|
|
|
|
| Re: Vanilla Game (Almost): All Quiet II |
Fri, 13 February 2009 17:34   |
|
|
|
I'm the host of All Quiet (I).
That game is supposed to be fairly standard except for the 2-year NAPs & I use that standard for determining the two issues you have discussed above.
Colonisation is normal. In any game 2 or more races can attempt to colonise the same planet &, when it happens, there is sometimes a bit of sabre rattling & the races will either come to an understanding (eg. agree a border) or not. In this case the "not" might mean activation of the NAP exit clause & the 2 races could be at war quite quickly.
Planet Pop is also normal. If your oponent is colonising planets with very small pop & you don't like it then, once again, you can end the NAP & start merrily pop-droping quite quickly. Your oponent will almost cetainly not be able to reinforce the place marker planets before you have taken some (& probably gained some tech).
Pop-dropping is, however, most definately an act of aggression & breaches the NAP agreement.
Something you haven't discussed is minelaying:
This is predominately defensive & perfectly allowable when used defensively. If, however, your oponent is blocking your shipping lanes then sweeping is allowable & you'll probably warn him to move his MLs. He might even be more blatant like laying mines over your fledgling colony but, once again, the standard NAP is short & you can activate the exit clause whenever you like.
These are my hosting decisions but this, of course, this is a different game so you're decisions might differ.
PS: In All Quiet there is some discussion about whether there should be a game penalty for backstabbing (breaking a NAP when it is current). This happens in normal games occasionally but some players believe it should be a rule with a penalty. This is an ongoing discussion but I'm leaning towards making it a rule with maybe the requirement of making all other races "enemy" for the rest of the game + an announcement to all other players that it has happened - haven't fully fleshed out my thoughts yet. Since it's always a bad idea to introduce new rules once a game has started I suggest that you make that determination now.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Vanilla Game (Almost): All Quiet II |
Fri, 13 February 2009 19:53 |
|
|
|
| vonKreedon wrote on Fri, 13 February 2009 18:08 |
Thanks Alex.
Minelaying can be tricky in this context. Minelaying is another common way of grabbing and defining territory and can be used very aggressively. Now that I think of it, I don't think that Craebild has defined the race relations required for the NAP, other than we must set our battle orders to attack Enemies, so if we are all set to Neutral any MFs are going to eventually blow somebody up. Maybe we should set everyone to Friend for the initial NAP.
Regarding a penalty for breaking the initial NAP, I'm in favor of something significant, say banned from submitting for five years. I'm not in favor of instituting a penalty for breaking any subsequent NAPs or other agreements.
|
The problem with setting everyone to Friend is the alliance size limit since an ally is defined as someone with Friend status.
I think that players need to be Neutral during the initial NAP period, Enemy upon expiry of an exit period & Friend if they've agreed an alliance.
If someone is laying mines in an area you don't like you'd probably threaten them or activate your exit clause. If it's in an area you regard as rightfully yours then they are asking for trouble aren't they.
In the question of a penalty for breaking a NAP, one thing I'm pondering is whether it should apply to normal NAPs - i.e. renegotiated NAPs.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Vanilla Game (Almost): All Quiet II |
Sat, 14 February 2009 04:06 |
|
| Redski |
 | Petty Officer 3rd Class |
Messages: 43
Registered: September 2008 | |
|
| vonKreedon wrote on Fri, 13 February 2009 15:32 |
What I can imagine is getting into an NAP, finding a WH and both going through it. I go through with maybe three 52.5k colonization packages and my NAP partner goes through with 21 2.5k packages and some fuel transports. I find and colonize one or two worlds and then discover that my partner has colonized all the rest of the available worlds. Yes, that's agressive play on his part, but I would then be violating the NAP if I popdrop on any of his puny and orbitaless colonies.
|
"Aggressive" colonisation for sure, but not aggressive in the sense of hostility. Wildcat settlement with 2.5k pop might be someone's idea of a good strategy. So you have to counter it through either negotiation or force (the extension of diplomacy by other means 
I'm coming at this debate a little late but I would have said:
* two races trying to colonise the same world in the same year is pure bad luck/timing (stick some bigger engines on your colonisers!)
* any pop-dropping is a violation of NAP
* any population on a planet represents a valid claim on that planet
[Updated on: Sat, 14 February 2009 04:15] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Vanilla Game (Almost): All Quiet II |
Sat, 14 February 2009 04:14 |
|
| Redski |
| Petty Officer 3rd Class |
Messages: 43
Registered: September 2008 | |
|
| vonKreedon wrote on Sat, 14 February 2009 02:50 |
I'm in complete agreement with Dude on negotiated NAPs
|
Me too. Apart from anything else, unless it's a requirement that all NAPs are publicly posted (and that would be a major restriction on diplomacy), how would you police it? By getting the host to dredge back through the turn files to check who said what to whom? Sounds unrealistic to me. And impossible if the diplomacy was done through email.
[Updated on: Sat, 14 February 2009 04:15] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Vanilla Game (Almost): All Quiet II |
Mon, 16 February 2009 10:53 |
|
 Combat |
 | Warrant Officer |
Messages: 118
Registered: May 2008 | |
|
Nevermind
[Updated on: Mon, 16 February 2009 10:54]
He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster...when you gaze long into the abyss the abyss also gazes into you.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Vanilla Game (Almost): All Quiet II |
Mon, 16 February 2009 13:21 |
|
| rolfverberg |
 | Master Chief Petty Officer |
Messages: 103
Registered: March 2006
Location: Ithaca, NY, USA | |
|
Been out for a few days to come back to a lot of discussion. My views are in short:
Pop-dropping is aggressive, the size of the pop doesn't matter. If someone pop-drops me without warning during the NAP, I would evoke the right to cancel the NAP immediately without 2 years wait. If you want to claim territory you should enter into a border discussion first. If you don't agree with a neighbor, simply cancel the NAP. Like most of us agree, two years is not long.
Arriving at the same planet and trying to colonize is just bad luck for the loser. Cancel your NAP with 2 years if you don't like the result.
Starting conditions should be neutral. There are all kinds of problems if you make them friendly. Gate use for example. Minefields could then be a problem, but they should be solved by border negotiations. Swiping inside ones own territory should not be violating the NAP. I would call that defensive swiping.
Penalty for back-stabbing should NOT be enforced. I like to be free in my diplomacy. More later, got a phone call now.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Vanilla Game (Almost): All Quiet II |
Mon, 16 February 2009 13:56 |
|
| rolfverberg |
| Master Chief Petty Officer |
Messages: 103
Registered: March 2006
Location: Ithaca, NY, USA | |
|
Back again...
To continue about back-stabbing: I think there should not be a penalty. It part of diplomacy and I like to be free in that. If anyone has ever played the board game Diplomacy (it's great by the way), you know that it's almost impossible to win without breaking deals. The trick is to do it right and make sure your opponent isn't able to survive it... If done properly, I can have respect for someone breaking a deal. Of course if done improperly, it will kill you. The back-stabbed party will simple cry out in public and the back-stabber will have a hard time to be trusted again by others. That's the way it should be dealt with, not with penalties.
OK, these are my personal views, but I will be happy to play with different rules as long as I know what I'm up to
Cheers, Rolf.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Vanilla Game (Almost): All Quiet II |
Sat, 21 February 2009 08:02 |
|
|
|
I pressed that button, I know i did!!!  Thanks cc.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
