|
Is that character a variant? (I just love getting asked that in channel.) - Charis |
|
Diplomacy Master Thread- Helping Your Opponents Beat Themselves
|
|
Is that an east or a west mh?
Civilization IV: 21 (Bismarck of Mali), 29 (Mao Zedong of Babylon), 38 (Isabella of China), 45 (Victoria of Sumeria), PB12 (Darius of Sumeria), 56 (Hammurabi of Sumeria), PB16 (Bismarck of Mali), 78 (Augustus of Byzantium), PB56 (Willem of China)
Hearthstone: ArenaDrafts Profile No longer playing Hearthstone. 
(August 6th, 2013, 01:35)NobleHelium Wrote: Is that an east or a west mh?  West, of course! I am shamed.
"You have been struck down!" - Tales of Dwarf Fortress
--- "moby_harmless seeks thee not. It is thou, thou, that madly seekest him!"
August 6th, 2013, 02:52
(This post was last modified: August 6th, 2013, 02:54 by antisocialmunky.)
I've just been kinda irked by 3.1's very presence since I first saw it. Its like they wanted to potentially set up a way of cancelling the NAP just cause. It makes no sense otherwise. You can break the NAP if the other side does something that breaks the NAP? Okay, useful. But the wording is sufficiently vague and poorly chosen that it seems like it would include suspicion. Its just a freaking mess.
I can't see what other reason its in there except to pull some sort of overly clever NAP cancel. I guess it could just be poorly thought out bloat that only matters to CFC because of something that happened to some of the team members that no one else knows about...
In Soviet Russia, Civilization Micros You!
"Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must." “I have never understood why it is "greed" to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else's money.” (August 5th, 2013, 22:06)pindicator Wrote:(August 5th, 2013, 21:02)scooter Wrote: Walk the dog? OF COURSE YOU GOTTA WALK THE DOG BEFORE THE DOGPILE. YossarianLives is a member of the site and will see it... That doesn't mean this isn't still a good idea. (August 6th, 2013, 01:44)novice Wrote: The only interpretation of 3.1 that makes sense to me is that it's intended to ban all in-game ways of declaring war. So I would be against a NAPstab against CFC. (August 6th, 2013, 02:52)antisocialmunky Wrote: I've just been kinda irked by 3.1's very presence since I first saw it. Its like they wanted to potentially set up a way of cancelling the NAP just cause. It makes no sense otherwise. You can break the NAP if the other side does something that breaks the NAP? Okay, useful. But the wording is sufficiently vague and poorly chosen that it seems like it would include suspicion. Its just a freaking mess. I think novice is right - it's just a clause to stop someone declaring war to get through closed borders then offering peace and claiming the NAP isn't broken. I don't think we can lawyer a NAP-stab because of it.
Completed: RB Demogame - Gillette, PBEM46, Pitboss 13, Pitboss 18, Pitboss 30, Pitboss 31, Pitboss 38, Pitboss 42, Pitboss 46, Pitboss 52 (Pindicator's game), Pitboss 57
In progress: Rimworld
We can't declare war on the basis of 3.1, IMO. I'm all for finding an excuse for a preemptive strike but I don't think that one isn't legal enough.
If Apolyton and CivPlayers declare on us before T175 and we can in any way prove material support from CFC to one of them in the time between the war declaration and the NAP's natural expiration, that would pass the stink test for me and give us cause to terminate the NAP and burn the idiot city early. Played: Pitboss 18 - Kublai Khan of Germany Somalia | Pitboss 11 - De Gaulle of Byzantium | Pitboss 8 - Churchill of Portugal | PB7 - Mao of Native America | PBEM29 Greens - Mao of Babylon |
![[Image: ISDG-T167-diplo-deals.jpg]](https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10039024/ISDG-T167-diplo-deals.jpg)
