RBP2 Lurker Discussion Thread - No Players!

[Spronz]

To the civ you betrayed sure. To the others, not a whole lot. Plus if you're playing thinking any civ is trustworthy then you're just setting yourself up imo. Nobody is going to throw away their chance to win just so as to not break an agreement in the game.

Plus in this case where everybody else is supporting the actions to one degree or another it'd be pretty hard for them to fault the person actually breaking it basically at their behest.

[dazedroyalty]

I have to say that the diplomatic/political aspects of a Pitboss game is a large part of what attracts me to play in PB3. Just like in real life, civs can do dirty things. (Claim to be be peaceful while sending "weapons" to the enemies of their allies). Also, NAPs can be broken, and the diplomatic fall out really depends on how good of a spin is put on it. Knowing how and when to go to war can lead to either an improved reputation or a tarnished one. It's fun that way.

The only danger is to make sure that everyone remembers it is a game so that no serious/personal lines are crossed. Of course, I'd be mad if my "friend' back stabbed me in game. But big picture, if that wasn't possible, I don't think I'd be as interested in playing.

[Ruff_Hi]

Hi KA's

Unfortunately I must reject your NAP extension and close borders. While I am not planning to attack you when our NAP runs out, I suggest you not put units overlooking Djenne or woody 2 warriors close to Kumbi Saleh. If you do I feel I must remove them for my own security.

Part of this decision is based on how does a runaway India help me? If we stay at peace then I'll reconsider a NAP in 10 turns if you can provide good reasons for us to be strong friends this game.

Hope we can work together again soon.

-Dantski

That is a bit ham fisted isn't it?

Look at the way Sooooo stopped renewing our NAP in the pbem game ... much smoother

What a crushing day for England! Ugh, so bad!

In other news, I won't be extending our NAP past the minimum of T100 in the PBEM game. Not saying I'm going to attack, but I'd like to take away your sense of security . I still expect both sides to conform to the rest of the NAP clauses, like no spy-bombing and right-of-passage until the date the agreement expires.

Sooooo,

It was a good day to finally get some cricket to watch on tellie.

I note your non extension of the NAP past T100. I've enjoyed the benefits that the NAP has allowed both of our nations and I hope you have too.

Cheers,

[Spronz]

Yup I find the politics make it much more interesting to watch. Especially since we know there are some players here who are just a lot better at the game of civ itself compared to others, it helps even the playing field a bit by adding in some other skills. To a degree that's why I'm not so fond of the NTT rule. As we see now it's really early but all the teams are having to come together to fight one player because if not then there will be no catching up for them later.

Speaker & Sulla make for a very powerful team. Think how far ahead they are now growth wise, tech wise and economy wise. Imagine if they were left alone for 50-100 more turns. With NTT, if you fall behind you basically stay behind. There's no catching up or really playing any sort of role afterwards that I can see. So if anybody starts pulling ahead then everybody better teamup and take them down quick.

[antisocialmunky]

Fitting issue to come up now that we've been talking about the issue of politics. That is preciselly how no to do it, Dantski.

...Dantski and I shall stall with the NAP offers...

Let's do this right. Comments, questions?
~ Jowy

-_-'

Its not that big of a deal if you're 'untrustworthy' at the end of the day, you're going to have to kill everyone else to win the game and everyone would have to kill you to win the game.

Its too bad that there isn't an 'allied victory' condition...

PS:

ttack. (Either one in isolation would just be a joke.) If athlete were to pile on, it would be tougher, but we have an NAP with him until Turn 100, so he couldn't arrive until later. I think we would have to get hit 4 vs. 1 with Nakor, Dantksi, Jowy, and athlete all attacking simultaneously to be defeated, and that seems rather unlikely. I hope, anyway!

KICKING HIMSELF.

[timmy827]

So am I understanding things correctly that as it stands it's going to go:
T100 Us, Dantski, AK(? maybe just partial)
T105 Nakor (4 axes, 2 spears and 2-4 chariots)
T112 Whosit (8 praets)

Dooooooooooooooooooooooooooomed.[/quote]

I actually think this may be the best outcome for keeping the game interested - I expect it will put a big dent in Spulla's growth curve, knock them off their first place perch for a while, but not kill them or cripple them out of the running.

[Ruff_Hi]

btw - what is going to happen when CoW declares on Spullla regarding the turn splitting? Chop the clock up into 6 segments? Everyone gets 35 minutes to play their set. Guess we will see a major slow down in the game.

And Sullla will insist (rightfully so) that their opponents play in a very specific order.

[novice]

The enforced turn split rule only applies to 1v1 wars.

[regoarrarr]

The enforced turn split rule only applies to 1v1 wars.

But subject to change to "whatever the majority wants"

[Krill]

This is why you never have rules that can be changed by majority and get a game admin...