Is it generally regarded as a legitimate tactic to use the cap on battle warscore at +99 to improve ws against an enemy who cannot gain any more ws from battles?
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
As far as I know there is no real cap, but you just can't see more than 99.
Anyway, what would it matter? You can stab hit anyway
To prevent wars from lasting very long, there are often also house rules forcing a peace when the warscore is 99 and the war has lasted for a while...
Anyway, what would it matter? You can stab hit anyway
To prevent wars from lasting very long, there are often also house rules forcing a peace when the warscore is 99 and the war has lasted for a while...
The Arch Mede said:
My basic philosophy is that anything that is notforbidden is allowed. That is the only test for legitimacy I have. But I forbid myself to do certain things although they are not forbidden in the rules. Like gangs i find immoral. But this is far from that. Smart play I say if they guy stays alive so long. What you need is a stab hit rule that puts an end to the war long before that tactic become relevant.
Daniel A said:
If you truly believed it was immoral, you would advocate a rule against it. You cannot simultaneously have a rule-based morality AND a value-based morality. Either rules define morality or they do not.
I can't see why not. Most MP rules are there to "improve the game play," such as no map trading, max 3 provs in a war, no piracy, ... This gives players rule based morality, even though they might not like it. AND there is also a thing called value-based morality. Gangs are allowed by the rules, but I stay far from that (not my style). Not even if players have let another player expand enormously. I will always step in when I believe a player's starting to become a little more powerful then it is to my liking. If others don't, then they just got to live with it is my opinion.ObserverDrone said:
Rules can never be 100% to ones liking. Some just go to far and some don't (or don't even exist). Depends entirely on the person. So, playing with self-imposed rules is done by some players (like me, DA and others) even though it may turn out to be disadvantageous. But I must admit that 99% of the players only have a rule-based morality, in which they still try to exploit every "gap" in a rule, saying "but that isn't really stated in the rules" or "I didn't know that rule also forbid what I just did" ....
But that's all just part of the game. Either you accept them or not. And if a player plays with self-imposed rules, their loss (or win).
Last edited:
ObserverDrone said:
Although Nagel already quite eloquently explained most of these things I would still like to stress a few points.
1. Of course I advocate a rule against "immoral" behaviour. But only. in theory because it is almost impossible to put in clear words what I intended by the suffix "I find immoral" that I added to "like gangs". E.g. if a nation behaves badly vs myself I have no problems whatsoever to gang him. Indeed, I love every minute of the execution of the gang.
Therefore in practice the penalty for behaving immorally like this will come through game actions rather than a rule-based penalty.2. Moral never stems from the law (although many people think so). Because the law itself can be immoral (i.e. breaking moral values) as well as amoral (i.e. without any connection to moral values - e.g. the rule that vehicles coming from the right have precedence). A simple example of immoral laws is the Nürnberg laws in Nazi Germany; most people today would consider it immoral to follow them and morally good to break them. Thus moral always stems from values. If the law reflects these values then one could say that it is immoral to break the law, but not because of the breach of the law itself but because you violate the moral values it protects.
Last edited:
No, it is pointless to define BOTH a rule-based morality and a value-based morality simultaneously in a video game.
If you define a set of rules regarding permissable behavior, then everything undefined by the rules is subject to the decision of the individual. If a particular matter is important enough to be deemed "immoral", then a rule should be made to control it. If a player truly believes an act is immoral, then he should demand a rule to prevent it from occuring.
Lets use your example of gang-bang. If you truly believed it was "immoral", you would demand a rule against it. That you do not demand a rule reflects moral tepidity. This is not a real society where the consequences of making a moral ultimatum to the society could result in harmful consequences to your person. No one is going to kill or imprison you for demanding another rule in EU2 MP, but someone might if you demanded to be allowed to molest children. Not that you would demand that, but if someone demanded their society allow them to molest children, it would result in some harsh reprisals. With a video game, you can just walk away, turn off the computer, etc.
That you continue to play in a game with no anti-ganging rule indicates that you do not actually believe it is immoral, just deviant. But it also further indicates the need to proclaim oneself morally superior to your fellow community members.
I especially find this amusing considering the source: a player famous for his resounding support of extensive rule systems and bashing other players for professing the exact same sentiments that he does in this thread.
Very amusing indeed.
If you define a set of rules regarding permissable behavior, then everything undefined by the rules is subject to the decision of the individual. If a particular matter is important enough to be deemed "immoral", then a rule should be made to control it. If a player truly believes an act is immoral, then he should demand a rule to prevent it from occuring.
Lets use your example of gang-bang. If you truly believed it was "immoral", you would demand a rule against it. That you do not demand a rule reflects moral tepidity. This is not a real society where the consequences of making a moral ultimatum to the society could result in harmful consequences to your person. No one is going to kill or imprison you for demanding another rule in EU2 MP, but someone might if you demanded to be allowed to molest children. Not that you would demand that, but if someone demanded their society allow them to molest children, it would result in some harsh reprisals. With a video game, you can just walk away, turn off the computer, etc.
That you continue to play in a game with no anti-ganging rule indicates that you do not actually believe it is immoral, just deviant. But it also further indicates the need to proclaim oneself morally superior to your fellow community members.
I especially find this amusing considering the source: a player famous for his resounding support of extensive rule systems and bashing other players for professing the exact same sentiments that he does in this thread.
Very amusing indeed.
in the game the thread starter mentioned, there was no 99 war score cap, he just had 96 battles won, from which my 60-something battles were subtracted, making the overall warscore 30-something in his favor (no provs occupied)
i did not know of any battle WS cap, it always worked fine for me
i did not know of any battle WS cap, it always worked fine for me
ObserverDrone said:
As long as we can make a clear rule I try and get it into the games I play, I said so in my previous post. A good example of this is my campaign for a clear and easy to apply stab hit rule that filters into more and more games.
But when we cannot write a clear rule I prefer not to have it at all. A unclear rule is the source of confusion and often badly tempered arguments of interpretation. These two things severly damage the joy of gaming. In fact, if you have had read my posts on this issue you would know that what I work for is not RULES but CLEAR RULES.
So, in this case we will lack a formal rule for the simple reason that it is too complicated to formulate it. Well, what do we do then? For me the answer is obvious: the players must try and fill out the empty space by doing their best to behave "correctly".
In this case we discuss, the "unjust" gangings. As I said I am not able to define a formal rule covering this. But the the fact is that people may well quit games if they are treated too harschly with (repeated) unjust gangs. And quits is just about the largest gamejoy-destroyer there is in a game - for ALL participants in the game. I.e. also for the potential ganger. If you put emphasis on the long term play it thus become imperative for you to show some kind of selfimposed restraint here. Apparently you lack this insight and this makes you unfit to play in campaigns where I participate. I suggest you play with the wolves. Just be sure to inform your fellow gamers in those games in advance of your wolfish disposition.
Or come to your senses and start being a good fellow gamer. If you do then conclusions like the ones I have made in this post comes easily to your mind. I do hope you now get the point of having both rule-systems Mr Drone
BTW, I do hope you understood that I do not agree that there exists a "rule-based" morality I was after all quite clear on that in my previous post. What we have hear is just as I wrote, "two rule systems", not "two moralities" as you write.
Last edited:
you always have to fight in random threads? you could feel intelectually superior in icq instead.
Javier (Pibe) said:
Pibe, I would like to advice you to not make personal attacks towards any member here.