Author Topic: Game discussion  (Read 25407 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Vandermeer

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 961
  • Thanked: 128 times
Re: Game discussion
« Reply #60 on: May 24, 2016, 01:07:41 PM »
Wait, I guess since my character is in command of he 7th infantry division, he would be a General, not a Colonel. Also, if it would be possible, I want screenshots of my character's(and future characters') personality traits in game, so I can RP them a bit better.
Aren't you in the wrong thread here? ;)
playing Aurora as swarm fleet: Zen Nomadic Hive Fantasy
 

Offline Drgong (OP)

  • Moderator
  • Vice Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1181
  • Thanked: 34 times
Re: Game discussion
« Reply #61 on: June 02, 2016, 06:32:26 PM »
Just so everyone knows.

If we end up launching nukes and or blasting each other to the stone age with mesons - I will end this game as "Game over"



that said, if that does happen, I will most likely set up another community game with modified rules so that we can actually have a space game. 
Check out or Join my Community Game
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?board=235.0
Also check out my stories, including Interactive tales.
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?board=239.0
 

Offline Sheb

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 789
  • Thanked: 30 times
Re: Game discussion
« Reply #62 on: June 03, 2016, 10:01:54 AM »
Okay, I think we need a discussion on the whole Peacekeep crisis between players of both sides.

First of all, don't worry, we're backing down. We're just discussing in private how exactly to do it from a RP perspective.

That was the easy part. Now, for the rest. First, in the interest of full disclosure, I must say it is me who came up with the details of our ultimatum, or, as we called it internally, plan DARK LETTER, although it was approved unanimously.

When we discussed it, we knew it was a very aggressive move. I, at least, though that it would create some nice drama, and tension, and roleplaying opportunities (although loosing the vote on the way to respond to the death of our spying team prevented me from increasing tensions progressively). We coming up with my demands, one thing I kept in mind was that the goal was not to get to an early game over, but to secure some advantage (mostly placing observers on your production for free spying) and humiliate Russia a bit, hoping to score points with the non-aligned. I mean, we could just have well have launched a nuclear first strike if our goal was to win.

It seems however that this wasn't perceived as such by the Russians players. As such, Drgong was forced to jump in to have prevent the game from collapsing. This lead to the present situation, where we feel punished because of our aggressive play style, and I'm sure you feel cheated because we basically abused the huge advantage that TN weapons give over convetional weapons.

So I'd love to hear how things were and are perceived from the Russian point of view. I think we should also discuss what exactly is within the limit of acceptable actions within the game.
 
The following users thanked this post: Drgong

Offline Bughunter

  • Bug Moderators
  • Rear Admiral
  • ***
  • Posts: 929
  • Thanked: 132 times
  • Discord Username: Bughunter
Re: Game discussion
« Reply #63 on: June 03, 2016, 11:03:09 AM »
With the ICBM:s currently being our only useful military asset (well, as far as you know about) we have a problem if it is taken away from us. Even if you just push for a smaller advantage and we accept it will put us in an even weaker position to resist the next demand, and the next and so on. Logically if we fold the first time you can push us all the way to game over.

Given the aggressive rhetoric it was easy to believe this was your intention.

As I remember it the whole point of the ICBM:s we got from start was to discourage any game-ending aggression too early. And together with the third power FSA who also has ICBM:s any possibility of first strike victory.

I'm not feeling cheated, more like "WTF are those guys doing?". Playing aggressive is fine I don't think you should feel punished for that. But I think you pushed too hard and for the wrong thing here.

Good to hear you will be backing down, because we actually would have launched, at least according to discussions so far. Cuba crisis 2.0 is over.
 

Offline Sheb

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 789
  • Thanked: 30 times
Re: Game discussion
« Reply #64 on: June 03, 2016, 11:11:00 AM »
Well, without the FSA's offer to join any strike of yours, we would just have swatter your ICBMs from the sky.
 

Offline Bughunter

  • Bug Moderators
  • Rear Admiral
  • ***
  • Posts: 929
  • Thanked: 132 times
  • Discord Username: Bughunter
Re: Game discussion
« Reply #65 on: June 03, 2016, 01:51:53 PM »
You know the game mechanics much better than me on the swattering, we could anyway not have known for sure on my team.

Perhaps it was a good play then by the FSA then since it made you back down and they won't have to worry about being the next target of your meson beam after the russian ICBM:s are gone.

About limits for acceptable actions I cannot give much specifics. I think it should be possible for RP to influence the game and give advantages but that it should mainly be decided by playing Aurora. I want the game to go out in space and be decided there, I don't want cheese like fuel-tank armoured ships or whatever else there is that is generally considered abusive of designers intent.
 

Offline Sheb

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 789
  • Thanked: 30 times
Re: Game discussion
« Reply #66 on: June 03, 2016, 01:55:53 PM »
Well, I think I wasn't clear. The feeling we got from Drgong on our side was that half of the russian team was considering giving up the game because of Dark Letter, and that the FSA was acting as it did because Drgong had to save the game from ending on turn nine. That's a large part of the reason we were backpedalling internally even before the FSA's announcement, for metagame reasons.
 

Offline Drgong (OP)

  • Moderator
  • Vice Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1181
  • Thanked: 34 times
Re: Game discussion
« Reply #67 on: June 03, 2016, 02:05:39 PM »
Well, I think I wasn't clear. The feeling we got from Drgong on our side was that half of the russian team was considering giving up the game because of Dark Letter, and that the FSA was acting as it did because Drgong had to save the game from ending on turn nine. That's a large part of the reason we were backpedalling internally even before the FSA's announcement, for metagame reasons.

Yes, that is a major part of the reason for the FSA choice, as we most likely damaged our good ties with the NAU in doing so.  I really didn't want to see the Russian team down to 2-3 players of those players most expressed irritation that this wasn't the game they signed up for.

However I do recommend on all sides to invest in some sort of way to make sure you have Mutually assured destruction, even if it to tell someone to bug off.  the ICBMs were only going to be useful protection for 2-3 years max as tech advances. 


Also, as a aside, I was planning on launching research probes - does the teams want me to go ahead and move the game 10 seconds with a launch so you can study it? run it normally with a announcement of a launch, or stop the game on the launch for turn 10.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2016, 02:07:56 PM by Drgong »
Check out or Join my Community Game
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?board=235.0
Also check out my stories, including Interactive tales.
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?board=239.0
 

Offline Bughunter

  • Bug Moderators
  • Rear Admiral
  • ***
  • Posts: 929
  • Thanked: 132 times
  • Discord Username: Bughunter
Re: Game discussion
« Reply #68 on: June 03, 2016, 02:14:45 PM »
I gave you my personal view, others from my team might feel different.
 

Offline Sheb

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 789
  • Thanked: 30 times
Re: Game discussion
« Reply #69 on: June 03, 2016, 02:25:36 PM »
I don't we we care that much about the details of the probe.

Thanks anyway Bughunter, I'd love to hear more opinions too.
 

Offline Vasious

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • V
  • Posts: 130
  • Thanked: 19 times
Re: Game discussion
« Reply #70 on: June 03, 2016, 10:02:44 PM »
As Bughunter said, it was not about the loss of the ICBM sites per se, but the "Do as we say or be Meson Beamed to death"
Disband the ICBM sites or be Meson beamed to death
Give us full access to your shipyard or we Meson beam them to death
Never build any weapons or we Meson beam you to death.
We concede to the FSA disarmament program, we are still going to Meson beam you to death as we wont accept anything but our deamnds

Kind of ties our hand as to how we can play the game if you suddenly decide that building a colony deserves Meson beam to death
If you can use the threat once and get away with it why would you stop there and just keep demanding more and more.

Plus the aggression came quite out of the blue, as we were operating on the idea of ten years of uneasy peace was the intent of the game so, the conflict or near conflict would be off world.
the conquest of the New world between England Spain and France fighting for control of the Americas, with the Outer systems being that realm, but the conflict being a silent war the did not really spill over to earth.

The funny thing was Meson PDCs were discussed in our initial strategies but was deemed against the spirit of the game to try and develop and Earth First Strike weapon.

So when we were suddenly issued with an ultimatum, in the middle of negotiations on how the peaceful exploration of the solar system go forth, it was kind of confusing as to what the aim was, felt like it was an attempt to "win" by knocking us out early either by destroying us, or imposing a treaty that gave you full control of what we could do under constant thread of immediate attack.

At first I thought it was because we did not sign your ban on nuclear weapons in space treaty and that I had failed to say the RC considered it already bound by moral and legal principals not to do so anyway, but then it became clear it was a demonstration of power, with the shooting of Lake Leman.

anyway I had hoped to use the UN to put pressure on this act but it did not seem to work.
 

Offline Red Dot

  • Registered
  • Commander
  • *********
  • R
  • Posts: 373
  • Thanked: 17 times
Re: Game discussion
« Reply #71 on: June 03, 2016, 10:26:51 PM »
In our defence, we did come out and ask what was included in the Reunion Treaty and the reply we received from Drgong was "prevents ground attacks only." I don't think he could see where we could go with that narrow restriction and it basically killed the arguments against the Peacekeeper Gambit by the "No War" faction.

One the technology was ready, it then became a case of 'we better do it to them before they do it to us.'
 

Offline FrederickAlexander

  • Warrant Officer, Class 1
  • *****
  • F
  • Posts: 87
  • Thanked: 5 times
Re: Game discussion
« Reply #72 on: June 03, 2016, 11:13:44 PM »
I feel my absence may have have been untimely.
 

Offline AL

  • Captain
  • **********
  • A
  • Posts: 561
  • Thanked: 18 times
Re: Game discussion
« Reply #73 on: June 03, 2016, 11:26:12 PM »
Also untimely was that one of our key members (Vandermeer) was absent during this entire episode. With the time pressure of the NAU's demands combined with the more pessimistic analyses that our members had on the situation, the situation blew up pretty quickly.

In any case, it's good to know everything will be back in order soon. And thanks for the reminder to make code-names for everything, I completely forgot about that part.
 

Offline Sheb

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 789
  • Thanked: 30 times
Re: Game discussion
« Reply #74 on: June 04, 2016, 12:35:28 AM »
Yeah, probably bad communication there. To me it seemed clear that we couldn't pressure for more than we were asking, because since mesons can't target pop or industry, after blowing up your shipyards we'd have no leverage left. All you'd need to do is dedicate your industry to build a big meson PDC and kill our. Which would have left to a meson arms race, which would not have been in our interest at all.