Opinions on ethics of this PBW move

[DavidG]

Ok agreed it is more like the Nazis surrendering to the Swiss but surely this is insanely unrealisitc. Like the Allies would sudenly say 'Woah the Swiss are our friends, let's back off.'

Actaully I guess maybe it just bugs me cause when it's happened it past If I continue the assullt against what is now an ally they complain and whine that I'm too agressive and broke a treaty and no fun to play with. (boo hoo hoo hoo whine whine) :-)

I like the idea of having a player have to accept the surrender. I think also it would be good to have the new merged empire 'aquire' all the current treaties of the larger empire. ie if Germany surrenders to the Swiss in 1944 then new empire is still basically Germany with all the existing conflicts still in place.

[ May 20, 2002, 18:49: Message edited by: DavidG ]

[geoschmo]

Be careful of selective application of your realism criteria.

The Allies would have been tickled pink to have Germany surrender to the Swiss in WWII. Anything to end the reign of terror of the Nazi's and eliminate them as a military force. Now of course if it weren't really surrender, but just a political manuver to stop the war yet allow them to maintain power over the European nations they conquered, then of course the allies wouldn't have stood for it. But if the Swiss had agreed to something like that it would have demostrated a distinct lack of neutrality and would have been more than enough justification for a declaration of war.

It doesn't translate directly into SEIV terms, and trying to force it to doesn't help. I hate discussions of what is or isn't "realistic" in terms of a game like SEIV, but if you insist don't try to apply historical situations to future events when they don't corellate.

The Allies in WWII had no desire to "conquer" Germany in the sense that you are trying to conquer your opponent. They were fighting to repel the Nazi's from conquered Europe. The invasion of Germany was to remove the Nazi's from power and to punish them for their actions, and partly to prevent the Soviet Union from occupying Germany. The allies did not intend to keep Germany as part of their "empire" as you are intending.

The only way the metaphor is appropriate is if you intend to conquer the enemy, and then allow another player to take over the empire and run it as a peaceful one. Since that's not really the object of the game (And for that matter it's not even possible under the current system) it doesnt' fit the situation.

If you think of it from the point of view of the race trying to avoid slavery or anialation as I said in my other post, it's quite "realistic" to assume they would surrender to an ally first. It would actually be suprising if they didn't.

If the empire they surendered to is an ally of yours, then insist they turn over the planets and technology that you rightfully earned in battle. If they don't, or if they aren't an ally, then you need to decide if you continue the war against them. If they don't like it or whine that you are too aggresive remind them what the 4X's in "4X Game" stand for.

Geoschmo

[ May 20, 2002, 19:33: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

[Wardad]

Originally posted by DavidG:
Hello I was just wondering what you guys think of this move my opponent in a PBW game just did. He is in 1st place and his partner in 2nd place is an open slot. So he surrenders to his partner and then next turn gets approved to take over his partners empire. Frankly I think this is basically cheating or at the very least extremly unethical.

Well, getting back to the original post....
I think the other players should vote with their feet... and quit.

------------------------------------------------
We live for the WALK, we die for the WALK. Woof!

[DavidG]

Gee I didn't this would turn into an historical discussion. Forget the analogy. My point was that this type of surrender is not really a surrender at all since no miltary force is eliminated. (in fact it becomes stronger) It is just a political manouver. One in which can often unbalance the game.
And yea, hehe, I have remineded by freinds what 4X stands for. Guess the just prefer 3X games.

[Master Belisarius]

DavidG: I had the same experience that you have... then, never joined again to any PBW game, before be sure that the option to surrender was dissabled.

[Gozra]

I would like to reply but with a grim demeanor. If the game allows you to do it it's ok. That Tactic can only work once in a game. then you just inform all the other players what happned and The alliance aganist clever tactics is born. As for players who quit and run that bites but, in talking with a new player they were forming up a list of players they liked to play games with and those who are not fun to play with. And I am sure that it coud be arranged to publish it. I personally think it would be not a good thing to do.

[Gozra]

I would like to reply but with a grim demeanor. If the game allows you to do it it's ok. That Tactic can only work once in a game. then you just inform all the other players what happned and The alliance aganist clever tactics is born. As for players who quit and run that bites but, in talking with a new player they were forming up a list of players they liked to play games with and those who are not fun to play with. And I am sure that it coud be arranged to publish it. I personally think it would be not a good thing to do.