Is it unethical to attack your ally to win?

[El Koeno]

Who decides what's ethical?

I happened to think that whatever Mansa Musa and his followers did at their peaceful (though somewhat technologically advanced) island was a threat to the Confucian Brotherhood. So when my galleons arrived, filled to the brim with macemen, catapults and trebuchets to burn all their coastal cities until the few cities that were left capitulated, the Malinese had it coming! Totally justified. And completely ethical: I'm quite sure they were sacrificing cute bunnies. I had cool looking satellite photo's as evidence.

 

[JesusOnEez]

Hmmm...strangely, I take great glee in stabbing my allies in the back. Does that make me a bad person?

Usually it'll work like this.

Declare war on an enemy, and bring an ally into the war. Destroy the enemy, then declare war on my weakened ally.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

 

[cabert]

Not necessarily. Do you believe that Hitler achieved victory? I say he failed. His strikes were unfair and he failed.

I believe that the same rules are in the game.

edit: On the other hand, Jesus Christ poisoned mankind for 2000 years and some experts say that Christianity hasn't even begun. Jesus never stroke anyone.

Hitler and Jesus aren't in the game.
I didn't say in reality, bad actions are rewarded.
I said that the game's most powerful mechanics and moves are dubious.
Try playing an ethical game (= no Dow, no betrayal, no slavery, no police state, ...) and see if you win easier than when using all the options.

Copyrights? Falling under ethics? You don't own stock in the MPAA or RIAA, do you?

I don't know what MPAA and RIAA are,

I think you meant "patents" anyway.

English isn't my natural language, sorry.
What I meant is that trading to civ B a tech you got from civ A is in some way a betrayal of civ A, since you didn't find this tech yourself, and civ A didn't trade it to civ B.

In either case, there is controversy over whether the current regime of intellectual property is ethical... or even well-thought-out.

game and reality are 2 different things.
I wasn't THAT specific. The ethical issue IMHO is about the reward of the research effort.

 

[Rince]

Ask yourself this instead:

Is it ethical to allow your entire civilization and all the people in it to suffer defeat because you failed to act?

But in the case of the original poster the choice is not between life and death but between finishing first and finishing second.

 

[cabert]

But in the case of the original poster the choice is not between life and death but between finishing first and finishing second.

finishing second is death

 

[gettingfat]

To me, the fact that the AIs have so many bonuses is even more unethical. They don't play fair to start with.

 

[El Koeno]

To me, the fact that the AIs have so many bonuses is even more unethical. They don't play fair to start with.

Play on noble

 

[cabert]

Play on noble

even on noble, they don't play fair.
Heck, they don't even play. At least they don't seem to have fun.

 

[Winston Hughes]

Who decides what's ethical?

You do.

The whole point of playing 'ethically' imo, is that it requires a bit of imagination; it means not treating the game as simply a load of numbers which can be manipulated in a certain way to allow you to win in the most efficient manner. Optimal play isn't always the most enjoyable way to approach civ, nor does it necessarily provide the most memorable or immersive experiences. Playing with 'ethical' restraints is one of many 'variant' approaches that can be taken to give the game a bit more spice.

What counts as 'ethical' can also vary from game to game. In some cases it might mean being peaceful and generous towards other civs, or refraining from the use of tactics that harm your people. It might, on the other hand, involve playing in an 'honourable' manner, wherein friends and enemies alike are treated with respect, but where any insult must receive a harsh punishment.

Playing in a thoroughly evil, but decidedly sub-optimal, manner can also be highly entertaining.

 

[El Koeno]

even on noble, they don't play fair.
Heck, they don't even play. At least they don't seem to have fun.

To me Monty always seems to be having fun every time he comes knocking on my door to declare war on me...

BTW: How do AIs cheat on noble? I always thought everything was level on noble.

 

[cabert]

To me Monty always seems to be having fun every time he comes knocking on my door to declare war on me...

BTW: How do AIs cheat on noble? I always thought everything was level on noble.

not really
there are some AI bonus, like the upgrade costs that have massive discount, even on noble.
There is also a different way to conduct trade between AIs AFAIK.

 

[ICT]

Long time lurker - 1st time poster.
This topic really struck a cord with me last night as I had just finished up a game where I was faced with the same ethical dilemma. I've always been a rather peaceful builder mostly trying for rather peaceful spaceship or cultural victories. However I wanted to see what a noble domination victory would feel like when I chose a random leader (Kublai) and was surrounded by Monty, Izzy, and Toka. Originally my plan was to wipe Izzy off the face of the earth first but quickly Toka declared on me and he was my 1st victim.
By the time I go done with him I had adopted Judism and Issy, Rosavelt and I were the best of friends. So on I went the other way and with a little help from my friends took out Monty and his vassal Victoria. By the time I was done with them (fighting pretty much non-stop into the mid 1900s) I was only 10% of land mass away from domination and Issy was ripe for the picking on my border....... I couldn't do it. I had the Un built and had destroyed most of my enemies - so I took another victory route and went to free religion / bribed Hatty with a couple of techs and won easily on the 1st diplomatic vote (only my 2nd diplomatic win ever - and 2nd highest score ever).
I have to say - it felt awesome to win that way and even though I am well aware that it is "just a game" I don't think that I would've had that same satisfaction had I stabbed Izzy in the back..... and I've always kinda had a little thing for her too.

Thanks for listening to the rambling of a new civ-fanatic.

ICT

 

[gettingfat]

To me Monty always seems to be having fun every time he comes knocking on my door to declare war on me...

BTW: How do AIs cheat on noble? I always thought everything was level on noble.

There are a number of bonuses AIs gain even at noble level, e.g.

• human: bonus vs animals = 40%; vs barbarians = 10%; AIs: bonus vs animals = 70%; vs barbarians = 40% (looks trivial, but losing your warrior at the beginning can be a big thing)
• AIs' unit upgrade cost is only 30% (so in a blink their archers all turn into longbows and laugh at your pathetic axes)
• AI has reduced war weariness (80%) and reduced inflation (80%).
• Some subtle bonuses such as diplomacy rating (e.g. those irespect crxps).

Also remember the AIs do backstab a lot. Playing a "fair" game when nobody plays fair is an invitation to self-destruction. If one really wants to be truly "role-playing" then he or she must think like a leader of million of people. It is a major hypocrisy for a leader to allow his own people under his rule to be dominated by people of the other races because this guy wants to act like a high horse riding knight.