My warped mind just hatched a crazy, crazy plan for Simple, and before the smarter parts of my brain make a deep analysis of it, I'd like your opinion of the legality.

In short: I might gift some minerals to the Protectorate.

Executive summary: Fill a freighter or two with minerals. (Standard freighter design; no special design name like "HereHaveSome.") Send the freighter to enemy planet, with w1 unload orders. Depending on size of local garrison, might need to accompany with small armed force to give the freighters time to disengage.

Strategic benefit: my enemy's enemy is my friend. The Protectorate are fighting a hot war on their far border against the Elementals. My universe intel leads me to believe that the Elementals are ranked either first or second. The other first or second place is probably the Humanoids, with whom I may shortly be in a hot war, on my far border from the Protectorate. I believe the Elementals have the upper hand against the Protectorate and will eventually prevail, but the longer it takes for that to happen while I am engaged against the Humanoids, the better things are for me in the long run. If I give the Protectorate a significant amount of minerals, they will better be able to prolong their struggle.

So, the question for you: would such an act be tantamount to communication?

It's communication of a sort, but I'm far from thinking that it is clear violation. cooperation without communication...

I'm not convinced this is counter indicated. You can't gift ships, due to diplomatic settings.
Use of standard freighters reduces any "comms" aspect. You're just gifting materials - unasked, unthanked...

As an aside it's almost not worth escorting the freighters...

Also as an aside it would make later invasion easier - the Protectorate might suspect another gift

Alright then, I'll make my full strategic analysis of the option.

Escorting the freighters potentially saves 2/3 of the cargo from becoming scrap. The escort would be counter productive if he sees it coming, since he'll send warships to defend, but no worries--I'll be invisible (ultra cloaks, how I love thee). Escort fleet strength will just be the minimum required to stall his garrison while the freighters escape. I might actually build a special ship for the purpose. Lots of dp, one x-ray. Probably a cruiser full of bears. I'd be tempted to call it Tank or Sponge or Speed Bump or Target or Armed Ship or something else clever, but I'll stick to my in-game naming convention.

Ah, I see the point.

And yes, invisibility will help you not be defended against. Presume you are at "tension" with the P?

Tension is the base state in no-comms.

I took Gollum from him in 2452 with a surprise packet attack. Two years later I fended off his initial counterattack fleet. Since then we have had no battles (aside from my occasional chaff pings and him killing an old cloaked ff). He built up a decent mixed bb/cc fleet, with a lot of bombers, and had them in place to launch another counterattack on Gollum (with a potential fork position against one of my developed worlds), but pressure on his other side from the Elementals forced him to redeploy that fleet in 2459.

He has left Dalmatian entirely undefended ever since I took Gollum, but I haven't had the spare resources to build bombers or fling a packet. The Gollum/Dalmatian dya

I'm in favor of allowing uncommunicated cooperation in no-comms games, on the grounds that:
1) The game is more fun that way
2) It doesn't negate the primary goal of no-comms (to remove the overbearing effects of diplomacy)
3) It's hard to define exactly what counts as "cooperation"

Reasonable people can disagree, certainly.

Lesson learned for me: any no-comms game should specify in the rules if cooperation of any sort is banned, or if only explicit communication is banned.

skoormit wrote on Wed, 03 December 2014 20:00

I'm in favor of allowing uncommunicated cooperation in no-comms games, on the grounds that:
1) The game is more fun that way
2) It doesn't negate the primary goal of no-comms (to remove the overbearing effects of diplomacy)
3) It's hard to define exactly what counts as "cooperation"

Reasonable people can disagree, certainly.

The other as important reason for no-comms-games is usual that players expect to be in a no-alliance-situation where everybody needs to fight for himself. No big boring alliances of 5 players smashing a single player.

Transferring ships I think does cross the line, as it's uses a ship slot and they are few and need to be managed. So keeping a transferred ship impales working together while transferring ships just to mess with the other player (ie the ship only has old tech) is very useful with some players.

Now sending minerals to someone is OK with me if my goal is to keep them out of a 3rd players hands.

Little Eddie

Transferring ships I think does cross the line, as it's uses a ship slot and they are few and need to be managed. So keeping a transferred ship impales working together while transferring ships just to mess with the other player (ie the ship only has old tech) is very useful with some players.

Although you might knacker their MT meeting...

Otherwise players might get confused. Confused

"cooperating" w/out communicating isn't exactly new, but it should at least be mentioned in a no-comms game's ad. Same with "cooperation" in an all-enemy game. Otherwise players might get confused.

Hello
I've found strange ships in the galaxy. Please look to the picture. The ships marked "2" are rugues owned by Protector (player #5). Rogue is the ship hull avaliable to SS only. Ok, I suppose Protector is SS.
The question is how can I see the ship marked "1"?????? It must be 75% cloacked (370 l.y. from my 400 l.y. scanner)!!!
I hope you have an access to my files as hostmaster.
Sorry my english.

good luck figuring out who you can trust" type game.

-good luck figuring out who you can trust" type game.

skoormit wrote on Mon, 08 December 2014 09:06

-good luck figuring out who you can trust" type game.

Yes. That is the entire point of no-comms games.

skoormit wrote on Mon, 08 December 2014 09:06

-good luck figuring out who you can trust" type game.

Yes. That is the entire point of no-comms games.

I think, that transfering rogues with green scanners to the enemy is communication. The donor tells to my enemy about my planets and ships in this way...

neilhoward wrote on Tue, 09 December 2014 15:07

skoormit wrote on Mon, 08 December 2014 09:06

-good luck figuring out who you can trust" type game.

Yes. That is the entire point of no-comms games.

So you are in favor of the "you can get along with others as much as you like, so long as you make no explicit communication" rule/spirit of no-comms?