|
Anthropoid -> RE: PBEM 109 (8/10/2009 12:32:55 PM)
|
So about this INSURRECTION thing . . . why exactly did we vote against a house rule against it? Or rather, who is the one who is intending to use their super-diplomats to wreck havoc? Com'n now, speak up, you know who you are [:)]
ADDIT: Just wrote this in the other thread (Another PBEM) so thought I might as well post it here too
quote:
I realize my initial response was undecided, and when I saw that Matto was pretty much opposed to it, my initial response was to be against such a house rule. But a couple things have changed in the week or so since the topic was first brought up.
First, there was that thread in which the game designer(s) (most notably Ericbabe) engaged with us in a dialogue about "how to fix it" in a future patch.
Second, I have seen how it works. This is not to say that I didn't 'trust' you guys who were speaking up about it, just that: until you SEE something yourself, it is hard to be as decisive about it.
I read in one of the other threads someone said something like "lets just play it as designed," which is a perfectly reasonable sentiment, provided that the game designer had the foresight to design it in a balanced way, and that the game designer still maintains with all available information that it remains "_the_ design."
Point one above shows that this is not the case. Ericbabe has acknowledged that there is an imbalance in how it works, at least in MP play, and indeed, from my perspective also in SP play. It is just simply too quick and easy to rip away large tracts of territory from other nations. Certainly insurrection should remain in the game, and should continue to be a viable strategy (provided a player focuses sufficiently on that strategy to magnify starting potentials) but I believe that at present, most of the problems are occuring with more-or-less the starting compliment of diplomats.
We've already had a vote and at least one (two?) players have stated that they are opposed to such a house rule, but I still think a bit more dialogue may be warranted. A couple additional ideas:
A) the real problem with the insurrections is that it is too easy to tear away whole nations, so one option would be if players must give a two-month advance warning BEFORE they move a diplomat into place to cause an insurrection. Given that the pro-insurrection fellows have disagreed to impose a house-rule it seems very unlikely that they will agree to this one, so one witih option (B)
B) if we rationalize what is happening with the game mechanics at present in terms of game role-play . . . this kind of massive shifting of whole nations one-way then the other is a bit of an exaggeration relative to real history, i.e., it is not very realistic. Granted it could have happened, but it likely didn't for two reasons: resources were not allocated that way, and also perhaps the international relations impact for the instigator nation might well have been very large. International relations at this time was after all, largely about "playing by the rules" even if those rules were "written" by the more powerful and imposed on the less.
So, an idea along these lines would be that, any time someone instigates a successful insurection in a posession of another player, the "victim" post here in this thread with the details of what happened, where, when, who, why, etc.
At that point, I would suggest that it become a topic of international discussion, and possibly a matter for cooperative punitive measures (e.g., breaking of trade, alliances, or even DoWs).
There seems to be a majority of us (at least 6 out of 8 isn't it?) who agree that the insurrection function in the game is imbalanced, and that some house-rules to at least moderate their use are warranted. While it would not be fair to impose new house-rules in mid-game and expect those in the minority to go along with them, it is nonetheless, TOTALLY fair for those of us in the majority to gangup on the "transgressors" [:D]
I don't think we need to be specific as a quorum about the details of what "ganging up on a transgressor" would comprise. We can cross those bridges when we come to them and decide as a group on a case-by-case basis. But I do think that we should see if we are in agreement on this general plan: Whenever anyone uses insurrection, there will be a public discusion, if not also private PMs and emails, and the possibility of cooperateively executed punitive measures against the insurrector may well be an outcome of such discussions.
If you are in agreement with Plan (B) please respond in this thread by saying "Yes to Plan B."
|
|
|
|
