Home » Stars! 2.6/7 » The Bar » Crazy Ivan... (Cheating, or not, from Simple...)
Crazy Ivan... |
Wed, 03 December 2014 10:56 |
|
XAPBob | | Lt. Commander | Messages: 957
Registered: August 2012 | |
|
Background in this thread:
http://starsautohost.org/sahforum2/index.php?t=msg&th=53 79&start=0&rid=1560
"On 25 Feb 2014 18:55, Skoormit wrote:"
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?
There was a slightly OT discussion about getting a community vet of the decision, I felt that this would have compromised the no comms nature of the game...
"On 25 Feb 2014 19:32, XAPBob wrote:"
It's communication of a sort, but I'm far from thinking that it is clear violation. cooperation without communication...
"On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 2:27 PM, XAPBob wrote:"
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
"On 25 Feb 2014 20:52, Skoormit wrote:"
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.
"On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 2:58 PM, XAPBob wrote:"
Ah, I see the point.
And yes, invisibility will help you not be defended against. Presume you are at "tension" with the P?
"On 25 Feb 2014 22:22, Skoormit wrote:"
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
...
[Updated on: Wed, 03 December 2014 10:56] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Crazy Ivan... |
Wed, 03 December 2014 14:00 |
|
skoormit | | Lieutenant | Messages: 665
Registered: July 2008 Location: Alabama | |
|
One thing not explicitly stated above, though it was explicitly stated in my communications with XAPBob: in addition to sending tech lambs to Protectorate planets, I transferred to him several 98% cloaked ffs with pen scanners (conveniently pre-deployed in Elemental space).
Beeblebrox shortly thereafter intercepted one of those ffs and saw that they had ultra-cloaks, which of course meant that the Protectorate could not have built them. Beeblebrox objected to the act of transferring ships in a no-comms game.
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.
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.
[Updated on: Wed, 03 December 2014 14:00]
What we need's a few good taters.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Crazy Ivan... |
Wed, 03 December 2014 15:11 |
|
|
I am a bit surprised that you had a no-comms-game in which you were NOT forced to set each player as enemy. By design? Or did the host forget to include the player relations?
I am mentioning it because transfering ships wouldn't even be possible with all players set as enemies.
skoormit wrote on Wed, 03 December 2014 20:00I'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.
skoormitLesson 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.
The lesson I learned a long time ago:
There just aren't enough lines available to write down every rule needed if you really think that people play along the rules but are free to circumvent them.
So, what I suggest instead:
Define the spirit of the game. Make it as short as possible. Underline it in the announcements. Stick to it.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
| | | | | |
Re: Crazy Ivan... |
Fri, 05 December 2014 08:16 |
|
Asmodai | | Officer Cadet 1st Year | Messages: 214
Registered: February 2012 | |
|
I think, that transfering ships to the enemy has more political similarities to today`s actions made by so called "rulers" of our world, that constantly feeding the wars with weapons, sometimes arming their enemies and to other sily things to their own profit.
Using neigbour as "bumper" against more powerfull enemy isnt against the rules.
For egsample - if i know, that my neighbour is having difficulties with stopping powerfull enemy of mine, and i know my neigbour PRT/LRT weakness, i can handle to him the ships that in my opinion can help him in this task(minelayers to WM, penscans for NAS, or other assets that i feel that will add him some more edge). It is no comm, so i setuping orders without communicating with anybody. Then, two things can happen. Ships will not be transfered(my neigbour has all designslots full). He can scrapp them immediately, or as W0 in next turn. Possibly gaining tech. Or he can use them against me. Or my gifts will be inefficient or unused anyway to fulfill my expectations. My risk.
[Updated on: Fri, 05 December 2014 08:30] Report message to a moderator
|
|
| | | |
Re: Crazy Ivan... |
Tue, 09 December 2014 12:08 |
|
Lqdtr | | Crewman 1st Class | Messages: 28
Registered: February 2012 Location: Ru | |
|
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...
Quote: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.
http://fotkidepo.ru/photo/23517/39773zDdYtzg6kl/gMpAFJaS3N/1 042230.png
P.S. Is it possible to post images here?
[Updated on: Tue, 09 December 2014 12:16] Report message to a moderator
|
|
| | | | | | |
Re: Crazy Ivan... |
Fri, 12 December 2014 12:49 |
|
Mac1 | | Chief Warrant Officer 2 | Messages: 159
Registered: November 2008 | |
|
I didn't played in this game, but after reading this thread, i'd like to comment.
For me the standard "no Alliance" game, should have "all enemy setting", which dissalow almost all forms of cooperation.
But if you play a game that only states "no comms", i think you are free to do any other action, even if they may be found as "bad spirit"
I can imagine such game as a scenario when few civilizations meet each other but they can't understand each other's speech.
So they try different actions to show their intention, like
- not shoot scouts
- prepare some gift
- not close distance
etc.
Probably we've seen that in many s-f movies and that's how I imagine that game.
If the game supposed to ban any form of cooperation or trading, it should be explicitely stated by rules.
"No comms" for me means only that you don't have easy way to show your intention...
[Updated on: Fri, 12 December 2014 12:50] Report message to a moderator
|
|
| |
Re: Crazy Ivan... |
Mon, 05 January 2015 20:08 |
|
rolfverberg | | Master Chief Petty Officer | Messages: 103
Registered: March 2006 Location: Ithaca, NY, USA | |
|
My two cents:
No comm to means just that: No comm. If nothing else is specified, than giving ships or minerals would be allowed if I were asked. That to me is diplomacy or trade or whatever you want to call it. But if it occurs unsolicited, I don't think that's communication.
I am puzzled as well though that there was no "everybody enemy" rule, but I didn't play or hosted, so that's not mine to discuss.
I agree that it simply illustrates that we should be clear when setting up a game what the rules mean. The pre-game thread is the place to fight these rules battles, not the game...
I also think this hints to me that if I enter a "no comms" game I should ask if any type of cooperation and/or assistance is allowed or not, me preferring the "not" option.
Cheers, Rolf.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Crazy Ivan... |
Tue, 06 January 2015 12:52 |
|
Shadow Whist | | Chief Warrant Officer 2 | Messages: 167
Registered: August 2003 Location: Vancouver, WA | |
|
This is a thread some interesting insight into differing expectations.
It sounds like the 'reducing the amount of in-game "cooperation" between players' is at least one expectation for a 'no-comms' game.
My expectation of a "no-comms' game is different. I would expect no communication in the form of messages or emails etc. My perspective is that if I wanted to gift ships, tech or give minerals - that would be a viable strategic option and not violating the spirit of the game. Anything other then messages should be fair game unless it was explicitly excluded. Of course, this could be influenced by the fact that in most of my games, out of game communication and diplomacy took approximately 1/3 to 1/2 of my game play time. My interest in joining a 'no-comms' game would be to reduce that portion of time spent on the communication side of the game - NOT on reducing the amount of in-game cooperation between players.
It seems worthwhile to clarify those expectations in the game description. At the same time, this could get really ridiculous. Like XAPBob said: I set up a scout picket line to demark my territory. Would that now be considered questionable communication? What if my attack fleet ended up being 'under-supported' which resulted in a complete loss (and large mineral boon for another player). Would I now be accused of knowingly aiding an enemy opponent? I am sure that one could devise a scenario where aid would clearly have been given. However, concerns about in-game actions being misconstrued as 'cheating' would seriously reduce my enjoyment of the game. Sounds like I will avoid 'no-comms' games in the future without serious vetting.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sat May 04 11:09:00 EDT 2024
|