Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Politics

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Distant Worlds 1 Series >> Politics Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Politics - 3/22/2010 4:00:17 AM   
Mad Russian


Posts: 13256
Joined: 3/16/2008
From: Texas
Status: offline 		I know that you negotiate treaties and the end of wars.

Do you make declarations of war too?

Or lack of declarations of war? Surprise attacks?

Good Hunting.

MR

_____________________________

The most expensive thing in the world is free time.

Founder of HSG scenario design group for Combat Mission.
Panzer Command Ostfront Development Team.
Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm Development Team.
Post #: 1
RE: Politics - 3/22/2010 5:54:49 AM   
elliotg


Posts: 3597
Joined: 9/10/2007
Status: offline 		Yes, you can explicitly declare war. Or you can simply attack another empire without declaring war, but doing things this way will hurt your reputation.

(in reply to Mad Russian)
Post #: 2
RE: Politics - 3/22/2010 6:45:33 AM   
Mad Russian


Posts: 13256
Joined: 3/16/2008
From: Texas
Status: offline 		It should also hurt their military preparedness. Take Pearl Harbor for instance. Or the German invasion of Russia in 1941. If the attack is successful it may not matter how my reputation is after the fact. However, in both those examples the one doing the attack without a declaration lost so maybe there is more to it than just reputation.....like a smaller opponent taking on a bigger one and the attack having to be very successful to win....

Or something like that.

Good Hunting.

MR


_____________________________

The most expensive thing in the world is free time.

Founder of HSG scenario design group for Combat Mission.
Panzer Command Ostfront Development Team.
Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm Development Team.

(in reply to elliotg)
Post #: 3
RE: Politics - 3/22/2010 9:18:45 AM   
jnpoint


Posts: 549
Joined: 8/9/2007
From: Holstebro, Denmark
Status: offline 		is reputation that importent? otherwise it is always a win-situation to surprise attack. In for example EU3 the penalty is to low, I think, it's way too easy just to declare war on the unprepared opponent and take the penalty.

(in reply to Mad Russian)
Post #: 4
RE: Politics - 3/22/2010 9:24:50 AM   
Gertjan

 

Posts: 698
Joined: 12/9/2009
Status: offline 		To add, at some point war may be very close if relations are bad and tensions are high, in such a case attacking without declaring should not come as a surprise and the other empire should have been prepared. I believe this should be different (in terms of reputation costs) from betraying a close ally.

(in reply to jnpoint)
Post #: 5
RE: Politics - 3/22/2010 11:47:40 AM   
Wade1000


Posts: 771
Joined: 10/27/2009
From: California, USA
Status: offline 		I believe that negative acts against an empire affects your reputation with all empires; unless it's planetary bombardment against a low reputation race.

_____________________________

Wish list:population centers beyond planetary(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Culture):Ships,Ring Orbitals,Sphere Orbitals,Ringworlds,Sphereworlds;ability to create & destroy planets,population centers,stars;AI competently using all advances & features.

(in reply to Gertjan)
Post #: 6
RE: Politics - 3/23/2010 3:19:39 PM   
Gargantou


Posts: 205
Joined: 4/28/2007
Status: offline 		Negative acts against an empire should have relative affects.

Let's say there's an empire that has awful relations with all other races and is at war with several of them, if you declare war on that empire, I doubt your reputation with the other empires would be negatively affected.


_____________________________


(in reply to Wade1000)
Post #: 7
RE: Politics - 3/23/2010 3:30:24 PM   
Wade1000


Posts: 771
Joined: 10/27/2009
From: California, USA
Status: offline 		That's the same point I was trying to make about destroying civilian/trade ships in another thread.  http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2408957  (from 'Specifically targetting private vessels?')

I suppose it's just that many people feel that destroying civilian/trade ships in any situation against any type of enemy is dishonorable, even when other forms of attack like planetary bombardment is okay. Odd.
My points are just that planetary bombardment AND civilian/trade ship destruction should not lower your reputation if the target is a low reputation "bad guy" race.

< Message edited by Wade1000 -- 3/23/2010 3:41:42 PM >

_____________________________

Wish list:population centers beyond planetary(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Culture):Ships,Ring Orbitals,Sphere Orbitals,Ringworlds,Sphereworlds;ability to create & destroy planets,population centers,stars;AI competently using all advances & features.

(in reply to Gargantou)
Post #: 8
RE: Politics - 3/23/2010 3:40:32 PM   
Husker50

 

Posts: 10
Joined: 4/24/2005
Status: offline 		Wade, I still think killing civilian ships is bad.
You cannot know the races of the civilians on those ships.
You cannot know why the are on the ship, they maybe refugees escaping a cruel government. In which case killing them would be extremely negative.
I would suggest that if killing civilian ships is allowed that there be a random chance that the race killing said ship could suffer negative reputation do to unforeseen circumstances.

(in reply to Wade1000)
Post #: 9
RE: Politics - 3/23/2010 3:50:11 PM   
Wade1000


Posts: 771
Joined: 10/27/2009
From: California, USA
Status: offline 		Your points should then also apply to planetary bombardment; which from how I understand it is okay with reputation if the target is a low reputation "bad guy" race. If that was the situation, those same types of civilians would likely be on the targeted planets also. But I disagree with your point because, again, it would be a "bad guy" low reputation race targeted.

Another, counter-point is that if the targeted race civilian/trade ships and planets are of a "bad guy" low reputation race then it might be unlikely that there would be other races friendly to us. If the targeted enemy DOES include a mixture of assimulated/integrated races then...they are now the enemy...helping to support the infrastructure building the military for the "bad guy" low reputation civilization.

_____________________________

Wish list:population centers beyond planetary(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Culture):Ships,Ring Orbitals,Sphere Orbitals,Ringworlds,Sphereworlds;ability to create & destroy planets,population centers,stars;AI competently using all advances & features.

(in reply to Husker50)
Post #: 10
RE: Politics - 3/23/2010 4:24:29 PM   
Gargantou


Posts: 205
Joined: 4/28/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Wade1000

That's the same point I was trying to make about destroying civilian/trade ships in another thread.  http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2408957  (from 'Specifically targetting private vessels?')

I suppose it's just that many people feel that destroying civilian/trade ships in any situation against any type of enemy is dishonorable, even when other forms of attack like planetary bombardment is okay. Odd.
My points are just that planetary bombardment AND civilian/trade ship destruction should not lower your reputation if the target is a low reputation "bad guy" race.

Declaring war on an empire and specifically targetting an empires neutrals/civilians are two very very different things.

IMO it should still lower your reputation if you target civilians, regardless of the reputation of the empire.

And notice, this game separates EMPIRES and RACES.

So all your talk of "bad guy" low reputation races is a bit silly, seeing as empires can be composed of all of the 20 different races if it's big enough, afaik.

< Message edited by Gargantou -- 3/23/2010 4:25:56 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to Wade1000)
Post #: 11
RE: Politics - 3/23/2010 4:34:42 PM   
Wade1000


Posts: 771
Joined: 10/27/2009
From: California, USA
Status: offline
quote:

So all your talk of "bad guy" low reputation races is a bit silly, seeing as empires can be composed of all of the 20 different races if it's big enough, afaik.

Semantics. Then I'll use "civilizations" instead of "races".

So, do you think planetary bombardment against a "bad guy" low reputation civilization should also lower your reputation; if that civilization is one race?; if that civilization is multiple races? If it IS multiple races then, well, it is still the enemy civilization supporting their military.
I say bombard those alien civilization "bad guy", low reputation planets if you have little troops transports availabe.
I say destoy those alien civilization, "bad guy", low reputation civilian/trade ships that are helping their economy to support their military.

I don't think that my reputation should have to suffer as a result.

< Message edited by Wade1000 -- 3/23/2010 4:39:46 PM >

_____________________________

Wish list:population centers beyond planetary(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Culture):Ships,Ring Orbitals,Sphere Orbitals,Ringworlds,Sphereworlds;ability to create & destroy planets,population centers,stars;AI competently using all advances & features.

(in reply to Gargantou)
Post #: 12
RE: Politics - 3/23/2010 5:15:59 PM   
Gargantou


Posts: 205
Joined: 4/28/2007
Status: offline 		Bombardment of cities and specifically targetting civilian transports were considered very different things even if you look at human history, i.e. WW2 US vs Japan, whilst they viewed it as okay to nuke Hiroshima as Nagasaki, they did not view it as okay to say target individual Japanese fishing vessels as far as I know.

Or look at the allies in Germany, it was considered okay to carpet-bomb and even fire-bomb German cities, leading to huge civilian casualties.

However, it was not considered okay to execute German civilians/target individual civilians.

If you bombard a planet, that planet might be home to a lot of weapon factories etc, and thus the civilians are considered a "regrettable but acceptable loss" at the cost of destroying the armed forces of the planet.

However, if you choose to deliberately target civilian vessels that as far as you know are only carrying civilians and are not directly involved with the war, then that is not acceptable.

That's the way it has been seen during many human wars and that's the way I see it and hope it is implemented in the game.


_____________________________


(in reply to Wade1000)
Post #: 13
RE: Politics - 3/23/2010 5:28:06 PM   
Wade1000


Posts: 771
Joined: 10/27/2009
From: California, USA
Status: offline 		Good points. I can almost totally agree with them in game if the one exception was if it involved no reputation loss when destroying civilian/trade ships of...yes, heh, "bad guy", low reputation civilizations.
Of course if high reputation civilization civilian/trade ships are attacked then your reputation should lower.

Reputation measurements involving alien race civilizations during total war while facing extinction from low reputation, ultimate "evil", alien civilizations might be quite different then historical reputation of Humans on earth.

_____________________________

Wish list:population centers beyond planetary(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Culture):Ships,Ring Orbitals,Sphere Orbitals,Ringworlds,Sphereworlds;ability to create & destroy planets,population centers,stars;AI competently using all advances & features.

(in reply to Gargantou)
Post #: 14
RE: Politics - 3/23/2010 6:09:46 PM   
frugaldude

 

Posts: 85
Joined: 3/22/2010
Status: offline
I have no idea of what to expect the political game mechanics will be so this is purely hypothetical. The subject at hand is different ramifications of planetary bombardment vs. attacking civilian ships of a given empire. I hope it will depend on a number of factors and affect each empire in varying degrees and weighted appropriately.

Each of the AI empires should be weighing these questions among others:
Do I know the existence of the warring parties?
Do I trade with either of the factions?
What commodities are affected on the planet attacked and does the trade interruption affect me?
How far away from my borders is the transgression?
Did the aggressor in the action start the war?
How many commodities are affecting me by the attack of civilian transport?


These are just a few variables off the top of my head. Remember this is just a post to pass the time as we wait for the release. I am in no way suggesting this is how these game mechanics will or should function. I am anxious to see how the developer has approached this.

(in reply to Wade1000)
Post #: 15
RE: Politics - 3/23/2010 6:22:40 PM   
Wade1000


Posts: 771
Joined: 10/27/2009
From: California, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: frugaldude
Do I know the existence of the warring parties?

I suppose that one's reputation gets around and/or stays around until a new civilization is met and it learns of your past reputation. Same as with civilizations you have known, actions not directly against them still affects your reputation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: frugaldude
Did the aggressor in the action start the war?

This one would be okay if an act of sabotage against me leading to me declaring war does not lower my reputation. Declarations of war are not always from an aggressor.
I suppose I'm hoping is that an act of sabotage can considered as a primary-war declaration...if it leads to a regular war declaration from the sabotage victim.

< Message edited by Wade1000 -- 3/23/2010 6:36:03 PM >

_____________________________

Wish list:population centers beyond planetary(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Culture):Ships,Ring Orbitals,Sphere Orbitals,Ringworlds,Sphereworlds;ability to create & destroy planets,population centers,stars;AI competently using all advances & features.

(in reply to frugaldude)
Post #: 16
RE: Politics - 3/23/2010 8:02:10 PM   
frugaldude

 

Posts: 85
Joined: 3/22/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Wade1000

quote:

ORIGINAL: frugaldude
Do I know the existence of the warring parties?

I suppose that one's reputation gets around and/or stays around until a new civilization is met and it learns of your past reputation. Same as with civilizations you have known, actions not directly against them still affects your reputation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: frugaldude
Did the aggressor in the action start the war?

This one would be okay if an act of sabotage against me leading to me declaring war does not lower my reputation. Declarations of war are not always from an aggressor.
I suppose I'm hoping is that an act of sabotage can considered as a primary-war declaration...if it leads to a regular war declaration from the sabotage victim.

quote:


This one would be okay if an act of sabotage against me leading to me declaring war does not lower my reputation. Declarations of war are not always from an aggressor.
I suppose I'm hoping is that an act of sabotage can considered as a primary-war declaration...if it leads to a regular war declaration from the sabotage victim.


All variables that could be considered. All I will say is your guess is as good as mine and we will have to wait to see if and how the variables are implemented. Right now it is a guessing game without even hearsay to guide us. I don't recall any of the play testers commenting much on how the political portion of the game operates. Maybe another AAR is in order.

(in reply to Wade1000)
Post #: 17
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Distant Worlds 1 Series >> Politics Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.016