 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
vondrack
|
 |
Praha, Czech Republic
Jan 2002
time: 06:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Master Zen And to those who say a shared victory is cheesy, well, in demo games we frequently do things which are impossible in SP. Multiple-team exchanges, artillery trading, even city trading, info sharing etc. Why is sharing victory any different? There's no rule that says it can't be done. There's also no rule that says a game can't be over without an in-game victory. Both the PTW and C3C ISDG ended without an in-game victory being met. No one complained so why are they complaining now? |
Well, as much as I left this game behind and no longer care... I cannot agree with what you're saying here, MZ. Lego has never considered an alliance victory allowed in this game - and I'd say it was the same with GS.
True, there was no written rule about it... so, I guess nobody can question your shared victory. If you and ND enjoy it, well, have it your way... but I guess I'm with those that have something about cheese in their minds. The reason why you and ND diplomatically "outplayed" teams that did not consider shared victory a possibility was that you were simply playing by different rules in this regard.
Were Lego and GS aware of that an alliance victory was an option, I am sure the game would have developed in a different way. A "war to end all wars" between GoW+ND and GS+Lego (or some other 2v2 war) could be something to remember. Instead...
I am not saying this because of Lego, actually - we lost in a fight that was as fair as a 2v1 fight can be. That war might have developed little differently if there was no secret shared victory pact between you and ND, but we would have probably still be killed, so no complaints here.
I am saying this because I can imagine GS must feel royally screwed and cheated now. I know I would. Judging from their posts, I guess GS were not naive and knew it was very likely they would be the next target. Following us out of the game before you and ND would duke it out for the grand prize, well, it would have been cruel but I could take that. But this?
A "shared" victory. Bleh.
To be honest, no matter who claims a shared victory in this game, I myself was most impressed by what GS accomplished. Such a strip of land and... As much as I have never become fond of their "diplomatic ways", GS pulled some unbelievable rabbits out of their small, crappy hat. Do not fool yourself, MZ... it was GS killing us, not you. Sure they couldn't have done it alone, without someone tying part of our army. But they had to face almost all our navy and what limited airforce we had - yet they were able to break through. Were it not for GS tanks, your beaten forces would still be stuck in the mud at Fort Stanwix.
My hat is off to you, GS.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Master Zen
|
 |
of naughty
Jan 2003
time: 23:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by vondrack
Well, as much as I left this game behind and no longer care... I cannot agree with what you're saying here, MZ. Lego has never considered an alliance victory allowed in this game - and I'd say it was the same with GS.
True, there was no written rule about it... so, I guess nobody can question your shared victory. If you and ND enjoy it, well, have it your way... but I guess I'm with those that have something about cheese in their minds. The reason why you and ND diplomatically "outplayed" teams that did not consider shared victory a possibility was that you were simply playing by different rules in this regard.
|
I'd like to ask you, what exactly is the difference between our agreement with ND regarding victory and just a regular alliance to defeat GS and then duke it out among us two. Lego would still be gone. GS would still be on their way out too. What if we never made public our shared victory and after defeated GS we simply decided to call it quits? No difference Vondrack, and the game mechanics do not change at all. So no, there were not different rules moreso since we did not start this game with the idea that we would share victory as the pact was not done until quite late in the game.
quote:
Were Lego and GS aware of that an alliance victory was an option, I am sure the game would have developed in a different way. A "war to end all wars" between GoW+ND and GS+Lego (or some other 2v2 war) could be something to remember. Instead...
|
Because, like I said, Lego and GS were the only powers which could afford to think of winning by themselves. GoW and ND could not. Furthermore it is not our fault that you did not consider this possibility because your geopolitical situation did not warrant it. Ultimately the way this game ends was not in your hands to decide, and in some way, wasn't in ours either. Tell me Vondrack, would you have seriously ever contemplated a shared victory with GS given your position in the world? I seriously doubt it.
I repeat. The ISDG ended without an in-game victory. It did not end in a "war to end all wars" either between Poly and GWT. It just ended. Did I hear complaints? Nope.
quote:
I am not saying this because of Lego, actually - we lost in a fight that was as fair as a 2v1 fight can be. That war might have developed little differently if there was no secret shared victory pact between you and ND, but we would have probably still be killed, so no complaints here.
I am saying this because I can imagine GS must feel royally screwed and cheated now. I know I would. Judging from their posts, I guess GS were not naive and knew it was very likely they would be the next target. Following us out of the game before you and ND would duke it out for the grand prize, well, it would have been cruel but I could take that. But this?
A "shared" victory. Bleh.
|
Jesus christ, what is the friggin difference that it makes for both Lego and GS that GoW/ND share the victory if both of you would have been defeated regardless??? What's the difference if GoW and ND merely pacted a traditional alliance to defeat GS right now and then decided to duke it out?. How would Lego or GS's reputation or legacy or history or whatever change? You would still be a defeated team and join the ranks of whoever the unlucky loser of a GoW vs ND war was.
quote:
To be honest, no matter who claims a shared victory in this game, I myself was most impressed by what GS accomplished. Such a strip of land and... As much as I have never become fond of their "diplomatic ways", GS pulled some unbelievable rabbits out of their small, crappy hat. Do not fool yourself, MZ... it was GS killing us, not you. Sure they couldn't have done it alone, without someone tying part of our army. But they had to face almost all our navy and what limited airforce we had - yet they were able to break through. Were it not for GS tanks, your beaten forces would still be stuck in the mud at Fort Stanwix.
My hat is off to you, GS. |
My hat is off as well. GS fought brilliantly and flawlessly in the Lego War and I will be the first to say that without breaking through at Sandonorico (or whatever its called) as well as managing to attack Stanwix, GoW couldn't have been able to win by itself.
However, you make it seem that things would have been different if GoW was in the west and GS in the east. GS would have still had only 2 possible cities to attack and their marine force could not have taken either of them. A trick like the one pulled with the transports would have been impossible since there would have been no undefended cities to land in. In the west, my dear Vondrack, you would have faced an even larger navy, which was based on carriers which would have laid waste to your battleships much quicker. It is unlikely that you would have achieved the last-minute naval victory in the gulf against us because you wouldn't have had so many full strength battleships to send in the first place. No battle, no way to block the ports, we'd have faced 5 possible landing sites of which we only needed to take one to win. Game over. You lose. 
If anything you got lucky by facing the threat you were more prepared to face on both sides. You fought the navy you could better handle. You attacked the stack which had the weaker defense (if GS had landed in the east you would have faced Mech Infs as well as 60, not 40 tanks).
Sorry for sounding like a ***** but I just smell sore loserism. 
-MZ
|
|
| |
|
|
|
vondrack
|
|
Praha, Czech Republic
Jan 2002
time: 06:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Master Zen
I'd like to ask you, what exactly is the difference between our agreement with ND regarding victory and just a regular alliance to defeat GS and then duke it out among us two. Lego would still be gone. GS would still be on their way out too. |
I am sure you do know what the difference exactly is. You can commit to war (speaking about both wars here, you+GS vs. us and you+ND vs. GS) in a very different way, if you know you're never going to fight the only neighbour sharing a land border with you - simply because you and him are going to win together. Neither you, nor him need to care about the (im)balance of power, about gaining or losing relative strenght (as compared to the other member of the pact), because there is never going to be a war these relative strenghts would matter.
That is the difference.
It would have not changed the result (and perhaps not even the course) of the Lego War. But I seriously doubt the rest of the game would be the same, too.
The pact signed between you and ND decided the outcome of this game before GS sank our first sentry ironclad. Anybody could have done that (if considering a shared victory an option) and nobody else could have done that (if considering a shared victory not an option).
quote:
Tell me Vondrack, would you have seriously ever contemplated a shared victory with GS given your position in the world? I seriously doubt it. |
Of course I would, I am not crazy. No team can win a game like PtWDG against an alliance of two other teams (assuming the teams are generally of comparable strenghts).
quote:
I repeat. The ISDG ended without an in-game victory. It did not end in a "war to end all wars" either between Poly and GWT. It just ended. Did I hear complaints? Nope. |
I wonder what did these two games have in common... can't think of much. ISDG did not end because of two teams proclaiming a shared victory - and as far as I can remember, there was a team we pretty much considered the winner. A single team.
quote:
However, you make it seem that things would have been different if GoW was in the west and GS in the east. |
That was not my intention. My remark was inspired by your post where you talked about how it would be your bombers levelling our cities if GS failed in the west - I do not seem to be able to find that post now...
If you or both of you were in the west, things would have been different, that's for sure. Probably not the outcome, though. But it's not how it happened.
quote:
Sorry for sounding like a ***** but I just smell sore loserism. |
Yes, that'll be it.
I love you, too, MZ. 
Last edited by vondrack on 19-05-2005 at 11:27
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Master Zen
|
|
of naughty
Jan 2003
time: 23:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by vondrack
I am sure you do know what the difference exactly is. You can commit to war (speaking about both wars here, you+GS vs. us and you+ND vs. GS) in a very different way, if you know you're never going to fight the only neighbour sharing a land border with you - simply because you and him are going to win together. Neither you, nor him need to care about the (im)balance of power, about gaining or losing relative strenght (as compared to the other member of the pact), because there is never going to be a war these relative strenghts would matter.
That is the difference.
|
GoW risked a major imbalance of power vis-a-vis GS for having our stack attacked by Lego (and we knew that if you were going to attack, you'd attack us, not GS). We risked it not once but twice (by both landing and by attacking Stanwix)
ND risked a major imbalance of power vis-a-vis GoW during the Bobian War because turn order dictated that they would be the ones to attack GS's stacks during the major battles first and GoW would merely get the mopping up work. Because of this and Leo's, GoW ended the war with almost twice as many Riders than they had Ansars and we could have attacked them afterwards (our alliance lasted only until the war ended, we had no plans of winning the war together back then).
GoW also risked having Lego backstab us during the Bobian War. All our troops were either in the Alamo or in the Yellowknife while your nice little stack of knights rode through our territory. Yet we took the risk regardless. Likewise we took the risk of sending our initial Rider stack across the mountains in the east before striking RP. During this time ND could have backstabbed us (we never wrote an alliance treaty against RP, they could've nailed us then and there). What was the logic behind these risks? That if we didn't take them, we'd lose anyway.
As you can see, when relative strength did matter, teams went on with their plans regardless.
quote:
It would have not changed the result (and perhaps not even the course) of the Lego War. But I seriously doubt the rest of the game would be the same, too.
|
As of this turn I can almost assure you that nothing would have changed.
quote:
The pact signed between you and ND decided the outcome of this game before GS sank our first sentry ironclad. Anybody could have done that (if considering a shared victory an option) and nobody else could have done that (if considering a shared victory not an option).
Of course I would, I am not crazy. No team can win a game like PtWDG against an alliance of two other teams (assuming the teams are generally of comparable strenghts).
|
But that's the point, you DIDN'T do it and now you're complaining when other teams did. You didn't do it because you thought that Lego had a chance of winning alone, anyone who started with an entire continent to themselves and a huge advantage of not wasting time building massive armies and fighting wars could have seen it. I doubt I would have considered a joint victory if I were Lego. Same with GS. The difference being that they had lesser long-term prospects of victory at least economically/militarily though scientifically they were far ahead of our capabilities. I wonder, why did GS never once ask GoW to ally with them to defeat a rising ND and then duke it out for a winner afterwards with us? They never approached us. Even if their odds of winning were less, they would have been a bit bigger if they had chosen to seek an alliance with GoW against ND than having to fight the Yellow Peril™ by themselves.
So, like I said in my last post, don't complain now about a lack of foresight and about a different perspective on your shots of victory. In contrast with you and GS, GoW and ND were convinced that we could not win the game alone which is why we pacted our alliance. Tell me Vondrack, in retrospective would you have now preferred to ally with GS to fight the Bobians in a last 2-on-2 confrontation to decide the winner? Now, do you think we would be so stupid as to have allowed such a thing which would have compromised our shots at even a shared victory? We might be cheesy, but we are far from being idiots. Tell me, if you saw the evil backstabbing GoWers getting too powerful by conquering Bob, would you not have allied with GS? Likewise would you have permitted a non-Apolyton team (ND) from winning this game alone? I doubt it in either case. Don't blame us for not being powerful enough to hope for a lone victory. And don't blame ND for not being an Apolyton civ.
quote:
I wonder what did these two games have in common... can't think of much. ISDG did not end because of two teams proclaiming a shared victory - and as far as I can remember, there was a team we pretty much considered the winner. A single team.
|
Did GWT "prove" they were the best? Could Apolyton not have been their equal by the industrial age perhaps? Did we fight a final titanic war to decide the winner? Were our chances of victory 0% so as to have warranted quitting? Nope. Victory was a subjective decision taken because most people didn't want to play anymore and of all the teams, GWT seemed to have the biggest odds of victory (as well as the highest score).
quote:
That was not my intention. My remark was inspired by your post where you talked about how it would be your bombers levelling our cities if GS failed in the west - I do not seem to be able to find that post now...
|
It's in the Glory of News thread
And that comment was inspired by a quote of yours which spoke of the damage each Carrier raid was causing. Think 10 more turns and 10 more raids...
quote:
If you or both of you were in the west, things would have been different, that's for sure. Probably not the outcome, though. But it's not how it happened.
|
And the way it happened ensured that the team which would have the fate of the war in their hands was GS not us. Yet you and Zargon seem to imply that our participation in that war was irrelevant and that GS alone did you in. I can assure you that the months of preparation, the anxiety of our knowing how precarious our position was, the cruel knowledge that geography dictated our role would be no better than a bulwark despite such a tremendous spending on units, and in short the effort of our team made as a whole sure as hell doesn't warrant your team's comments that our participation was irrelevant. How would you like it if GoW started blabbering that Lego's participation in the game was irrelevant because they ended up losing? You wouldn't like it, that's how it feels on this side of the fence.
-MZ
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Beta
|
 |
Prowling in a PBEM near you!
Nov 2002
time: 00:34
|
|
I have delayed quite a bit in posting here, as I had to make sure my opinion was not simply a knee jerk reaction to GoW and ND's announcement. I have thought about it fair bit, and read the posts in this thread a couple of times.
I am with UnOrthOdOx and Vondrack on this. I do not think the 'shared victiry' concept is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the game, and for me, it is a bit of a shame to see a game, which was such a wild ride at times, and was the first and still most significant Civ3 MP game, end like this.
In my mind, this sets a very bad precedent for future games. What happens next time - a three team alliance and a 3-way shared victory? I know - I am extrapolating here, but it is not a whole lot different. And the fact that the 'hard' alliance and idea of the shared victory did not arise until later does not make much of a difference. In future games, it will be on everyone's mind right from the start, and that will kill one of the greatest dynamics of MP civ - the strategy and diplomacy and international balancing act that is key to success.
It is so very key and fundamental to the game that all teams have to playing on the same premise - that they are trying to win. Otherwise, the game becomes flawed, and unfair to some teams.
I find it interesting that most sets of PBEM guidelines speak to each player trying to win the game - not share a win (unless of course it is a team pbem scenario). And has been stated earlier, everyone assumed that was the case heading into this game. And all teams played on that understanding, even after GoW and ND had decided otherwise - which obviously affects the entire balance of power and diplomacy. Had this intent been stated earlier - then I would have seen a GoW/ND vs Lego/GS/RP/Vox scenario shaping up.
In fact, had we in Vox any idea this was going down, we certainly would have waded into the Lego conflict. We stayed out of it for two reasons - part self-preservation (let the big guys duke it out and keep our heads down), and part not wanting to be a liability to Lego (in other words, if we were attacked, they would have had to come to our assistance thus weakening themselves.) And given what a 'close-run' thing that conflict was, Vox involvement might have tipped the scales.
And as it stands right now, Lego and GS have been eliminated, but not Vox. Now, I fully recognize that a war against Vox would be a two nanosecond event (notwithstanding the Elite Immortal guarding the capital  ), but, to be honest, would we have even bothered to stay in the game had we known this was going to be the outcome. Speaking for myself, probably not. We rebuilt and supported Lego, as we clearly owed them our existence. But in the back of my mind was the hope that the game would develop exactly as it did, with the larger teams taking each other out with whatever alliances they could create. We would keep our heads down and maybe there would be an opportunity when the last two large teams went head-to-head. That is not going to happen now.  Now knowing that, GoW and/or ND could simply wipe us out, and say there - ends that line of logic. But again, it goes back to the understanding each team was playing under.
All that being said, I fully appreciate that the game has gone on a long time, and in some respects has become tedious - particularly with a large modern-age civ such as GoW and ND now have. The game takes "energy", and that was clearly declining. So on another level, I can understand ending it as GoW and ND have.
However, I still would like to see the showdown played out. Make it non-nuclear - set a start date 5 turns hence so each team can be prepared, toss a coin for who gets to attack first - and let us all watch. Now that would be fun. 
In my mind, a game of civ only has one winner - that is the way it was set up and intended to be played. No 'shared' victories. And no second or third places. The GoW/ND proposal, IMHO, means that no one wins the game - or conversely - we all do. Maybe that is the best interpretation.
Because, without that showdown, it will be as T.S.Eliot suggested:
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hot_Enamel
|
 |
Melbourne, Australia
Aug 2002
time: 14:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beta
However, I still would like to see the showdown played out. Make it non-nuclear - set a start date 5 turns hence so each team can be prepared, toss a coin for who gets to attack first - and let us all watch. Now that would be fun.
In my mind, a game of civ only has one winner - that is the way it was set up and intended to be played. No 'shared' victories. And no second or third places. The GoW/ND proposal, IMHO, means that no one wins the game - or conversely - we all do. Maybe that is the best interpretation.
Because, without that showdown, it will be as T.S.Eliot suggested:
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.
|
If you note the discussion in the other demo games, agreements are being made that there can be only one winner. This Demo game was the first. We learnt a lot from it. Perhaps this was also a lesson. Having a one winner agreement at the start will fix it up for all the furture games.
Anyway..
The problem is that you should take a look at the border we share with ND. How do you defend that ? He who strikes first will win. So whoever wins the coin toss will win.
If its a spaceship race ... is that fair ? ND & GoW have been sharing techs & gold quite unevenly. Is it fair that we should start at the same tech level ?
In my mind, a joint victory is far more satisfying than just tossing a coin. ND & GoW wont attack each other.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DeepO
|
 |
supporting Candle'Bre
Jan 2002
time: 06:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Master Zen
That's honestly what I don't understand about this whole argument. Nothing would have changed |
MZ, CIV is going to have a shared victory thing. Now, assume that in order to get it, you are required to sign a treaty in game, much like the MPP treaty in SP. So... anyone with an embassy would be able to see that you had a treaty.
I know this is not in Civ 3, I know it was an out-of-game agreement, but let's just suppose it can somehow show up in-game.
Now, before invading Lego, you sign a treaty with ND. Do you really believe we would have invaded Legoland If we had spotted this? Do you think, that if we got Lego to join us in invading you, you even had a chance of surviving? ND was out of the picture, as they were still finishing their buildings before building defenses, they couldn't help you. Would it have changed the game? You bet.
I don't mind shared victories, if these have repercussion in game as well. There is no balance, while everything else in the game is balanced. If you build more units, you are penalised each turn as you have to pay more upkeep. If you go for more culture, you can't build units. If you build more cities, your efficiency goes down due to corruption. Every aspect of Civ 3 has a counterweight. A shared victory has not, it's just a free advantage without any penalty. Making an alliance visible in a diplo game, could have proved to be too much counterweight, but it certainly would have tried to balance out the advantages you get from it.
DeepO
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DeepO
|
|
supporting Candle'Bre
Jan 2002
time: 06:34
|
|
I agree, but the difference is that even before you built the first unit that invaded Lego, Lego was well aware of an alliance between us against them. We were never to secretive about that, it was of no use anyway... we weren't going to share a single tech with them, and the moment we kept techs from them they knew what was going to happen.
This same thing doesn't apply to the GoWND situation. You even fought a war with us as allies (without any treaty signed, I might add) while more strongly allied to ND. We could not have known.
And yes, everyone is guilty of sidestepping technical aspects, but there is a difference between capturing catapults and declaring a new victory type.
It's also just a suggestion, but I certainly hope that in CIV, a shared victory would be visible a long time beforehand, so there is some way of reacting against it. Maker it visible in game, and give something in return as well. E.g. give both teams all unit information, share research and gold reserves, etc. But balance it so that it others have a chance to respond, instead of after the facts just be told "ow, we had an alliance for the last year or so. Sorry, we win."
DeepO
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Beta
|
|
Prowling in a PBEM near you!
Nov 2002
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DeepO
Now, before invading Lego, you sign a treaty with ND. Do you really believe we would have invaded Legoland If we had spotted this? Do you think, that if we got Lego to join us in invading you, you even had a chance of surviving? ND was out of the picture, as they were still finishing their buildings before building defenses, they couldn't help you. Would it have changed the game? You bet.
I don't mind shared victories, if these have repercussion in game as well. There is no balance, while everything else in the game is balanced. If you build more units, you are penalised each turn as you have to pay more upkeep. If you go for more culture, you can't build units. If you build more cities, your efficiency goes down due to corruption. Every aspect of Civ 3 has a counterweight. A shared victory has not, it's just a free advantage without any penalty. Making an alliance visible in a diplo game, could have proved to be too much counterweight, but it certainly would have tried to balance out the advantages you get from it.
DeepO |
Where's that bulls-eye smiley when you need it. 
Beautifully stated DeepO. You have explained well what I was trying to say.
MZ - understand your point about the showdown - but it would be fun. So maybe we boil it down to simply the coin toss. (Or a best 4 out of 7 rock, scissors, paper contest.  )
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
18-05-2005 23:26
|