggesting we should do or try to make that happen is completely insane. If you look at where our units are and where our border with CFC is at, you should be able to piece this together yourself.
4) We cannot cancel that spice deal with CFC nor threaten it with any validity. That would be a NAP violation by us and us alone. Again, what they are doing is no different than what we've done to them - adhering to the letter but violating the spirit. That does not give us grounds to violate the letter of the agreement.
Posts: 8,770
Threads: 75
Joined: Apr 2006
Sounds like scooter is handling it the right way  .
Darrell
Posts: 4,443
Threads: 45
Joined: Nov 2009
Its kinda silly if you tell them, if you do x, we will do y. Cuz, you know - they can plan for it. Just leave it vague so they don't know what's coming if anything, lawl.
In Soviet Russia, Civilization Micros You!
"Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must."
“I have never understood why it is "greed" to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else's money.”
Posts: 4,090
Threads: 28
Joined: Jul 2008
Actually, I view pillaging as an act of war that isn't recognised by the game engine.
As for trading ivory for dyes, it was an good trade for both of us, they didn't tell us they wanted to attack the Spanish team or ask for a trade embargo against them beforehand.
As such, we can candel the trade T158 when it has run for 10t, but not before. And they'd better pay us for that.
Furthermore, I consider that forum views should be fluid in width
Posts: 17,485
Threads: 78
Joined: Nov 2005
Scooter, i suppose you could try telling CFC we regret the ivory trade now and will cancel it immediately. Though i doubt they believe it; that would have best been done when they first DOWed Spain.
Xenu, we all want to kick CFC's ass. But that way just sabotages our future. Classic cutting off of nose move
Suffer Game Sicko
Dodo Tier Player
Posts: 15,319
Threads: 112
Joined: Apr 2007
The log will have to wait an hour or so - we more or less completed the part about the pillaging, but he's talking about a couple other minor things, and I'm about to step away anyways.
In short: he immediately replied about the ivory thing as expected. I offered that we could both drop it - the ivory and pillaging. He said he'll take it back to the team, but he feels the damage is done on the ivory. He said it's been a serious pain to deal with. I made a few comments similar to what I said to Apolyton about it damaging our relationship, and basically he'll get back with us after talking with his teammates.
Full log later, that's just the very brief version.
Posts: 15,319
Threads: 112
Joined: Apr 2007
(June 17th, 2013, 10:52)kjn Wrote: Actually, I view pillaging as an act of war that isn't recognised by the game engine.
"I believe supplying our enemy with more advanced weapons is an act of war that isn't recognized by the game engine." - A 100% valid sentence CFC could also say.
Posts: 4,090
Threads: 28
Joined: Jul 2008
If CFC had wanted the Spanish to not have ivory, they could have started with paying us for a trade embargo against the Spanish - before they invaded.
When we started the trade, CFC and the Spanish weren't at war, and they had just refused us a prolonged NAP in favour of "chaos is a ladder". We took them on their words - nine teams are more chaotic than eight.
Anyway, I view their attitude as a carte blanche to blockade and pillage them with privates, once we get Astronomy.
Furthermore, I consider that forum views should be fluid in width
Posts: 7,658
Threads: 31
Joined: Jun 2011
(June 17th, 2013, 11:00)pindicator Wrote: Xenu, we all want to kick CFC's ass. But that way just sabotages our future. Classic cutting off of nose move
And them pillaging isn't sabotaging us right now and in the future? I trust Scooter to be rational and come to the best conclusion possible on this topic, but I've made my specific complaint about the game engine exploitation to get away with the pillaging.
Preview edit: Scooter, I disagree with that statement being at all valid. We made that trade before they were at war with Spanish Apolyton and, although we thought it highly probably CFC would be attacking them, we did not know that 100%, and we had a legitimate right to trade one happy resource for another with a rival civ. Even so, does anyone here claim we're at war with UniverCiv for supplying ivory to GWT? Of course not. It's inconvenient but that's good play by uCiv. It is not an act of war.
|
