Settle a dispute...anyone willing to help us?

Montello1232

Chieftain
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Messages
17
my buddy and I are in the middle of a direct IP game but we're having a dispute and looking for a neutral party to make the call. Anyone willing?
 
SETTING: We are playing a Direct IP game. The rule is: "we cannot attack each other until the year 1800"

SITUATION 1: An army is surrounded by enemy territory and wants to move to it's own civ. The person controlling the army wants to declare war so that he can walk to his own territory. The army will not fight any units or destroy any improvements on the way out. Can the civ declare war?

SITUATION 2: One civ is using spies to destroy improvements in the opponents territory. Is this an attack on the other civ?
 
SETTING: We are playing a Direct IP game. The rule is: "we cannot attack each other until the year 1800"

SITUATION 1: An army is surrounded by enemy territory and wants to move to it's own civ. The person controlling the army wants to declare war so that he can walk to his own territory. The army will not fight any units or destroy any improvements on the way out. Can the civ declare war?

SITUATION 2: One civ is using spies to destroy improvements in the opponents territory. Is this an attack on the other civ?

Situation 1: I'd say no. because even if that person performs no overt attacking moves they'll still have to defend against attacking units, and gain experience for it, giving them an advantage when the year 1800 is hit.

Situation 2: I'd say that's an act of war - well, it would be in any game I was in - time to open a can of whoop ass!!
 
Our issue is more of semantics. Basically both situations come down to are the behaviors "attacking" or not.
 
I got a follow up. Let's say the rule was "we cannot fight each other until year 1800" would your answer be different?
 
In that case I'd say situation 1 is still not allowed, as it will involve fighting (unless the nation you're declaring war on to move your troops is your friend rather than the AI - but the other human player would have to agree on that in my opinion as it's stretching the rules you set out a bit).

But situation 2 would be allowed, it's attacking but not in a direct fight in the true sense of fighting.

But that's really semantics - no attacking to me means just that, no destruction of improvements, production or troops, so if your original agreement was no "attacking" then both situations break the agreement, if it was no "fighting" then it's a little different.

I'm intrigued now - which of you is surrounded and which is wanting to use spies?
 
It was no attacking, I'm the one being nailed with the spies and I allowed for a while and I realized it was against the rules. After our 45 minute debate about it and we decided to post it here my bud wanted to change attack to fighting which it never was.

I figured that the stance would change if it was "fighting".

I was the one that wanted to move my army...I've changed my opinion on that only due to the unhappiness I would cause to his civ. If it wasn't for that I would still hold my position that it would be allowed.
 
Well if it's no "attacking" then definitely my opinion, for what it's worth, is both situations break it, so if he's already broken it with his spies then you could always sucker-punch him and launch a sneak attack and raze his capital - purely in the interests of keeping things even ;)
 
we're not like that though, it was actually more important to find out who was right in the argument than who is gonna win the game. the spies are more annoying than anything else.
 
Mont and I started this game cause we wanted a huge end game war so no attacking each other till 1800. So we got rid of the other civs and build our empire.

He had his own definition of no attacking till 1800 and is literally using the word "attacking". I was under the impression we don't declare war on each other till 1800, since pretty much any "attacking" would declare war.

I trapped his Great General in the middle of my land and he wanted to get his general to his land so he was going to declare war to move him out and i actually trapped him on purpose to isolate that general. So I thought it was unfair he can just moved his General when i went to great length to trap it.

I built my empire larger and more advanced faster than him. So i got the spies and started going out and sabotaging him, just land improvements. He was poor and didn't like it but tolerated it for like 50 turns, then he got his own spies and starting coming after me with less success and a drain on his practically zero cash on hand. So he brought up this Hey, "no attacking" rule. I said it wasn't attacking, its sabotaging. It doesn't declare war. I think of attacking as the Civ standard that if you attack another player it declares war (sabotage doesn't).

So of course he wants me to stop damaging him and won't play till this "attacking " dispute is done with.
 
Fair enough, hope you come to an agreement on it.

Just seen that post - well, as a neutral I'd say you sending your spies is attacking - no nation in real life would put up with another nation destroying it's land and production - it's an act of war, so I'd say he was in the right for asking you to stop that.

And you're in the right in that he shouldn't be allowed to declare war just to move his great general and troops.
 
Well now you heard my side of it. Does your opinions still stand? he can't declare war on me and i need to stop my spy actions?
 
So what speed is saying not only did he not follow the letter of the rule (no attacking) he is also not following the spirit of the rule which was to allow us to build up our armies so we could have a big war.

By attacking my improvement your goal was not to follow the spirit of the rule as well...thank you for being honest about being shady. It's about time.
 
I wasn't being shady. you kept twisting the rules and everything to the opposite of what i was thinking of the rules.

And i wasn't "not follow the letter of the rule", i was under a different version of the rule and it wasn't brought up till you were trying to use it to your advantage.

I would have played a lot of things differently bulding my empire under your version of the rule.
 
My take on it :

1) Declaring War is not an attack per se. I'd say the army has an right to get out. If anything in the spirit of the agreement I'd say that you should have to agree to an Open Borders Agreement until that army has returned.

2) Espionage. Terrorism is an attack (poisoning, unrest, destroying improvements). Informationg gathering, including stealing technology is not an attack.
 
Situation 1: No. In the spirit of the rules the player with the army must open borders to retrieve his units, not declare war. If they don't want to open borders for reasons of, e.g. keeping their map secret, it would be unfair to give him an effectively unilateral open borders by agreeing to let warring units walkthrough (and map) an opposing player's territory unharmed.

Situation 2: You need to come up with a stronger set of rules in future. I would again say no to this one though. Since one player is fully aware of who is sabotaging with spies, and cannot start a war in response, this again constituates an attack, and should no be used by either side in the spirit of the rules. Passive missions would be fine, including tech stealing, but no sabotage, revolts, poison, forment unhappiness etc.
 
Hmmm, that's a tough one, and MrCynical has muddied the issue for me.

I would say that if Montello's army is not allowed to move due to speedstar's fear of open borders and gathering information about the map, city locations, and resources, then ANY use of the speedstar's spies is an act of war, as the spy has to walk into Montello's territory, where simply moving the unit will allow him to gather information about the map, city locations, and resources.

In the spirit of the agreement: if speedstar wants to use his spies to destroy resources and undermine Montello's civ, he should open his borders and let Montello move his army, then close those borders, with both knowing that Montello would not attack any unit, city, or resource while passing through.

My suggestion: declare this game a draw, and begin again. Your rule(s) should be clear and straightforward to avoid this problem. Something like "We both agree that neither will attempt to defeat or undermine the civilization or units of the other, whether through overt or covert military actions, until the year 1800 A.D."

Under such a rule, Montello's army would be stuck where it was unless speedstar was feeling generous about allowing him to pass, and speedstar's use of spies would break the rule by covertly acting in a military against the other's civ.

If you want to use spies, make that clear in a second rule.
 
If you declare war you declare war.

Spies have nothing to do with declaring war you can use spies on an ally.
 
Top Bottom