(June 6th, 2013, 15:03)scooter Wrote: Mardoc - I won't break your whole reply into quotes, but I think you're halfway right. However, the chat with CivPlayers really, really sounds like they're tentatively planning to split us in half with CFC. I don't know, I have a hard time reading this as something else:
I think you are missing the point. CivPlayers wants us to be tied down in defense and building a lot of units, or get something out of us in exchange for NAP. CFC I believe wants that too, and probably Apolyton as well. I really doubt anyone is excited to invade us.
If that's the case, we can determine the threat level beforehand with some spies checking out unit composition, strength and positions right?
We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing. - George Bernard Shaw
(June 6th, 2013, 15:23)SevenSpirits Wrote: I think you are missing the point. CivPlayers wants us to be tied down in defense and building a lot of units, or get something out of us in exchange for NAP. CFC I believe wants that too, and probably Apolyton as well. I really doubt anyone is excited to invade us.
If that's the case, we can determine the threat level beforehand with some spies checking out unit composition, strength and positions right?
Does nobody else find it hilarious that the Germans pretended to be allied with our growing power in order to cow concessions from civplayers?
At least, that's what I got from CP's chat.
Edit: Speaking of that chat, I do not think that allying with CP against CivFR serves us well at this point in time.
Merovech's Mapmaking Guidelines:
0. Player Requests: The player's requests take precedence, even if they contradict the following guidelines.
1. Balance: The map must be balanced, both in regards to land quality and availability and in regards to special civilization features. A map may be wonderfully unique and surprising, but, if it is unbalanced, the game will suffer and the player's enjoyment will not be as high as it could be.
2. Identity and Enjoyment: The map should be interesting to play at all levels, from city placement and management to the border-created interactions between civilizations, and should include varied terrain. Flavor should enhance the inherent pleasure resulting from the underlying tile arrangements. The map should not be exceedingly lush, but it is better to err on the lush side than on the poor side when placing terrain.
3. Feel (Avoiding Gimmicks): The map should not be overwhelmed or dominated by the mapmaker's flavor. Embellishment of the map through the use of special improvements, barbarian units, and abnormal terrain can enhance the identity and enjoyment of the map, but should take a backseat to the more normal aspects of the map. The game should usually not revolve around the flavor, but merely be accented by it.
4. Realism: Where possible, the terrain of the map should be realistic. Jungles on desert tiles, or even next to desert tiles, should therefore have a very specific reason for existing. Rivers should run downhill or across level ground into bodies of water. Irrigated terrain should have a higher grassland to plains ratio than dry terrain. Mountain chains should cast rain shadows. Islands, mountains, and peninsulas should follow logical plate tectonics.
(June 6th, 2013, 15:03)scooter Wrote: Mardoc - I won't break your whole reply into quotes, but I think you're halfway right. However, the chat with CivPlayers really, really sounds like they're tentatively planning to split us in half with CFC. I don't know, I have a hard time reading this as something else:
I think you are missing the point. CivPlayers wants us to be tied down in defense and building a lot of units, or get something out of us in exchange for NAP. CFC I believe wants that too, and probably Apolyton as well. I really doubt anyone is excited to invade us.
What are you suggesting exactly? My understanding right now is the general attitude is like this:
CFC: Knows that maintaining the status quo with us results in us probably pulling away. Open to a NAP deal in theory, but it would have to heavily favor them, so much so that they aren't even sure what to ask since nothing sounds attractive to them. Their other option is to hit us while they still can, but that's 25T away at the earliest. So they're trying to get help (CivPlayers), but also can't commit to it because they need the Zulu war to be wrapped up - similar to our position with the German war. So in short - they figure peace = lose, so war to take a chunk out of us is their best option, therefore they need as much help as they can get. Winning is still a reasonable goal for them, so they're pushing hard now.
CivPlayers: They guess that if they just let us go, it's inevitable that we'll roll them (I tried to disagree with this, but I didn't get very far). Has this weird idea that to be close friends with someone it involves attacking a 3rd party together - I know this sounds odd, but they've mentioned this countless times. They thought we were "cold" because we didn't propose some grand war together, which is silly, but it's what they think. So their logic is CFC offers them the opportunity to do that, we don't. I don't think they seriously believe they can win, but they don't want to be irrelevant like our northern neighbors either. They don't care too much about "OMG gotta stop the runaway" as much as they want to pick a side, and joining CFC lets them have a shot at gaining land, picking our side does not.
Apolyton: They want their position to be flexible. They don't seem to really care about helping CFC, they're more interested in having the flexibility to be able to contain us if we run over too many people.
That's my read on the motives of all 3 of them. I disagree with your perception of what CivPlayers wants. I don't think they even slightly care about us building military vs economic buildings. We could build all military for 40 more turns and still be ahead of them economically.
I think I can see something of CivPlayers's position. The trouble with NAPs in Civ games are that they are essentially devoid of in-game value in and of themselves. A NAP that is tied to going to war against a third party has some sort of goal behind it. A NAP with a tech-trading partner in a tech-trading game does too. But a NAP for 30t? All it makes is for a lot of tension in 30t.
I think that was the thing that allowed the Germans to bully CivPlayers - we had a resource trade on-going, so CivPlayers could see that we had a thing going with the Germans.
Which partly is what makes me frustrated with CivPlayers for blowing off our earlier trade offer to them in the way they did. If they wanted closer relations and greater security on our border, give a counter-proposal instead.
Furthermore, I consider that forum views should be fluid in width
So, I know I wrote up a short draft as a war declaration on the German team, but it's so many pages back now that I don't feel like combing through a dozen pages just to find it, and I don't think that many people liked it anyways, so I'm starting from scratch. I think everyone wanted it to be even simpler than what I wrote initially. How about this:
War Declaration Draft Wrote:GWT,
As you seem to have figured out, our team and WPC will be declaring war on your team this turn and taking the second half of the turn timer. The war is definitely nothing personal, it's just what we felt was the right decision for our team. I wish you guys good luck.
(June 6th, 2013, 14:44)darrelljs Wrote: Why not offer them a NAP extension until t200, but have it revert to t170 (or whatever the current expriation date is) if we DoW on someone? The mirror of a defensive pact, and if they're honest it should be acceptable. It limits our ability to pre-empt CP, but then we can time the signing of these two agreements to make that acceptable .
Darrell
I like this idea. Any other opinions on this? I wouldn't say we send it immediately, but maybe in a couple turns.
I like this idea a lot too.
Kalin
How about make it even simpler and have them be able to cancel the NAP it if we declare on someone (besides CFC).
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.”
.