40 replies to this topic

[RTGPete]

I had yanked the colocation requirement for PAP's to try and save players orders, but some players were unhappy about this and wanted the colocation left in. Though it is unrealistic to require colocation for one-way diplomatic agreements, it seems to be what is desired, so I'll leave it in.

As it happens, PAP's are not required for any purpose other than fleet ROE's, so you can form out-of-game alliances any way you wish without needing to use any PAP's if you don't want to.

I've reinstated the requirement so that it works as orignially stated - both empires need to have a diplomat-class character at the same location in order to execute a PAP order. Here is the statement from the turn when the PAP order was added:

(8) The PAP (Political Action Proposal) order has been added. You can set any level of alliance you like with this order, which is used primarily to allow for complex Rules of Engagement fleet settings. You must have a Diplomat-class Legendary Character located at the same place as a Diplomat of the target empire (either on the same world or with colocated fleets). The level of alliance you choose is one-way: that is, you can indicate that you treat the other empire as an Alliance, but he could do a PAP order and set you to be only a Trade Pact. Both parties do not need to issue PAP orders at the same time. One could issue a PAP and the other does not ever have to.

War is a special case - you can declare War at any point with no colocation required.

Edit - I deleted the thread that discussed this issue because some comments were getting out of hand.

[Ozboym]

Yikes, I only just hear about this in another thread and before I can chip an opinion you reverse yourself!

I like a no-colocation requirement. I want you to reverse your reversal!

Someone protested that no-colocation wrecked the fun of diplomacy. How? The fun inherent in diplomacy has nothing to do with a game order. Diplomacy is about communications with other players. You make your arrangements in your mail exchanges. The PAP order is simply a formal signing. Having to waste 20+ orders ( and in effect hand unneccesary $$ over to RTG to do it ) to sign an agreement is nuts!

Sure I have sympathy for players who have already wasted orders doing this in the past, but why is that an excuse for inflicting it on everyone else in the future?

Pete, could you please be less hasty in reacting to a few very vocal players. You need to sit on things for more than a week before reacting! We don't all read these boards everyday

[RTGPete]

I agree - I didn't like the colocation requirement either. In this case, PAP's aren't a major issue because they are only useful for fleet ROE's, so I can easily put things back to how they were set to be originally. If you know about a neighbor and want to be friends with him, you can either have your fleets avoid each other or have some diplomats meet up to conclude a PAP. If nothing else it will let them exchange some squid soup for reptile casserole....

If you don't expect to actually meet in-game, there is no requirement to set up a formal PAP. Peronally I liked the idea of having an agreement in place with a far-flung empire even if you'd never meet (if for no other reason than to have one), but such is life.

[Locklyn]

I think what most of the "vocal" players were saying before they were deleted was that this was symtomatic of a lot of weird things in the rules contra the code where there is no match and we're being misled. Also the fact that rules are suddenly announced not be working as they've previously been stated to work should both be worrying and annoying to most players. Personally I'm mostly annoyed now by having three of my posts and that entire thread deleted because people voiced their concerns over what doesn't work in SNROE.

/Lars

[RTGPete]

That is not why I deleted the messages. They were blowing an issue way out of proportion to no positive purpose. I deleted everything down from where the thread veered off course, even including my own responses, and posted in this thread what I would do to rectify the problem. Favorable change is the point of civilized discussion, and that's exactly what happened.

[octagon999]

So now, if I have a state of war declared, by accident from last turn, I can't fix it by changing it to non-agression pact without going through the whole co-location thing?

Jeez, I really want to thank my fellow players for totally screwing me over.

OK, this is a formal request for a rule change. One that everyone will know about up front. I would like for Pete to consider removing the co-location requirement, because:

1. It is unrealistic for civilizations with radios.
2. It is order intensive, therefore costs real dollars.
3. It is a pain in the frigging ARSE as even those who have complained have stated publically.
4. All it affects are your ROE's. It doesnt give you one bit of help or hinderance. It just helps you tell your fleets who to fire on and who not to. You can trade or make deals with anyone you want with or without ANY PAP.

Maybe if they renamed the order ROE, then it wouldnt be so confusing? Jeez, I am just too pissed to even think right now.

Thank you for your consideration.

[Krelnett_of_Kraan]

*rubs antennae together* Umm... How do you 'accidentally' declare war..?

[Locklyn]

Sort of like when Germany accidentally misplaced a couple of army corps in Poland perhaps? "We'll just leave these in your capital if that is ok with you!"

But Octagon wouldn't do that, when he goes to war it's for real and pity the poor squiddly eight tentacled blob in his path!

Geez all this is tiring, perhaps Pete could just Pin a thread called "Coming Rule Changes" and let at least a turn pass before implementing a planned change unless it is a buggy, game breaking, become "Master of the Universe in 12 easy steps thing"....

/Locklyn

[RTGRuss]

octagon999, on Mar 24 2004, 08:19 PM, said:

OK, this is a formal request for a rule change.  One that everyone will know about up front.  I would like for Pete to consider removing the co-location requirement, because:

The co-location issue on the PAP order is one that RTG can go either way on - we just want to make as many folks happy on this one as possible.

Right now we are gearing up for the March 24th turn cycle so wait until this cycle is over unless you have specific issues that need to be dealt with this turn cycle (if so - send in an email detailing the problem, etc. and we'll deal with those on a case by case basis).

Discuss the issue amongst yourselves, here on the board or elsewhere, create a poll to vote on it and/or send in your pro and con views to Pete via email. Please keep it civil - no fisticuffs, no discussing the genetic shortcomings of the GMs (or of each other), etc. and hopefully we can resolve this issue and move on.

Russ

[octagon999]

Krelnett_of_Kraan, on Mar 25 2004, 04:31 AM, said:

*rubs antennae together* Umm... How do you 'accidentally' declare war..?

Its easy. You initially start out assuming that you are at war. Then things get worked out, so you go back through your turn and delete all the nasty stuff that you had ordered.

But you somehow overlook (out of 280 orders) the PAP order that declares war.

/major sigh

Fortunately for me (and my neighbors) this is a purely ROE exercise anyway, so it doesn't actually make me attack anyone. It is, however, a major pain. Its also the reason why making there be colocation is silly.

The whole reason this issue got blown out of proportion (in my opinion) is simply that people didn't realize it had been changed. If we had been, then I don't think virtually anyone would have objected.

If making someone a total ally gave you a 10% trading bonus or something, OK, I could see making people earn it. But since all it does is say, hey, The Bubba Empire is our friend, try not and shoot them, why should that be a major exercise of the UN? Come to think of it, why do we need the UN? But that's another discussion.

I'm hoping that after the notification gets over, people realize that this is much more in the favor of the players to not require diplomatic physical contact. In dollar terms if nothing else. Like I don't have enough things to spend my orders on already.

[hobknob]

My turn to chime in.

I like the colocation requirement because I am hoping for some additional benny's from being a TA with somebody. I see diplomatic agreements as being something that can be greatly expanded upon. However, if the only use of the PAP is to set ROE levels and that is all it will ever be, then it likely doesn't make much difference. It also makes diplomats just that much less important than they already are.

I can live with either choice. The difference will be that my far flung diplomats are either useless or they aren't.

[Eldred]

Ok how's this for a compromise...

Colocation IS required BUT a diplomat from each empire must only be colocated in the same system. This brings the PAP order into line with the AC order (where characters are presumed to travel in system by shuttle) and also gives diplomat characters something tangible to do. It will also reduce the number of movement orders required for diplomatic activities.

[Sssarass]

How about 2 ordersss.

Leave PAP asss isss, taking Eldred'sss comment about being in the sssame sssyssstem for the firssst order.

And sssecond a PAPF, which isss your true fleet sssetting (overridesss) you PAP sssetting, thisss doesss not require a diplomat or any form of colocation.

CTO, Sssarasss

[Ur Lord Tedric]

I think there's already effectively a PAPF, which is your fleets ROE.....

But for my vote, I would like the PAP as it was originally envisioned. Furthermore I'd like more enhancements as time goes on for the diplomats that add yet more flavour and flesh out Chapter 10 in the rules.

We've gotten so used to instantaneous communication these days, that we've forgotten the good old days of sail when information was done at the speed of the ship.

The game universe this game seems to be set in and the literature it seems to draw on have managed to capture the spirit of that age and returned things to a different requirement.

Our ships can travel instantaneously through the WPs whilst radio waves creep everso slowly behind them. Ergo, the messages can only go as fast as the ships.

There is a fine balance between realism and playability. I personally like the detail and can happily play within it. There's no reason it needs to slow players down as they can still meet and trade without any PAP agreements in place.

But one of the reasons I do like it, is that it hinders the big and powerful alliances from taking on the little guy by making easy agreements between themselves long before they could ever have met. It's a flavour issue that I can get right behind.

M2CW

Lord High Seneschal to Ur-Lord Tedric

[Kurassier]

My prior post was not for or against colocation, more just notification of the Rule change. I read the rule awhile back (something new huh?) and then spent several turns getting a diplomat in the right place. Then I find out that was completely unnecessary and others already KNEW it was unnecessary.
(and I apologize if this correction was sent out with one of my turns that I missed)
I just want to be able to read a rule and RELY on it, otherwise, I have to send Pete or Russ tons of emails, which I usually try to avoid doing.
I know Pete and Russ are doing a great job trying to satisfy all of us (which of course is impossible), but notice would be a wonderful thing. I am on the Forum fairly often, but I'm sure I might miss a few things.
I would suggest that if a change is to be made or if something in the rules is not working, that we be notified (via GM notes on our turns) of any changes several turns in advance so that all of us are on equal footing. Everybody gets their Turns but not everybody reads the Forum.
Now, if there is a vote taken on colocation, my vote is that it does not matter to me one way or the other (except as noted below). I would also suggest though, that both empires issue and have the same PAP that is both NAP or both Allies. I would also suggest that colocation be required for ALL or better ( need to sit down and discuss the issue if truly friends), but obviously not for war.
My thoughts.