All's fair in love and war

[Creepy Old Man]

As defense minister, how ethical is it to retreat allies from the battlefield to ensure I don't lose my post? After all, they went to a lot of trouble to build a substantial army to ensure that our civilization excels in the battlefield.

 

[stream_mm]

I think it's abusing the power, and would probable call you out on the public chat (to hopefully tarnish their name and warn others of their way) - and try to find another civ that have people who will not abuse the power.

Then turn around and attack the original Civ - don't put a lot of troops in - wait for the corrupt minister to remove troops - and then stack up and win.

NOTE: The only way it would be OK is if you are removing the LOWEST stack to place your HIGHER stack for the greater good of the Civ. If you remove someones 50 stack to place your stack of 2... then that is just wrong in my opinion.

 

[Glinda]

As defense minister, how ethical is it to retreat allies from the battlefield to ensure I don't lose my post? After all, they went to a lot of trouble to build a substantial army to ensure that our civilization excels in the battlefield.

Not at all, and I won't be looking to play on a team with you again, so there's your answer.

 

[Creepy Old Man]

One major problem is that players have so little control over who their teammates are. The only way to control who is in your civ - closed borders - is hardly adequate. By the time the policy is available, you're already saddled with a number of undesirables. Even getting into a common game with friends is cumbersome, and perhaps impossible if you can't all log in at the same time. (And yet, for a strong team, you want players with a variety of online times.)

The game needs more provision for groups to join games (and hey, facebook already has groups, right?), and it needs more provision for those players to stay as a group once in the game.

At the very least, the game needs means to discipline uncooperative civ members. Civs need to be able to propose and vote on disciplinary actions. This might include expulsion or banning from the civ, or loss of population for the offender.

 

[Sir_Mang]

First time post in these forums, I've played games from CIV II to this one. There seems to be a little disconnect from the military aspect of things, especially if you're not the military advisor who can change your guys stance from defensive to heroic to retreating them out at the end.

Personally, if you decided to back out my troops at the end of the battle to reap the rewards, I'd leave your civ regardless of size, go to someone else's civ, DOW you...then speak to my teammates about not putting in units til right before the battle starts and overloading the battle plus building leonardos and himeji so you'd have no chance at expelling me from ripping your techs/wonders away.

This game requires having a civ that actually talks to one another and coordinates moves. I'm in a game with Stream presently and while I started off in his Civ...the civ had no cooperation and not communication so I left to a newly formed civ where we talk and coordinate with each other. We started our civ rather late but we're starting to steamroll towards victory, personal and civ wise. Game 841 is the game I'm referencing.

Communication and team play is EVERYTHING in this game.

 

[Quentin]

Unrelated questions, but also about fairness.

Is it ok to leave a civ more than halfway through the game, start a one-nation civ, then turn back to attack the former civ to try to win its techs and wonders?

And is it ok if I keep attacking the largest but mostly inactive civ for easy era victories?

EDIT: Mainly what I'm asking is if you're one of the other players in my game and I do either of these how much would you hate me?

 

[Glinda]

One major problem is that players have so little control over who their teammates are. The only way to control who is in your civ - closed borders - is hardly adequate. By the time the policy is available, you're already saddled with a number of undesirables. Even getting into a common game with friends is cumbersome, and perhaps impossible if you can't all log in at the same time. (And yet, for a strong team, you want players with a variety of online times.)

Yeah, this is completely disingenuous, given that you WERE in a team of people we pre-arranged (here on the forum), and you chose to screw me over. It's not at all like we have some team of incompetents riding on your coat-tails. In fact, we have a really strong group of active players, and you are using that to get as much fame possible, regardless of whether it helps the team or not.

Congrats, you are #1 in game 1287. None of us will have you in a team again.

 

[avien]

As defense minister, how ethical is it to retreat allies from the battlefield to ensure I don't lose my post? After all, they went to a lot of trouble to build a substantial army to ensure that our civilization excels in the battlefield.

Totally unethical, egoistic and stupid.

Unrelated questions, but also about fairness.

Is it ok to leave a civ more than halfway through the game, start a one-nation civ, then turn back to attack the former civ to try to win its techs and wonders?

Perfectly ok. If they where organized, you would have no chance of doing this, if they are not, they have themselves to blame.

And is it ok if I keep attacking the largest but mostly inactive civ for easy era victories?

EDIT: Mainly what I'm asking is if you're one of the other players in my game and I do either of these how much would you hate me?

It's clearly a weakness of the game. We are steamrolling our way towards the end of the game, by doing this. I think this needs to be fixed, for the sake of the game. However, as of now it's a part of the game and hence legal. If it's fair, depends on personal opinion.

My civ do it, since we want to complete the game. It's no challenge anymore, our civ has dominated almost from the start and it's getting too easy, so why slow the game down more than necessary, when all we want is to finish the game already?

 

[happyturtle]

There's a time and a place for a strategic backstab of allies, but that's generally right when you intend for them to become former allies. To do it when you still intend to keep them as team-mates... kind of dumb, I think.

 

[Glinda]

Apparently, not being on board with Creepy's "let Creepy win all the medals and get first place" agenda is being "emotional".

 

[Pinstar]

Meritocracy and Closed Borders should be available from the start and not take up your civic slot. Maybe modify closed borders to be 'invite only' so you make a civ, close the borders then invite the specific individuals into that civ.

 

[Creepy Old Man]

Apparently, not being on board with Creepy's "let Creepy win all the medals and get first place" agenda is being "emotional".

QFT

 

[Glinda]

Meritocracy and Closed Borders should be available from the start and not take up your civic slot. Maybe modify closed borders to be 'invite only' so you make a civ, close the borders then invite the specific individuals into that civ.

This used to be the case with Closed Borders, but then a bunch of people were sad because of games where one person would form a civ and close borders, so all the civs were taken.

 

[Camikaze]

Moderator Action: This thread seems to be more about a specific incident than the general idea. Don't bicker in your posts here, please.