The RoundTable

[Niklas]

More explorers, Magellan didn't circumnavigate the globe with one ship.

Explorers you say? Well, if this is all one big misunderstanding on our part then we are of course duly sorry for our harsh treatment of your explorers. Of course you could have contacted us first to assure us of your honorable intentions, or deigned to answer either of our attempts at contacting you through the proper diplomatic channels. But we can overlook these things for the time being. If you truly mean us no harm, then we will of course make amends for the damages done to you. If no more units set foot on our continent, and we have sufficient assurances that your fleet has sailed elsewhere, then we will be more than happy to pay the cost of your poor lost explorers in gold or other currency.

I know I can safely make such promises without consulting my team first since we all know what the chances are of those premises ever happening.

 

[Chamnix]

Propaganda? We only speak the truth

I said the Council's announcement and subsequent discussion were propaganda. Team Saber would never doubt anything our good friends the Babes said .

 

[gmaharriet]

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?

Well, you know actually, if Team BABE were to make it into the school history textbooks ~500 years from now...required reading for every school student...that might be quite an acceptable fate.

Speaking for myself only...not as representative of our entire team.

 

[Marsden]

My random thoughts on this highly entertaining thread.

There wasn't a treaty broken until Council attacked us.

No treaty was broken by our side, if anyone is being dishonourable its the Council by killing our two explorers during a time where we had peace.

Didn't Hitler say that when Germany was attacked by Poland in 1939?

It's rather dishonest to claim that such a landing isn't an invasion.

Honesty isn't required by the rules.

I have just about had it with some of the comments thrown at us in Team Babe.

Wotan, I'm sorry if I insulted you, but you are certainly not a bad civ 3 player. I think the main reason no one wanted BABE to retire was because you're not bad players, you're good players, and we want to play the game with someone that knows how even though the risk is we might lose to you. My chief and only complaint was you guys giving up. No one really asked you to be nice and stay on your island, why would we?
And on the plus side for you, you don't have to worry about not having a war with your rapidly obsoleteing army before marines, isn't that what you wanted? Good luck with that.

Anyway, don't take things personal, chamnix put in the right words.

I agree completely. This is a game, some one has to lose, but it doesn't mean we aren't all still friends, or at least mutual players that have respect for each other.

However I'm glad to see so many active BABE players here - we had already feared we were facing a two-men-show

As I said before, I never actually wanted BABE to retire. I just didn't want to end up in a BABE concentration camp/thong factory weaving thongs 18hrs a day.

One final note:

I don't know how many of you play or watch football, specifically the American football with the strange shaped ball and touchdowns, but you never go against your own team whether it's true or not. You can see your own receiver drop the ball and yell it's a good catch and the opposing receiver make a good catch and yell up and down that it was dropped. It's all part of the game.

If anyone was complaining on the SABER side about what's right and what isn't it's mostly because we don't want to lose. If the Council is complaining because of being invaded it's probably because they don't want to lose. Babe was complaining about SABER blocking their invasions because they wanted to win, aka didn't want to lose. After this is all over we can sit back and say "that was a good tactic there" or "you really outsmarted them here" but while the game is on we always will support our own teams and cry foul upon the others. It's just the way games are.

 

[Wotan]

Of course you don't. In that case, history would have been full of non-wars ending with countless casualties. Of course, it is the honorable thing to do to declare war before you conduct any hostile acts. But war begins either when war is declared, or, in the cases where honor is set aside, when the first hostile act is conducted.

I thought we agreed way back Civ3 is a game and that the game mechanics rule not examples from real life. Only just found this example of non consistent argumentation. You argued game mechanics should take precendence during the SABER affair, please own up to your own opinion now. Don't hide behind "in character" arguments as you have in your later posts. You replied to Whomp et al not as "diplomat of the Council" but as Niklas. At least own up to that.

To preempt similar confusion or attempts to use such arguments to evade owning up to what you require of others I would like threads to be either "in character" or not. Not this absolutely ridiculous mix where someone can try to hide behind excuses that they are just saying things "in character".

 

[General_W]

Hey everyone, I'm back from the lake! Did I miss anything?

&#8230; <reading> &#8230;

Ahh!

So&#8230; BABE sailed a completely peaceful fleet of ships all the way to our island, landed a group of peace-loving Mounted Warriors in a totally non-hostile action on our beaches, and then the warmongers that took over the diplomacy at The Council in my absence mercilessly attacked them in an absolutely unprovoked manner?!?

How could things have gone so wrong?!?
Looks like I'll need to do some housecleaning now that I'm back&#8230;

 

[Niklas]

I thought we agreed way back Civ3 is a game and that the game mechanics rule not examples from real life. Only just found this example of non consistent argumentation. You argued game mechanics should take precendence during the SABER affair, please own up to your own opinion now. Don't hide behind "in character" arguments as you have in your later posts. You replied to Whomp et al not as "diplomat of the Council" but as Niklas. At least own up to that.

Do you truly not see the difference? Yes, I argued that game mechanics should be considered during rules discussions. We're playing a game, and the rules for that game must by necessity be decided on from an out-of-character perspective. That is my opinion, and I will definitely own up to that. This is a completely different situation. No rules questions are involved, it's purely a matter of in-game diplomacy. Can you not see the difference? I really tried to explain it in my previous post, I really don't know what else to say to make you understand. But I'm going to try anyway.

We think you broke a treaty and we act accordingly, but we aren't accusing you of breaking any rules. There is absolutely no reason to feel slighted, from an OOC perspective we don't think you did anything wrong. Of course we don't like to be invaded, but that's the game. We do think you broke the treaty, both IC and OOC, but there's nothing wrong with that beyond the diplomatic repercussions. It's no worse than breaking a treaty with an AI in a solo game. You're not bad players for doing it, and obviously you have a different view on what happened. That's just to be expected. Why are you making it personal?

Yes, I did reply to Whomp as a diplomat of the Council, just as I believe he answered me as a diplomat of the BABEs when he refuted our news bulletin. You don't have to use a flowery voice or sign your messages with a funny title for it to be an in-game issue, the topic itself determines that. Most people reading this thread seem to have no problem separating the two, in all honesty I didn't think it was possible to misunderstand this. That kind of diplomatic mangling is exactly the kind of discussion that should be part of a game like this, just like Chamnix said, for the fun of everyone involved. Where's a good game without some diplomatic maneuvering? I'm mostly just sad, and quite a bit surprised, that you can't appreciate that.

Please Wotan, take a step back, try to relax, and then re-read this thread from the perspective that I'm actually telling the truth. Because I am. Truly, honestly.

 

[Elephantium]

Honesty isn't required by the rules.

So...BABE is a team of liars, and the other teams in the game should not believe any promises or treaties they make. Gotcha

 

[Wotan]

No Niklas, I do not agree with you about this issue. We were told in a not very nice way to stop arguing thing not in the game mechanics during the SABER affair. War and peace is part of the Civ3 game mechanics, we signed a "PEACE TREATY" with you guys, so until war is declared we have not broken any "PEACE TREATY". I just object to be slandered by members of Council and called liers and dishonourable persons when we actually do as told, play the game according to the rules and game mechanics of Civ3. Now you tell us we should play according to your interpretation of what is war and peace? Sorry but I am really confused now.

You argue interpretations of the word peace while advocating playing by how Civ3 works in another case. Your words: "The treaty says that peace shall reign between our nations. You have landed military units on our shores, which is an act of aggression, and thus an act of war" and "deliberatly worded in a way that encompasses peace in its purest form."

I argue Civ3 only make a distiction between WAR and PEACE. So if not at war we are at peace, right? Or we are to abandon the argument we should take the good and the bad in Civ3 and be happy with it? Just because you are now less than happy about it?

In hindsight, this was the very reaction we hoped for.... When you were "suffering" from Civ3 mechanics it was OK to argue outside of them. In real life bla bla bla "The treaty says that peace shall reign between our nations. You have landed military units on our shores, which is an act of aggression, and thus an act of war" Well, not according to the Civ3 mechanics you are so fond of telling us we should stick to.

 

[donsig]

Welcome back General_W! We've left you a little work to do..

 

[Elephantium]

I really don't understand what the BABE players are all upset about. Whomp, Wotan, do you really expect anyone to believe that your invasion of the Council was anything other than an invasion?

Sure, you can try to pretend that your attack units were "peaceful explorers", but I think your intentions are crystal clear.

 

[Chamnix]

I just object to be slandered by members of Council and called liers and dishonourable persons when we actually do as told

Don't personalize it, Wotan. Nobody is calling you anything of the sort. Team The Council is calling Team Babe treaty-breakers in the MTDG II for in-game political reasons.

To quote what the wise General_W said so well last game:

Anyone ever played the board game &#8220;Diplomacy&#8221; ?
It&#8217;s very fun.

Anyway &#8211; when playing that game, nothing makes me more upset than when someone stabs me in the back right before I was planning on stabbing them in the back. Especially if they beat me to it by 1 turn!

So I make them pay by complaining loud and long about how dishonorable they are. (Knowing full well that we&#8217;d both be in the reverse position [me being the backstabber and them being the complainer] if they had just waited a turn!)

Then when it&#8217;s all over, we have a good laugh about the game.

If the Council had the Great Lighthouse and a strong military, they might have landed troops on Babe's land and argued just as vehemently that it was not an act of aggression then. As Marsden mentioned, whatever team you're on is always in the right. Last game MIA even tried to argue (somewhat unsuccessfully unfortunately ) that simply establishing an embassy was an "act of war" but formally declaring war in-game without actually landing troops was not .

You have done absolutely nothing wrong, and nobody is questioning your integrity. Team The Council is looking to gain in-game advantage by convincing people not to trust Team Babe this game. We are all just playing a game.

 

[CommandoBob]

I just woke up from a nap; this is what I see so far:

Babe



The Council


Rest of the World

 

[General_W]

[Joshua speaking now, NOT General_W]
Very well said Chamnix.
[/Joshua]

Just for the record&#8230; The Council loves peace, baby rabbits, and rainbows. We would never have invaded BABE. We make love, not war.


@CommandoBob&#8230;

 

[Niklas]

Chamnix (or actually General_W) said it much better than I could, and has a better chance of getting across the infested borders I think. It's a game, and our wild accusations are in-game politics, nothing else. Please don't make it personal.

We don't feel that we're suffering from any game mechanics at all. You're fully in your right, by the rules, to land your troops without declaring war. We're going to complain loudly about it, but that doesn't mean we think you've done anything wrong... except we'd rather have peace of course, but that's a whole different matter.

@CB:

 

[markh]

CB : How did you manage to make a pic of the situation in the Gonger's pub ?

 

[Wotan]

In game or not calling people liars and dishonourable is not fun. Games should be about having fun. So this game has just gone from a very low to extreme subzero. Real life is full of opportunities for people to live out their dark urges to be abusive so why do it in a game where we are supposed to be sharing an interest in one of the great games of our time? If nothing else this has taught me never to play multiplayer games on CivFanatics again.

(I actually would break a RL friendship if someone called me dishonourable and a liar without being able to show for a fact I was. Your reputation is everything, if someone call you a liar and dishonourable for whatever reason it risk sticking and eventually none can separate truth from fiction. That is why I object so strongly even if it is "only a game".)

 

[Niklas]

Sigh, no one is calling you dishonorable on a liar Wotan. It's not even about it being "only a game". It's about it being about something inside the game, and not directed at you personally.

Have you ever played diplomacy or any similar game? Backstabbing is very much part of the game, as is in the extension lying. If you tried to be completely honest with everything you say and do in that game, you wouldn't last far. There are countless other games with the same property. I love those kinds of games. Nothing is more satisfactory than seeing your opponents surprised reaction to your backstab (hi PG! ). Does that make me a liar? Absolutely not, I would never lie about RL things. But I know to separate one from the other. If one of my adversaries in such a game would loudly proclaim me as a liar (which is likely to happen), I would laugh heartily and tell him he's a fool. I know he doesn't mean that I'm a liar in RL, he's talking about the game. Like General_W, he wishes he had done the same to me. And in the game, that's even a compliment!

This is not a game of diplomacy. It is not a game where lying and backstabbing are core features. But there is a definite element of diplomacy involved, and in that an element of roleplaying. We are not calling you a liar or dishonest. We are posturing and insulting your imaginary government! Games should indeed be about having fun, and roleplaying and posturing is very much part of what makes this game fun!

If you don't see or understand the difference, I'm sorry. Sorry that you've felt offended by things I've said, it was definitely never my intention. And sorry for you because of the fun you're missing out on.

Friends?

 

[Paul#42]

Real life is full of opportunities for people to live out their dark urges to be abusive so why do it in a game where we are supposed to be sharing an interest in one of the great games of our time?

Interesting position.
I see it completely different: Real Life does not allow me to behave in a bad way (well most of the time - I've got children ).
In games I get the opportunity to be mean and treacherous, to fight and kill - maybe my life is too boring?

 

[Whomp]

Niklas and Cubsfan you're on. It will be especially fun to crush a cubs fan though there's nothing new with that.

On topic: Since I'm sure Council will pull a Saber all we can do is thank you for the war happiness for declaring war on us. Diplomacy in this game was pathetic so see you at bombers.