Opinions on ethics of this PBW move

[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.

[geoschmo]

Yeech.

PBW makes no official policy on this sort of thing, as long as it happens in the clear and open. The only behavior will step into and stop is actual cheating where a player is manipulating data files, or playing two empires simultaneously unknown to the other players.

It is the game owners responsibility and say as to whether this sort of thing is allowed. There may be some sort of logical game reason for it. For exapmple if it's a team game.

However, personally I wouldn't like it either if the game owner allowed something like this without making it perfectly clear to the other players what the deal was beforehand. My suggestion is you take it up with him. If you don't get an answer you like you are free to vote with your feet and find a game with an owner mroe receptive to player input. There are plenty of games to chose from on PBW.

Geoschmo
PBW Admin Team

[Saxon]

Yep, the surrender thing is pretty yucky. I can see it if discussed ahead of time and the two empires had been allies for a long time anyway, but otherwise, it is dubious. Geo has a good point. This is for fun, so do not stay if they are doing dodgy things in the game.

[dumbluck]

Surely there is some background info that explains this. Otherwise this is not a good decision by the game owner at all. Unless, of coarse, he's "on the take"...

[DavidG]

Well yea there is some background. After discussing with the game owner and player it seems there was no ill intent so case closed. I'm curious however what everyone thinks of players losing ground in a war and then surrendering to an ally? They friends I play with (not the PBW games) always do this and seem to think it's OK. It bugs the H$%# out of me though especialy if I'm also allied with the player he surrenders to. I think a player should either just quit and let the AI take over or surrender to the player who defeated them. It just seems so unrealistic to me. It would be like the Nazis surrendering to Canada in 1944. All of sudden the Brits, Americans and Russians have to ceasefire or declare war on Canada.

Originally posted by dumbluck:
Surely there is some background info that explains this. Otherwise this is not a good decision by the game owner at all. Unless, of coarse, he's "on the take"...

[Growltigga]

Well, I think that if you have a problem with this, you need to set up either a house rule or withdraw when it happens with one of your games.

If you think about it, it is too unrealistic for a race/nation being beaten badly in a war to 'surrender' (read cry for protection) to a much stronger race - if you then have to fight both combined, isn't this galactic machtpolitick at work?

[geoschmo]

I can understand your not liking it from a game play perspective, but your analogy is flawed. It's actually more like the Nazi's surrendering to Italy, an ally, or at least to Switzerland, a non-alligned nation. Canada was part of the allies in WWII, so the Nazi's surrendering to Canada, would in effect be the same as surrendering to any Allied power, including the US.

Part of the problem is you can't refuse the surrender of an empire. Which would be a good thing to add to the game.

If you think about it from a non-game play perspective, it makes sense for a race to surrender to an ally and possibly avoid anialation rather than fight to the death, or surrender to an enemy that is likely to treat the population harshly.

It all depends on whether you are looking at the game from a game play perspective, or a role play perspective I guess.

That's one of the reaons I highly recomend that the surrender option be turned off for all multiplayer games. It just leave too many doors open for trouble.

Geoschmo

[PvK]

Ya, sounds like the situation is better handled by Protectorate or Subjugation treaties, except that if one player is leaving, he would then have to submit two turns, whereas Surrender allows combining empires.

I agree surrender should require acceptance. (I don't expect the Swiss would have accepted surrender by Nazi Germany.)

Surrender of course turns two empires into one, which has both advantages and disadvantages for the new empire formed. It only has one set of traits and characteristics, one research queue, one intel queue, one diplomatic channel, one treaty column, one set of trade relationships, one ship set (except for old ships), and I think fleet experience may be lost. If the empires had trade going between them before, that's lost, so a potential 20% production and resource loss there. On the other hand, the points are all pooled, which can be helpful for some things - mainly it requires less management.

PvK

[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 ]