Tournament rules poll: Demanding withdrawal?

[Tau Ceti]

One issue that is not currently addressed by the tournament rules is whether or not demanding withdrawal from a human player via the commlink menu is allowed. I would be interested in seeing what people's attitude to this is, so let us have a vote! This poll will run until next Sunday (the 28th), 24:00 EST.

Arguments for allowing it: You are supposed to stay out of other people's territory when you have a treaty, and this mechanism allows the other player to control that you comply with it. If it is not allowed, all he can do is send you threatening notices, and it is not possible to get an immediate withdrawal the way you usually can with the AI and the AI with you. I also believe few would want to go to war over the smallest border violations, but they may be quite unwelcome, especially if the offending units are close to a base. Without the option, people could gamble on the unwillingness of others to go to war and keep units more or less permanently in others' territory. Last and probably least, if the option is forbidden and war breaks out because of the border violations, then the wrong player (the defender) will take the reputation hit, which may hurt his diplomatic chances with the AI. It will also mean that the border offender's pactmates will join in the war automatically, as they consider the offender the victim of aggression.

Arguments for forbidding it: The AI makes the decision whether to withdraw or not, and it bases it primarily on its opinion towards you, your SEs and so on. The aggressive factions will be less likely to withdraw, regardless of the style of their human player. It is also standard practice to forbid anything that leaves a player's reaction up to the AI.

So, what will it be? Allow or forbid? Vote below, and feel free to supply your own arguments...

[Misotu]

I must admit, I'm looking forward to seeing opinions on this. It has been done to me in the tournament, and I didn't mind particularly although it was *very* inconvenient.

But then, in another game, it would have been very useful to use it against another player but, somehow, I couldn't bring myself to do it.

So I'm truly undecided about this. But I think there needs to be a ruling ...

[Oniron]

I vote for allowing it.

I agree with Tau Ceti's arguments and would add that this option has been implemented mostly with human players in mind, as demanding withdrawal from the AI can be done within negotiations. The fact that the AI complies at its own discretion reflects the efforts of the programmers to bridge the divide between AI and human opponents in diplomatic communications. In particular, it emulates wishing a treaty for the wallet but a truce for the agenda, which a human can do through threats, bluffs and convoluted agreements.
[This message has been edited by Oniron (edited January 22, 2001).]

[mark13]

I vote for against. If it were possible to call a treaty off by other means than to attack, it would be OK - but it's not. It would not be an uncommon tactic, if this were to be allowed, to have virtual impunity from human attacks by demanding withdrawal every turn (assuming before D:AP). As such, if this were to be outlawed, demanding withdrawal would be done in human negotiations (i.e. e-mails) and not decided by the not-terribly-bright AI. This would, IMO, be a lot fairer, and would make for a much more interesting game.

[Misotu]

Oniron, although you're right to say that demanding withdrawal can be done in negotiations with the AI, it's also true that the AI refuses to speak to you a lot of the time. I've always assumed that menu option was available to get round the problem of the ignoring AI, rather than for human vs human play?

What I'm really not sure about, though, is how demanding withdrawal works in MP between different factions, and what the likely outcomes/impact on the game would be. The AI actually has the option to declare vendetta if you demand withdrawal. As Mark points out, you can't get out of a treaty currently unless you attack, so this would be a major change. But it is more likely to do so under some circumstances than others, depending on the AI "mood" and the factions involved.

If the AI did declare vendetta, the first player would typically send an offer to reinstate the treaty via the comm screen. If accepted, then the net result would be that the first player would lose nothing - while the player who had "declared vendetta" would lose a year's commerce income.

It might not be a problem, I'm just very hazy about how it would work. Is there anyone out there who has used it repeatedly in MP and could give us a flavour for what impact, if any, it has on the game overall?

[Oniron]

I suggest we make the rule as follows: it is allowed unless one of the two players has declared war on the other through email or negotiations.

[big_canuk]

If it works the same way as in SP, (ie, we have at least some idea of the outcome), then I think we should allow it. The best outcome is that the computer acts properly, and the aggressor gets the vendetta (s)he wants, or is removed if bluffing.

The worst outcomes are no worse than disallowing it. A bluffing aggressor, gets penalized commerce income(and maybe the destruction of a unit or two). If you want to bluff (or if you want war), you take that chance.

The aggressor that wants to start a war can just do it, or if the computer decided to withdraw against his(her) wishes, just has to try again.

If you need to move a unit through a treaty mates territory, you can always get permission first. This is my land, and if you tresspass, you will suffer the consequences.

[Googlie]

I have only used it once, in MP, (was Lal against a human Believer) - AI pulled the rover back to base (respect your territory, don't want an incident, etc) and the player thanked me 'cos the transport he'd sent the rover on had been destroyed by an IoD and he was afraid i was going to go to war over his continued presence.

But on the whole, I'd vote against the feature - I think the fewer things the AI gets to do that we can do ourselves the better.

IMHO it's no different than the election bribing rules commonly implemented (typically forbidden, with the player calling the election having to alert everyone by e-mail before the call, so that proper negotiations can take place, bribes, IOU,s etc)

This should also apply to the player asking the other to expel the unit so that it instantaneously returns to the nearest base - that too, IMO, should be disallowed.

G.

[big_canuk]

The problem with disallowing it, and relying on emails and other diplomacy to get someone to withdraw is what do you do if the other human doesn't attack, but doesn't leave. It gives the bluffing/attacking player a huge advantage to wait until the time is exactly right to strike. No waiting to bring up units. They are already there.

What is the defender to do. Either wait to be pulverized by a superior attack, or start a war he likely doesn't want, and take the reputation hit.

I think the penalties and risks should go to the attacker, not the defender. If you intend to attack, either outright do so, or risk being sent back to base. If you intend to bluff, then risk loosing commerce income for one turn.

Edit: If you cannot get to your oppenent in 1 turn (or choose not to launch a surprise attack) then simply email a "declaration of war". In that case your opponent of course could not "demand withdrawl".

[This message has been edited by big_canuk (edited January 23, 2001).]

[Misotu]

Hmm ... this is interesting. You are persuasive, Big_C ...

[Oniron]

quote: Originally posted by mark13 on 01-23-2001 12:11 PM The top and bottom of it is that if an attacker wants to attack he should be allowed to do so, without having a defender withdrawing his troops for him every time. If the attacker sneaks in unnoticed, of coruse, that is his prerogative, and I can foresee a scenario in which the defender demands withdrawal every turn, and the units automatically going back to base each time.

As both big_canuk and I have pointed out, this can be resolved by a declaration of war through email or negotiations. If two people are at war (even if the game displays otherwise) they would not be allowed to demand withdrawal. Otherwise they would.

[mark13]

The only problem with that, IMO, is that it would negate the element of surprise - i.e. if it takes 4 turns (say) for the invasion force to reach its destination, the defending player would be ready for it....

[Misotu]

Now this is also a good point. Not much element of surprise if you have to declare your intentions well in advance

[Oniron]

quote: Originally posted by mark13 on 01-23-2001 07:26 PM The only problem with that, IMO, is that it would negate the element of surprise - i.e. if it takes 4 turns (say) for the invasion force to reach its destination, the defending player would be ready for it....

This is normal.

Consider you are playing against the A.I. Turn 1a the A.I. enters your territory. Turn 1b you ask the A.I. to withdraw, it refuses and declares war on you. If the A.I. attacks on turn 4a you have 3 turns (1b, 2b and 3b) to prepare.

Now consider you are playing a human. Turn 1a the human enters your territory and declares that he/she is at war with you. If the human attacks on turn 4a you still have the same 3 turns to prepare.

[Misotu]

But I think Mark's point is that currently human players tend to be a little more subtle and crafty than the AI

The "demand withdrawal" option has a sneaky side-benefit, in the sense that it will tell you *whether* there are units belonging to another faction in your territory. Thus, someone using this option at regular intervals can guard against some forms of surprise attack. This would remove an interesting element from the game, surely?

[big_canuk]

Mark13 has a good point. If you see the invasion, then there is no difference. The problem occurs where an invasion sneaks accross your border and you don't see it. One could, just in case, "demand withdrawl" from every faction, every turn.

You could say, you can't do this unless you actually see the invaders, but I think this would be impossible to enforce or monitor.

So..

Problems with allowing demand withdrawl:

1. Makes long distance sneak attacks problematic/impossible.

Problems with disallowing demand withdrawl:

1. Gives the attacker the advantage of deciding exactly when to attack.

2. Gives the bluffer the ability to force the defender to react, or play *very* risky by doing nothing. (bluffer may turn into attacker very quickly)

3. Forces the defender to attack first, thus damaging his/her reputation, or wait to be crushed.


It almost is a momemtum/builder question, isn't it?

[mark13]

Well, to be honest, I have always thought the rule a bit silly anyway....anyone demanding a withdrawal gets the other unit 'teleported' straight back to base, but that is by the by....

Big_C,

Your arguments are well-made, and I found myself considering it there for a second ....however, it is not up to the defender to start an attack. The top and bottom of it is that if an attacker wants to attack he should be allowed to do so, without having a defender withdrawing his troops for him every time. If the attacker sneaks in unnoticed, of coruse, that is his prerogative, and I can foresee a scenario in which the defender demands withdrawal every turn, and the units automatically going back to base each time.

[Misfit]

I have been lurking on this thread and would like to throw my two cents in.

First off, I think of this the way, would the United States ever tolerate a foreign military unit within its borders? I think not, so why should I, as ruler of a game nation, tolerate it from another player? I build sensors and patrol areas of mutual borders as a standard defense.

Second, if I cannot defend my own borders then that says something about how I am allocating build resources doesn't it?

It is very easy as a player, playing against the AI, to ignore your defenses since you will have multiple turns to build up defenses before the AI will really try anything.

As we have already established, we human players are a lot more devious than that.

I don't believe that a human player should be allowed to use the game's crappy AI to determine another player's actions. The whole game dynamic gets twisted. A player must be responsible for all of his own game actions. If that means that I as the defender of my own territorial integrity must take a hit for declaring war on someone who violates my territory, so be it.

One lesson I learned rather painfully when switching from AI opponents to human opponents, is that you have to pay alot more attention to defenses (like probe teams in cities) or a human player will kick your ass.

Cheers,
Misfit

[Oniron]

I don't consider the restriction of long range sneak land attacks through unguarded, unpatrolled and unsensored territory a major problem, since a human attacker would only suffer from the restrictions as much as the A.I. already does. However, if it was a stumbling block for allowing to demand withdrawal...

quote: Originally posted by big_canuk on 01-23-2001 08:55 PM You could say, you can't do this unless you actually see the invaders, but I think this would be impossible to enforce or monitor.

It doesn't have to be a problem. If I can see a human unit in my territory, I can describe the unit(s) and its coordinates to the offender in negotiations (or in a mail) and demand withdrawal. If I demand withdrawal without seeing any units, I wouldn't be able to supply that information.
[This message has been edited by Oniron (edited January 24, 2001).]

[Oniron]

quote: Originally posted by Misfit on 01-24-2001 06:00 AM I have been lurking on this thread and would like to throw my two cents in.

Welcome to Apolyton

Although human-human wars are different from human-A.I. wars, this discussion is about rules between two nations united by a treaty of friendship. Thus, although I agree that defending against clever humans is more tricky than defending against the game's A.I., I fail to see the relevance with granting to or removing from a human player the ability to demand withdrawal.

[Oniron]

Reminder: respecting each other's borders (enforced by demanding withdrawal) is the only commitment required to go from truce to treaty of friendship.

[mark13]

Oniron,

While you make the point that a Treaty of Friendship is a partition of the borders, and an agreement by the faction leaders to respect their borders, I believe it should be possible for a human player to betray that 'friendship'. If the defending player hasn't bothered to put sensors down to see him coming, that is his tough luck - if he does, he has every right to demand the offending player withdraws. The offending player thus has two choices - he either leaves promptly when asked, or continues the assault, with a likelihood of vendetta.

By allowing the withdrawal demand from the commlink menu, you fundamentally assume the player is willing to withdraw. If the offending player was to try and surprise the defending player, that is his prerogative, of course - the defending player should not be able to escort the troops away because it is in the character of some dumb-ass AI to withdraw. It is the offending player's decision, after all - he can either withdraw the troops manually, or continue with the assault.

[Misfit]

quote: Although human-human wars are different from human-A.I. wars, this discussion is about rules between two nations united by a treaty of friendship. Thus, although I agree that defending against clever humans is more tricky than defending against the game's A.I., I fail to see the relevance with granting to or removing from a human player the ability to demand withdrawal.

While I respect Oniron position, I stand by my original point which was that I do not think we should allow the game's intelligence to dictate a human player's response to a diplomatic situation (in this case, demanding a withdrawal from territory).

I totally agree with Mark113 post about

quote: I believe it should be possible for a human player to betray that 'friendship'. If the defending player hasn't bothered to put sensors down to see him coming, that is his tough luck

Regards,
Misfit

[big_canuk]

Way to go Oniron. Requiring identification of units removes the ability to just hit "demand withdrawl" as a safety precaution.

Now we are talking about what to do when we see a treaty-mates unit inside our territory. I refer to my above post. The risk and consequences of the aggression should fall to the attacker.

I respect the "phobia" about the computer making decisions for us. However, we let the AI resolve battles for us. It decides where we start the game. It does all kinds of things for us. This is not a complicated decision: either vendetta, or leave. Based on AI preferences and human SE choices, etc. we have a reasonable idea of what the answer will be.

This is not a question of letting a "dumb-ass AI" make decisions for us. This is a question of where do we want to lay the risks of a treatied aggressor.

Given Onirons solution to the only arguement for "disallowing demand withdrawl", the only answer (phobias aside), is to accept it.

Mark13, forgive me for using your post as an example:

quote: Originally posted by mark13 on 01-24-2001 11:06 AM By allowing the withdrawal demand from the commlink menu, you fundamentally assume the player is willing to withdraw.

I do not assume you are willing to withdraw. I am asking you as the aggressor to take the risk, or if you are not willing to, then to declare war via email. The alternative, is to saddle me, the defender with all the costs.

quote: If the offending player was to try and surprise the defending player, that is his prerogative, of course

Agreed, but once the surprise is done, then the attacker must declare intentions, or take the risk.

quote: the defending player should not be able to escort the troops away because it is in the character of some dumb-ass AI to withdraw.

The risk of the AIs decision can be defined much better than 50/50. The AI is not "dumb-ass", just poorly programmed. Better to work with it, than dismiss it out of hand. If the character of the AI in a particular instance is to withdraw, then you better declare war.

quote: It is the offending player's decision, after all - he can either withdraw the troops manually, or continue with the assault.

I agree it should be. However, the way the game is programed the best solution has to be:

"It is the offending player's decision, after all - he can either declare war ahead of time, or take the estimatable risk, of the AI making the decision on whether or not to continue with the assault." (italics mine).

Again, the alternative is for the defender to wait to be pulverized by an attacker who can wait until the exact moment when (s)he wants to attack, or take the very real negative consequences of a reputation hit, by attacking first.

The attackers dilemma is inconvienient, and unfortunate. The defenders predicament is just unfair.

Edited for typos




[This message has been edited by big_canuk (edited January 24, 2001).]

[mark13]

b_c,

quote: ]The risk and consequences of the aggression should fall to the attacker.

But that is not the main issue - the issue is the attacker's prerogative to break the treaty - if he enters the other guy's territory, he will be treated with hostility, of course. Then it is up to the defender to set out his stall. If, via e-mail negotiations, the attacker agrees to withdraw, he should do so, manually. If he decides to attack, or does not give a reply, then a state of war informally exists between the two factions. This is nothing to do with the mechanics of the game diplomacy, and so should not be treated as such by demanding withdrawal i.e. evicting from your territory, and assuming that the treaty is still fully active.

quote: I respect the "phobia" about the computer making decisions for us. However, we let the AI resolve battles for us. It decides where we start the game. It does all kinds of things for us.

First off, it is nothing like a phobia. But the AI making this decision for us is a totally different issue to that of random starting positions. As I have stated many times previously, it is the attacker's prerogative to attack the defender - the AI must not be able to decide whether to withdraw or declare war, as this may radically alter the cmplexion of a game.

Consider this scenario - a human player saunters into another player's territory, with a fleet of impact rovers. All e-mail negotiations have been ignored, so the defender decides to demand withdrawal. Should it really be right that the impact rovers have to retreat to their bases because the AI has decided that it is in the faction's agenda to preserve the peace, where the human attacker has nothing but war on his mind? After all, the nearest base may be a long way away - this is not in the spirit of the game, IMO, and is not how it was originally meant to be played. Remember that there is nothing the attacking player can do to prevent this scenario, and it shoudl be well within the attacker's right to commence an assault on the defender.

quote: If the character of the AI in a particular instance is to withdraw, then you better declare war.

This is exactly my point. The human player should not have to take his faction's agenda into account - although it is a welcome part of SP play, there is no place for it in MP, and certainly not in a tournament such as this.

quote: I agree it should be. However, the way the game is programed the best solution has to be: "It is the offending player's decision, after all - he can either [i]declare war ahead of time, or take the estimatable risk, of the AI making the decision on whether or not to [i] continue with the assault." (italics mine).

There is a way around this, of course - not to let people demand withdrawal. This would make a much fairer and more interesting game, IMO.

[big_canuk]

Mark13:

Firstly, let me say I agree that your way is the way it should be. However, it can't be because of the consequences to the defender.

Given your scenario, where the attacker crosses with a fleet of rovers:

Firstly, the attacker can do something to prevent his rovers from being returned. He can declare war.

When the attacker crosses the border, he has kept his options open. He may be just staging a demonstration. He may be testing the will of the defender to see his reaction. Or he may be attacking.

Without "demand withdrawl" as an option, the defender doesn't know the intentions of the attacker. The defender must either wait, and invite the attack, or attack first, and suffer the reputation hit.

If the attacker is just staging a demonstration, and gets sent back, nothing lost. If he gets vendetta, then he looses trade income for a turn, has to apologize, and remove his unit, offering to reinstate the treaty in the diplo screen.

If the attacker is testing, then he is taking the risk that the defender will call his bluff, and force his hand. (either causing retreat, or war)

If the attacker wants to attack and as you have stated would be unfairly damaged by a return to base, then the attacker can simply declare war ahead of time. This doesn't remove surprise, as the defender can see you anyway. It just removes the attacker's options, and allows defense in such a way as to force the attacker to attack first, thus taking the reputation hit. Requiring the defender to take the hit, only to preserve the attackers options is not fair.

[big_canuk]

To continue and expand on your scenario:

I have just crossed the border with a fleet of rovers intending to attack, still treaty, demand withdrawl disallowed. I get demands via map landmarks, diplo, and email to withdraw. I say ok, but move forward. Next turn, I see my crafty defender has rushed a PD, and has a bunch of comm jamming plasma defenders in the base. I decide to turn around and try another time.

You may call this a successful demonstration. However, it is not fair. The attacker had *all* the options. He intended to attack, but then was allowed to change his mind with no consequences. The defender had no options. The attacker paid not a penny for his actions, yet the defender had to spend doubtless many ecs on rush building, and unit upgrades.

A similar, but fairer outcome would be for the attacker to have to declare war. The treaty would be dissolved and the defender would defend his base in the same way. The defender would then have the option of reinstating the treaty, or teaching the attacker a lesson for his transgression. This is how it should be.

[mark13]

b_c,

You say the attacker has all the options. That is the attacker's prerogative, of course. He is the one entering the territory, and he can do what he pleases - if diplomacy is conducted via e-mail rather than the game itself, this shouldn't be a problem.

quote: Without "demand withdrawl" as an option, the defender doesn't know the intentions of the attacker. The defender must either wait, and invite the attack, or attack first, and suffer the reputation hit.

Or he can communicate diplomatically via e-mail. If he gets a hostile reply, or no reply at all, then the treaty is effectively dissolved, meaning that an informal state of vendetta exists. By demanding withdrawal at that point the defender is assuming that the treaty is still fully active, where it is clearly not.

If, on the other hand, the attacker replies stating that he will withdraw, then he should do so manually. If he replies peacefully and carries on, then, once again, an informal state of war exists.

Of course the attacker has all the options, it is the mechanics of war - it is how it works. If the defender hasn't bothered to defende his territory sufficiently - tough cookies. That's his problem, and he should not be able to demand withdrawal to protect his size 10 base guarded by a scout patrol.

To expand the 'demonstration' scenario:

If the attacker stages a demonstration, the defender will, of course, mail him asking him what the hell he is doing. If he retreats, that is all very well and good, and normal service will resume. If he doesn't, then the defender must turn to his defenses, as once again, an informal state of war exists between the factions, and the demand withdrawal option should be disabled.

Your point about the reputation hit - it really doesn't make much difference, most of the time, as the AI is nothing more than a bit-part player in any game. The 'real' reputation lies in the other human factions - and if someone starts a war, directly or otherwise, the others will be wary.

[Misotu]

quote: Originally posted by big_canuk on 01-24-2001 08:45 PM The attacker had *all* the options. He intended to attack, but then was allowed to change his mind with no consequences. The defender had no options. The attacker paid not a penny for his actions, yet the defender had to spend doubtless many ecs on rush building, and unit upgrades.

Interestingly, this tactic is one that Vel covers a few times in his strategy guide. (And note that he is a builder!) He talks about placing one little rover in a position that will perplex and worry the other player - is this the forerunner for a major attack, or what does it mean?

He sees the advantage of this as forcing the other player to abandon their plans and spend time/money on a response I think I agree with him about this ... what's the point in building this unit and *paying support* for it (which is where the attacker's cost lies) if no-one is going to worry when it pops up out of nowhere?

I'm still not totally sure about all this, but I must say that I'm leaning towards casting my vote against allowing the demand withdrawal. Now that we are getting to the point where we have to submit a written, detailed justification for using the command, it all just sounds like too much hard work to me

[mark13]

Mis,

Bingo. It is a perfectly viable tactic to place a rover right in someone's territory - the tactic would be totally negated if all the defender had to do was hit 'demand withdrawal'. It just seems silly to me.