Everyone hates me because I won't DoW on them?

[CajNatalie]

I like Farm Boy's example.

Anyways, I still can't understand how this is 'illogical'.
Not helping someone out when they ask you is gonna annoy them.
Not joining your friend in their war means you won't get any plus points with them.

It all makes perfect logical sense. I honestly think G-Max is biased because he'd rather play friends with everyone, so he's trying to pick at whatever he can. As much as I try to play nice with my fellow AIs (minus the one I'm preparing for war against), I don't let my occasional annoyance bias my ability to see that it does make sense like this.

Pick sides already!
At least this is much better and more realistic than the AI simply dogpiling on you (Civ I & II), and the only side is your side.

 

[G-Max]

None of you have addressed my point: am I passively doing nothing, or am I actively rejecting one belligerent?

Now for the Q&A...

you do not really wanna tell someone you were this close ot declaring war on them

But I wasn't close. Not by a long shot.

If somebody is attacking your family and you ask your neighbor for help and they walk away, you are probably going to hold it at least a little bit against them.

Okay, but what if I was attacking somebody else's family, and I asked a friend to help out? I wouldn't hold it against them if they declined.

Frankly, if you're going to rant about how the game is unrealistic

I believe the phrase I used was "unfair and ********"

I honestly think G-Max is biased

You're wrong.

 

[PPQ_Purple]

You are really pushing this.

Your logic is flawed becouse you believe that doing nothing is equal to helping.
This post of your's sums it up perfectly.

You're all using doublethink, applying one line of reasoning to the attacker and a different line of reasoning to the victim, and it's getting annoying.

You are working under some sort of flawed asumption that there exists one line of reasoning that is somehow absolute and unbiast. This is not the case.

Each civ has a mind of it's own.
When Civ A approaches you and asks you to declare war on Civ B and you decline. What have you done is the fallowing:

Toward Civ A: Refused to help them. Thus they dislike you.
Toward Civ B: Done nothing at all to either help or hinder them. So why should they like you for it.


When you put it all together the score looks like this:
+1 He is not helping kill us.
-1 He does not care for us enough to help us. If he was a true friend he would try and talk his friend out of killing us.

It's like walking down the street seeing two guys beat each other up and going: What ever.
Why should either of them like you for it?


By your logic, you should get a diplomacy bonus every time any two civs are at war and you are not helping either of them.


To make an analogy how this is. Let's say you are walking down the road and you meet Bruce Lee and Chuck Norris.

Chuck comes at you and starts caving your face in. Than, after some 10 punches to your tender region he calls Bruce to join him. But Bruce says: "I am tired now, you can have this one."

Will you really like him for not helping cave your face in? And will this like be any greater than the dislike for being friends with the guy who just deprived you of your skull?

 

[Farm Boy]

EDIT: I like PPQ's logic much better

 

[G-Max]

You are really pushing this.

Your logic is flawed becouse you believe that doing nothing is equal to helping.

(blah blah blah)

Uh, NO. I was playing devil's advocate to show the flaws in the logic that everyone else was using.

By your logic, you should get a diplomacy bonus every time any two civs are at war and you are not helping either of them.

Wrong. By my logic, I should either (a) get a -1 for the civ that I actively reject, and +1 for the civ that I decided not to attack, or (b) not get anything either way.

Note: technically, if I have Open Borders with the civ under fire, I can station my garrisons inside their cities and help to defend without actually DOWing on the aggressor... I think. My memory might be fuzzy on this one.

 

[CajNatalie]

PPQ's post has said all that needs to be said. :3

Now anyways, speaking of the note you put, G-Max, what you would get a + for is if you sent troops to your friend, and gifted them.
That would mean actively helping (this is key to +diplo) them, making you worthy of a +1 (or more).
Of course, you'd have to send enough, and your power would drop unless you built a few replacements, but it would be easier and less hassle than going to war.

 

[G-Max]

PPQ's post has said all that needs to be said. :3

That would be true if not for the fact that everything in that post was completely wrong.

 

[Jarlaxe Baenre]

That would be true if not for the fact that everything in that post was completely wrong.

And how was it wrong? Would you really have a FONDNESS for Bruce Lee because he didn't beat you up?

Why should you get a diplo modifier for neutrality?

 

[CajNatalie]

Because Bruce Lee told him later that Chuck wanted him to join in, and he clearly thought that Bruce was awesome because of it.

 

[Opies]

29 posts later and g-max's skull is still thick as ever.

You are in a fight. You and the other guy are exchanging blows. You ask your friend who is watching to help you. He declines and continues watching. You aren't going to hold that against him?

It is you who is irrational, not the AI.

 

[Farm Boy]

I do not know if this thread makes my brain happy or hurt. I think I am going to go with happy. It is an active thread with some nice logic. Plus it has a Chuck Norris reference.

 

[G-Max]

And how was it wrong? Would you really have a FONDNESS for Bruce Lee because he didn't beat you up?

It was a stupid analogy, but just for lulz, I'll respond to it anyway...

Let's say you are walking down the road and you meet Bruce Lee and Chuck Norris.

Chuck comes at you and starts caving your face in. Than, after some 10 punches to your tender region he calls Bruce to join him. But Bruce says: "I am tired now, you can have this one."

Will you really like him for not helping cave your face in?

I'd be somewhat relieved that my situation didn't just get twice as bad.

Why should you get a diplo modifier for neutrality?

Ask Firaxis. They're the ones whose logic would dictate that Switzerland must be the most hated country in the world.

You are in a fight. You and the other guy are exchanging blows. You ask your friend who is watching to help you. He declines and continues watching. You aren't going to hold that against him?

Yeah, but if he's also friends with the guy I'm fighting, then the guy I'm fighting might be glad that he didn't take my side.

 

[Derakon]

I think what we have here is one person who's going to ignore any reasonable argument, because they've made their decision. All y'alls can spend all the effort you like trying to convince him he's wrong, but it's not going to accomplish anything.

Oh noes! Someone is wrong on the Internet! Call the Net Cops!

 

[G-Max]

I think what we have here is one person who's going to ignore any reasonable argument

Just one? I count about a dozen.

 

[Jarlaxe Baenre]

Just one? I count about a dozen.

And how are your arguments reasonable? What you're saying is that you'd LIKE the bully who didn't punch you because his hand hurt while the rest of the bullies were punching you.

If you're leading an empire, and the civ you are absolutely neutral with is bribed by your enemy to attack you, and they refuse, you're like them? Because they refused for WHATEVER reason?

 

[G-Max]

And how are your arguments reasonable? What you're saying is that you'd LIKE the bully who didn't punch you because his hand hurt

No, that's NOT what I'm saying. I'm saying that I'd respect the guy who was friends with the bullies but didn't succumb to the peer pressure to "join in" because they believe that beating up innocents is wrong.

If you're leading an empire, and the civ you are absolutely neutral with is bribed by your enemy to attack you, and they refuse, you're like them? Because they refused for WHATEVER reason?

It would score points with me, yes.

 

[Jarlaxe Baenre]

No, that's NOT what I'm saying. I'm saying that I'd respect the guy who was friends with the bullies but didn't succumb to the peer pressure to "join in" because they believe that beating up innocents is wrong.

But how do you know the person's intentions? You don't. The AI won't like you for not backstabbing them because they don't know your intentions.

 

[G-Max]

But how do you know the person's intentions? You don't. The AI won't like you for not backstabbing them because they don't know your intentions.

Why would I give a damn what their motivations were? I'm just grateful that I'm not suffering twice as much pain.

Also, for the record, the entire Chuck Norris/bully/whatever analogy is nonsense because the civ asking for help is not always the aggressor/bully.

 

[Jarlaxe Baenre]

G-Max, are you a troll? Most of your posts are rude or negative in nature. You are saying everyone's ideas are terrible. Are you just asking these questions and then arguing for the fun of it?

 

[G-Max]

You are saying everyone's ideas are terrible.

Not everyone; just the people who demonstrate logical fallacies, doublethink, a tendency to completely miss the point, etc.

Are you just asking these questions and then arguing for the fun of it?

I don't argue for fun. I argue to seek the truth. In this thread, I will argue until either (a) I understand why Switzerland should be the most hated country in the world, or (b) everyone else understands why it shouldn't.