Iron and Blood 2 - Game Thread

[Joecoolyo]

Because it wouldn't make sense if people can't respond to a response declaration. All this stuff is happening within a few hours of each other so why would someone wait all the way to next year to actually respond to a response DoW?

Because this a game, not real life. We have established rules to make sure game crashing things like this don't happen, and everyone has a fair shot at victory.

Which includes giving the victim extra time to respond, to nullify the power of surprise attacks at the end of the DOW period.

 

[NedimNapoleon]

With Istanbul, but I didn't declare war on France they declared war on me, take notice of that its a DP pact, I need them in my defense.

 

[Ailedhoo]

Britain declares that it wishes to remain out of the current wars. We wish to recover from both the Napoleonic Wars and the October Revolt. God save the King!

 

[Joecoolyo]

With Istanbul, but I didn't declare war on France they declared war on me, take notice of that its a DP pact, I need them in my defense.

They declared war on you because you declared war on me.

It's not that hard to understand Nedim. That's how defensive pacts worked. I'm the victim and I'm allowed to call on my allies. Since you started the war, you have no claim to victim status.

 

[NedimNapoleon]

But next to the DP I also had an alliance with JoanK and Sam, so they can in the response time join on the basis of alliance. I say we've spammed about a page or so so lets just stop and let tailless decide.

 

[DroopyTofu]

What if everyone is automatically at peace so the game doesn't get annoying and turn people away before it even gets off the ground?

 

[Sonereal]

Because this a game, not real life. We have established rules to make sure game crashing things like this don't happen, and everyone has a fair shot at victory.

Which includes giving the victim extra time to respond, to nullify the power of surprise attacks at the end of the DOW period.

But why should anyone have a fair shot at victory in a game that should have disparity? The defender can still can in favors and there is still a period between the response and orders lock to work with the current situation.

A defender and her allies can probably get around surprise DoWs against only the defender if the defender just formed a coalition and treated each DoW against the coalition as a DoW against ALL the coalition. This way, the "surprise DoWs" aren't as effective since all the Coalition will automatically declare back.

 

[Joecoolyo]

But next to the DP I also had an alliance with JoanK and Sam, so they can in the response time join on the basis of alliance. I say we've spammed about a page or so so lets just stop and let tailless decide.

Which allows them to join in the original DOW time, not the time intended to allow the victim to call on his allies.

 

[Joecoolyo]

But why should anyone have a fair shot at victory in a game that should have disparity? The defender can still can in favors and there is still a period between the response and orders lock to work with the current situation.

Everyone has a fair shot at victory. Why would anyone join if they knew they didn't have a shot at victory just because of loopholes?

A defender and her allies can probably get around surprise DoWs against only the defender if the defender just formed a coalition and treated each DoW against the coalition as a DoW against ALL the coalition. This way, the "surprise DoWs" aren't as effective since all the Coalition.

We established last game that you can only declare war on countries, you cannot declare war on alliances and coalitions.

Which is why we have the response period in the first place. For the victim in the war to call on each of his/her allies and give them ample time to respond in the thread. It is not for the aggressor to call on his/her allies once he realizes the person he's gangbanging has allies as well.

 

[JohannaK]

Oh well. Someone should have clarified it. I see it as phase one is to declare war and counter declare and whatever, and then it's time for allies of any sides to DoW.

 

[Sonereal]

Everyone has a fair shot at victory. Why would anyone join if they knew they didn't have a shot at victory just because of loopholes?

Because of the way the game started, some players are in better positions to "win" than others.

We established last game that you can only declare war on countries, you cannot declare war on alliances and coalitions.

But if the alliance/coalition is simply an organized umbrella for all nations involved, wouldn't that help out the GM, who worries less about individual nations on that level, and better for players, who don't have to track each individual response?

If I declared war right now on the Handschar Alliance, it would be assumed I'm declaring war on all member nations of that alliance. Likewise, since they are an organized alliance/social group, then it only makes sense that if I declared war on just one of them and then a spokeman came and said that war is declared against me by the coalition, then I know that I'm against the whole alliance.

This system would do more to make the system more "natural" and less arbitrary and head scratchingly confusing than individual declarations and cut down on sneaking in a DoW against just one member if the members of the coalition, in thread, declare officially that an attack on one is one against all and therefore is a auto-DoW.

Which is why we have the response period in the first place. For the victim in the war to call on each of his/her allies and give them ample time to respond in the thread. It is not for the aggressor to call on his/her allies once he realizes the person he's gangbanging has allies as well.

But why shouldn't the allies of the aggressor be allowed to declare in response to other declarations? Maybe I and other players have misunderstood how the system works because to some (at least, a handful in the chat), thinks this was the system.

1.) Original Period
Free-For All Declare on Whoever!

2.) Response
Declare war in response/relation to a war declared in the Original Period. For instance, I couldn't declare war on the UPCA out of the blue during this period but if I joined the Great European Gangbang, then the UPCA or California or anyone else could declare war against me in response since the name "Response" implies "response" to the original period itself. Of course, TK's ruling will hopefully clear this up and whether I should call if the "Victim Response Period" in my head instead of the "Response Period", which is greatly more general in possible scope.

 

[Joecoolyo]

Because of the way the game started, some players are in better positions to "win" than others.

No one is in a better position that others in this game. From the get go, the only thing that allows for that are actions of the players themselves.

We have established rules to make sure players don't cheat their way to victory.

But if the alliance/coalition is simply an organized umbrella for all nations involved, wouldn't that help out the GM, who worries less about individual nations on that level, and better for players, who don't have to track each individual response?

If I declared war right now on the Handschar Alliance, it would be assumed I'm declaring war on all member nations of that alliance. Likewise, since they are an organized alliance/social group, then it only makes sense that if I declared war on just one of them and then a spokeman came and said that war is declared against me by the coalition, then I know that I'm against the whole alliance.

This system would do more to make the system more "natural" and less arbitrary and head scratchingly confusing than individual declarations and cut down on sneaking in a DoW against just one member if the members of the coalition, in thread, declare officially that an attack on one is one against all and therefore is a auto-DoW.

You bailed last game, right?

Towards the end we had a controversy as bad as this one regarding declaring wars on alliances/for alliances, and it was decided no, each member has to voice their declaration of war.

But why shouldn't the allies of the aggressor be allowed to declare in response to other declarations? Maybe I and other players have misunderstood how the system works because to some (at least, a handful in the chat), thinks this was the system.

Because the response period was set up to help the victim, not for the aggressor to gather up further allies. It becomes game breaking if done so.

EDIT: And yes, I'm awaiting tailless as well to clear up this un-godly mess.

 

[Sonereal]

No one is in a better position that others in this game. From the get go, the only thing that allows for that are actions of the players themselves.

We have established rules to make sure players don't cheat their way to victory.

Yes, people are in better positions than others. If all positions were created equal, then we should be in a rough economic stalemate in a few turns but some players have better skills, some have better starts, some have better Faction Bonuses, etc.

You bailed last game, right?

Towards the end we had a controversy as bad as this one regarding declaring wars on alliances/for alliances, and it was decided no, each member has to voice their declaration of war.

Then the problem is still solved by each individual member putting the caveat in their initial response DoW that any further DoW against W, X, Y, and Z (list individual members of the alliance) will result in auto-declarations of war.

Because the response period was set up to help the victim, not for the aggressor to gather up further allies. It becomes game breaking if done so.

EDIT: And yes, I'm awaiting tailless as well to clear up this un-godly mess.

But all things being equal, the victim can gather up allies too and no combat has taken place yet. It isn't gamebreaking because both sides of the conflict can call in allies.

 

[Robert Can't]

I'm Spartacus.

 

[Terrance888]

I'm Spartacus!

 

[Kinich-Ahau]

This really makes me want to declare war on you.

Same


/5char

 

[Joecoolyo]

Yes, people are in better positions than others. If all positions were created equal, then we should be in a rough economic stalemate in a few turns but some players have better skills, some have better starts, some have better Faction Bonuses, etc.

The stalemate never happens because players take things into their own hands and mess with the world, declaring war, conquering territory, etc.

We are all on the same foot initially, the only thing that changes that is the player action.

Then the problem is still solved by each individual member putting the caveat in their initial response DoW that any further DoW against W, X, Y, and Z (list individual members of the alliance) will result in auto-declarations of war.

Trust me, the controversy was over me and my alliance last game. You cannot do auto-declarations, each member must do it individually.

But all things being equal, the victim can gather up allies too and no combat has taken place yet. It isn't gamebreaking because both sides of the conflict can call in allies.

That's the point. Unlike the aggressor, the victim was not expecting this war and is unprepared. They are given time to gather allies and even it out.

 

[arya126]

But I declared war in the RESPONSE period. The initial DoW period was closed, and I was honoring my DP. The purpose of a DP is to come to the aid of your allies if they are attacked. But I didn't 'attack' Turkey and Bosnia initially. I only attacked them via coming to the aid of my ally, whom they had attacked.

Whether its a full fledged alliance or a defensive pact doesn't matter Nedim. A full fledged alliance on the offensive would still only be able to declare war in the initial period. However, either of them would be valid in the response period IF it was activated in DEFENSE, which yours was not. Basically, when you declared war on Istanbul, and provided I honor my DP, then you were also declaring war on me. My DoW wasn't a separate declaration of war on you. It was intertwined with your declaration of war on Istanbul, that has little basis in the first place.

Guys, please don't kill this game by using any and every loophole in the game you can think of to gain more support for your war. You are twisting the mechanics to allow you to use the response period of DoWs against what it was supposed to defend against.

 

[kiwitt]

Please read, and take the discussion there.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/group.php?do=discuss&gmid=86140#gmessage86140

This is how TK will probably rule. We had a similar discussion in IB1. 48/96 hours is a game mechanic, everything else surrounding it is diplomacy.

All DoWs in the first phase are initial DoWs. DoWs in the second phase are response DoWs. If you want to DoW on a responding DoW, you will have to wait until the next update.

We debated this to death in IB1 and what we decided works, and TK also agreed with it.

Please take the rules discussion out of the thread.

 

[mechaerik]

It was well past nightfall as a man in a heavy coat wandered through the streets of one of the poorer districts of Kaapstad. Dim candlelights flickered in windows.

A few other people darted through the streets. Unlike the man in the heavy coat, the residents of the district where natives, and subject to the curfew that the state imposed. Nonetheless, the man also was in a hurry. Although being in this district at this time wasn't a crime, it was still very suspicious.

The man ducked into the yard of one of the houses. Its shutters were drawn, and for all the world that house seemed silent and empty. He glanced around, making sure that there were no guards around, and knocked. When prompted, he said "Ondaatje", and the door opened. He quickly stepped inside, and the door locked behind him. He was ushered into a windowless room at the center of the house, barely lit by small lanterns.

The man at the head of the table, almost completely engulfed in shadow, spoke.

"Captain De Vries, welcome. I do think everyone is present."

He leaned forwards, into the light.

A chill ran up De Vries's spine. The man before him was Henk Leeuwen, the leader of the local Radicalen cell. He was not a man to be trifled with, and De Vries knew that Leeuwen would have no trouble resorting to violence if he thought it was necessary.

De Vries reached into his coat and pulled out several sheets of parchment, filled with copies of orders and various information that the radicals were interested in. He handed the papers to one of the various lower officials and sat down.

A voice from a dark corner of the room said, in a tone with a hint of condescension "I told you he would succeed, Henk."

De Vries stared a bit, trying to see who it was that spoke with such familiarity to the leader of the Exercitiegenootschap Kaapstad.

"Oh, forgive me Captain, I forgot to introduce myself". The figure stepped forth into the light. "I am Rutger Jan Schimmelpenninck, former Grand Pensionary of the Batavian Republic."