Term 1-Secretary of State

[Bengeance]

I think we should be cautiously optomistic about our relationship with the Mongols. Assuming we don't end up a different religion than them we could easily become friends down the road.

 

[Blkbird]

Mr. Secretary of State,

As you haven't answer to my comments about your game session instructions, I'm addressing them here in hope of drawing your attention.

For the first two game sessions, you have been issuing self-contradictory instructions. On one hand, you say to put "envy head on a pole" if facing unjust demands, which effectively declares WAR. On the other hand, you explicitly say "do not declare WAR". What is your actual intention?

 

[von_Clausewitz]

i don't see anything contradictory. read wht it says not what you think the intent is. its the difference between us declaring war, and putting another nation in the situation where they declare war on us. one way has a decidedly unfavorable effect on other nations and the other could improve our relations with other nations.
the secretary of state can't call for a declaration of war regardless, that is explicitly in the hands of the citizens.

 

[greekguy]

Mr. Secretary of State,

As you haven't answer to my comments about your game session instructions, I'm addressing them here in hope of drawing your attention.

For the first two game sessions, you have been issuing self-contradictory instructions. On one hand, you say to put "envy head on a pole" if facing unjust demands, which effectively declares WAR. On the other hand, you explicitly say "do not declare WAR". What is your actual intention?

As my PM to you already states, I don't mean to declare war on them. Simply refuse their demands, and if they declare war, that's their problem. Also, like von_c said, the citizenry have to vote on a war, i can't declare by myself.

 

[ravensfire]

President/Secretary/Secretary

There is a scheduled game session tomorrow evening. Although it's dependant on this poll, please post instructions in case it does happen.

I am most interested in the instructions for our military units.

Thanks,
-- Ravensfire

 

[DaveShack]

As has been previously pointed out, once again the SoS instructions are very poorly worded. Here is a copy of the feedback I posted in the discussion thread.

========

Enemy Demands: How to Handle Them

Gold:
Envoy head on a pole

Techs:
Envoy head on a pole

Religion switching:
Yes, if friend. chop off head if foe

Civic switching:
Envoy head on a pole

Stop trading with Civ X:
Depends on who we are friends with, Civ X, or Civ Y demanding we stop the trading

Wars and Treaties: Don't declare war on anyone this TC. Don't sign any treaties because we don't have the knowldege of how to do so.

End the chat after 10 turns.

This isn't how it works -- the head on a pole thing only shows up when you meet a civ, or want to declare war with them. The "no" option on demands varies by the type of demand -- for example the no response on a demand for a tech is often "sorry we can't help, it's no rose garden here either". This might even vary based on who the other civ is.

From a rules perspective, it's a good thing we don't automatically declare war by saying no. If saying no implied a declaration of war, then the assembly would have to pass an inititative authorizing no responses.

Also you're missing the most important potential popup, which is to ask if we want open borders. While this is very remote (requires writing to be discovered I think) there should be an instruction for it.

 

[greekguy]

As has been previously pointed out, once again the SoS instructions are very poorly worded. Here is a copy of the feedback I posted in the discussion thread.

========


This isn't how it works -- the head on a pole thing only shows up when you meet a civ, or want to declare war with them. The "no" option on demands varies by the type of demand -- for example the no response on a demand for a tech is often "sorry we can't help, it's no rose garden here either". This might even vary based on who the other civ is.

From a rules perspective, it's a good thing we don't automatically declare war by saying no. If saying no implied a declaration of war, then the assembly would have to pass an inititative authorizing no responses.

Also you're missing the most important potential popup, which is to ask if we want open borders. While this is very remote (requires writing to be discovered I think) there should be an instruction for it.

sorry about that, i'll fix it in a minute.