cubsfan6506
Got u
I want in to.
-
In anticipation of the possible announcement of Civilization 7, we have decided to already create the Civ7 forum. For more info please check the forum here .
The RoundTable
- Thread starter General_W
- Start date
I want in to.
Beorn-eL-Feared
Idiot riding pedals
Hmmm ... 2v2?
I'm in...no islands. Pangea to the death.
Elephantium
Malcolm was a very good cat.
I really don't understand why Whomp is trying to paint BABE's invasion of the Council as anything other than an invasion. Sure, maybe BABE wasn't intending to attack...yet...having a stack on the shore to prevent a SABER-style blockade while they bring in a BIG attack stack would certainly suit their purposes.
It's rather dishonest to claim that such a landing isn't an invasion. We can get away with that kind of "uh, oops, sorry" responses when the AI boots our explorers, but that's not how diplomacy works against thinking opponents.
Boo, Whomp. Go ahead and sucker-punch the other teams, but don't try to claim that they started a fight when you're the one who started something.
It's rather dishonest to claim that such a landing isn't an invasion. We can get away with that kind of "uh, oops, sorry" responses when the AI boots our explorers, but that's not how diplomacy works against thinking opponents.
Boo, Whomp. Go ahead and sucker-punch the other teams, but don't try to claim that they started a fight when you're the one who started something.
cubsfan6506
Got u
cubsfan6506
Got u
I'm in...no islands. Pangea to the death.
How we going to do this.
denyd
Emperor
I suggest you each pick a tribe with an AA UU on a small/tiny panegea map. One of the PBEM map makers probably has one these Death-Match maps on hand for just such an occasion. I also suggest a regent or less level to get things done quicker.
Yep. BABE hasn't broken any rules, just a treaty. We have no OOC complaints, just diplomatic ones.
If there hadn't been the other 13 GALLEYS waiting to unload units off our shores, we certainly hadn't reacted this way.
So it's me and cubsfan vs Whomp and Beorn-eL-Feared? Bring it on!I'm in...no islands. Pangea to the death.
Aztecs for me then.
Daghdha
Absent Minded
Could one humbly request for full battle logs? Sitting in the Gong Lib, burping Pyramid Beer and reading ol comics (they're really ancient y'know) is getting kinda boring. You could post the logs here and make spiteful comments on your opponents stupiditiesNiklas said:
. Oh, and pics attached please!
I have just about had it with some of the comments thrown at us in Team Babe. The level of inflamatory namecallings we suffered in the SABER affair, I learned that I am a bad Civ3 player and childish for questioning some of the game mechanics in Civ3. We agreed to play on and were asked to look past some of the less than great ways Civ3 is designed. But to once again get called inflamatory things is more than I will agree is OK for a "civilized3community". 
EDIT: Forgot to include what I took offense to being called "dishonourable". For playing according to the rules and game mechanics that is a very inflamatory thing to have thrown at you.
We are NOT deal breakers, Council is the only deal breaker in this incident. We have a peace agreement with Council that extends until the dawn of turn 129. War and peace in Civ 3 is very clear to me. War is either an attack on a unit from another faction resulting in a state of war or it can be started by a declaration of war. That is the way Civ3 deals with war and peace,.
You cannot ask us to play by the rules and game mechanics in Civ3 when it suits you and ask us to play by some implicit interpretation of what constitutes war and peace in another situation when that suits you better. The game mechanics are very clear in this case, we did not break any peace agreement. I know the situation was a test of your reactions, unfortunately you reacted in a way we sort of feared you would. Not accepting to play by the game mechanics in Civ3 but wanting to make your own interpretation of the situation. Pity, I thought we were in agreement about accepting the good and the bad parts of Civ3 game mechanics as a result of the SABER affair. You guys on Coucil also happened to be some of the most vocal back then. Already forgotten what you demanded of us?
EDIT: Forgot to include what I took offense to being called "dishonourable". For playing according to the rules and game mechanics that is a very inflamatory thing to have thrown at you.We are NOT deal breakers, Council is the only deal breaker in this incident. We have a peace agreement with Council that extends until the dawn of turn 129. War and peace in Civ 3 is very clear to me. War is either an attack on a unit from another faction resulting in a state of war or it can be started by a declaration of war. That is the way Civ3 deals with war and peace,.
You cannot ask us to play by the rules and game mechanics in Civ3 when it suits you and ask us to play by some implicit interpretation of what constitutes war and peace in another situation when that suits you better. The game mechanics are very clear in this case, we did not break any peace agreement. I know the situation was a test of your reactions, unfortunately you reacted in a way we sort of feared you would. Not accepting to play by the game mechanics in Civ3 but wanting to make your own interpretation of the situation. Pity, I thought we were in agreement about accepting the good and the bad parts of Civ3 game mechanics as a result of the SABER affair. You guys on Coucil also happened to be some of the most vocal back then. Already forgotten what you demanded of us?
If there hadn't been the other 13 GALLEYS waiting to unload units off our shores, we certainly hadn't reacted this way.
More explorers, Magellan didn't circumnavigate the globe with one ship.
Robi D
Minister of (Dis)Order
Wow i guess i'm late to this party. Don't check for a few days and a war happens
Anyway we didn't break any deals, as Whomp said nothing was agreed upon about units not going through each others territory. And as it was agrued before a game mechanic isn't an exploit, so the game allowing a team to walk around another teams land without a ROP also isn't an exploit.
We wanted to explore quickly and move on to the next island to explore it too
Anyway we didn't break any deals, as Whomp said nothing was agreed upon about units not going through each others territory. And as it was agrued before a game mechanic isn't an exploit, so the game allowing a team to walk around another teams land without a ROP also isn't an exploit.
If there hadn't been the other 13 GALLEYS waiting to unload units off our shores, we certainly hadn't reacted this way.
We wanted to explore quickly and move on to the next island to explore it too
Everyone should recognize that the Council's announcement and subsequent discussion is in-game propaganda. It's role-playing and part of what should make multiplayer civ fun. When a war starts, each side blames the other and vilifies the enemy.
If you don't take everything as a personal attack, you may find games can be enjoyable.
If you don't take everything as a personal attack, you may find games can be enjoyable.
Calis
on time
But one could assume that BABE isn't too unhappy with what happened after their "scouts" landed...
And - just hypothetically naturally - they maybe intended such a reaction?
The last few pages of this thread are really...interesting.
These are just my personal thoughts and have nothing to do with what my team is thinking - naturally.
And - just hypothetically naturally - they maybe intended such a reaction?
The last few pages of this thread are really...interesting.
These are just my personal thoughts and have nothing to do with what my team is thinking - naturally.
Calis
on time
Robi D
Minister of (Dis)Order
Yeah right...
He had to fear to lose ships by pirates, storms...
You won't tell me BABE galleys with units on board ended their turn on ocean tiles, will you?
Anyway, don't take things personal, chamnix put in the right words.
However I'm glad to see so many active BABE players here - we had already feared we were facing a two-men-show
So both parties feel deceived and righteous (not unfamiliar at a start of a war) and all other parties have to make up their mind whom to blame.
Anyway, The Council did not complain that BABE were cheating but were just argue why this time not the war declaring party is the aggressor but the party declared upon - an act that happened many times in history.
It's the appropriate provocation that wins this part of the war: The Question of Guilt. It's always a matter of interpretation for the other nations. They will have to make up their mind if the DoW was justified or overdrawn.
I'm sure, they will do.
Magellan didn't really circumnavigate - only one ship made it all the way around, and Magellan wasn't even on it. He had already died in the Philippines. Out of 5 ships that left Spain, only one returned. Would that be an acceptable fate for the Babe Flotilla?
Wotan, you're mixing things up. Please read what Chamnix said, quoted below. There's a HUGE difference between breaking the rules and breaking a treaty. Breaking a treaty is perfectly allowed by the rules. It is an in-game, in-character offense, which is very much part of the game. Everything I've said on the matter in this thread has been totally in-character, with absolutely no ill intentions or hard feelings towards the players on the BABE team. It's propaganda, no more no less. If you break a treaty with an NPC in a solo game, the AI won't trade with you again (diplomatic repercussions), but it doesn't mean you're cheating. This is no different.
Breaking the rules is very much frowned upon and prohibited. We're not accusing you of breaking any rules, what you've done is perfectly legal as far as the game is concerned. We're not asking you to do anything differently (well, of course we are, get away from us!
), you are playing by the rules and mechanics we've all agreed upon. Exactly. We are not calling you bad players or cheaters or anything of the sort. You landed a force on our continent, and we explained in-character why we thought this was a violation of our treaty. We didn't expect you to care much since you seem very set on bringing war to our continent anyway. You're the big bad enemy now, and we'll employ whatever propaganda we can.
I understand why you may be extra-sensitive after the last round of discussion. But please realize that this is a completely different thing. The discussion then was centered on game mechanics and possible cheating/exploiting. This is in-character diplomatic propaganda, which is very much part of the game. I truly hope you can see and appreciate that difference.
