 |
Which Should be our Policy?
This poll is closed. |
| Attack all Scouts and Unprotected Settlers |
   |
3 |
12.00% |
| Attack all Scouts |
   |
1 |
4.00% |
| Attack all Unprotected Settlers |
   |
3 |
12.00% |
Attack ANY and ALL!  |
   |
2 |
8.00% |
Don't Attack; Make Nice to All  |
   |
16 |
64.00% |
| Total: |
25 voters |
100% |
|
| |
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dominae
quote:
Originally posted by bigfree1
I disagree somewhat with the part I highlighted in that you do not gain an advantage by trading techs, you only possibly keep up with other Civ's in terms of tech advances. It's very hard to leverage an unbalanced trade this early since not a lot of techs are known at this time.
Would you rather retain parity relative to all the other teams, or be ahead of one (possibly two) neighbors but behind compared to the rest of the world? That's the key: the civs who do not trade peacefully will find themselves behind those who choose to. It sure would be fun to to wipe out the Firaxis team early, but I would be equally not fun to lose to CFC, who smartly traded their way ahead early on.
Dominae |
This would only happen if we didn't trade with the other Civs that are bound to also be on our Continent. There could be 5 on one Continent and 3 on the other or we could be equally spread out, we're not sure, but I'd bet there is at least one other (if not 2 or 3 or even 4) on this Continent with us. And with Map Making we could send a few Galleys in search of the other Continent, we'll lose a few to the ocean maybe, but maybe we'll find a narrow gap and find new and/or alternative trading partners.
quote:
Originally posted by Dominae
Originally posted by bigfree1
quote:
If we use the 'threat' tactic, which is very viable in my opinion, I would reccomend that we take it a step further and kill the settler after we get 'free' techs from them. We have the best of both scenarios then.
This only works against the AI. It could work against a human opponent once, but then they would be so mad that they would definitely never trade with us again, and they would also make sure all the other teams knew of our "evil" deed. Rep. hits are important in MP as well.
Dominae |
It would only work against them once, more than likely, but we don't really need it to work against them again. We could get other trading partners, and through trading we'd end up getting what they researched because they would likely still be trading to the other Civ's on our Continent and those Civ's would be trading with us.
Who says that we have to be honest about what happened? Is there a rule that says we can't be underhanded sneaky little rat bastards as far as Diplomacy is concerned?
We take out their Settler, they cry 'foul', but who are they crying to? Where are the witnesses? It would be our word against their's. We could actually tell other Civ's that they did it to us! We say "This is an outrage, they attacked us without provocation! Will you not embargo all trade with insert_Civ_ name?"
Which one of the teams could be more convincing than us in an agument over who's telling the truth or not. I'm not aware of any way that another team could verify the veracity of our statements or that of another teams (for that matter) unless they were there! We have the ultimate tool of deniability. Of course this cannot be played out too many times as to raise the ire of Civ's that were inclined to believe our story versus' another Civ's story. WE could even claim that there was a barbarian Horsemen right behind us(if actual unit placement could support the statement) that zipped in and wiped out the poor little Settler. We'd tell them that we were shocked and offer our deepest sympathies, blah, blah, blah....; we could even tell them that we killed that "damn" Horsemen to make him pay for it! 
There are many ways for us to be tricky and still not have every other Civ put us on their Black List.
quote:
Originally posted by Dominae
quote:
Originally posted by bigfree1
How much backstabing goes on in a Demo game?
I've never played in one, just lots and lots of MP.
Due to the nature of PBEM (looonnngg games), I cannot say that I have a lot of experience in the matter. But what I do know is that it is a very different beast than MP. In MP, the time limitations encourage a very aggressive playstyle. Who wants to just build for 2 hours, when everyone quits around that time? You're left with nothing more than a nice session of SimCity.
So I'm beginning to understand where your comments originiate. Not that there's anything wrong with them, you or MP, but this is PBEM MP for the title. This is not "how many civs you can destroy in under 80 turns", it's "who, among all the competitors, actually manages to win". This changes things from online MP drastically.
Dominae |
You have a point here. MP games are played at a much quicker pace. But to win the game you have to dominate all others no matter the pace.
Diplomacy will have a very important role in the future and developing those relationships early on can be just as important. That's why I wouldn't want to alienate more than one Civ at this time. I believe we could more than get by without this one Civ's 'help/trade'.
quote:
Originally posted by Dominae
Originally posted by bigfree1
quote:
I'm guessing that there will plenty of it; a lot of behind the back alliances and broken trreaties. Since all teams want to win; what teams will be peaceful and/or truthful throughout?
Yes, there will be backstabbing and all that other bad stuff. But through it all we have to ensure a strong position. Backstabbing the first few civs we meet is going to take us down the wrong road.
Dominae |
Ah, but I only want to do in one..........for now
|
|
| |
|
|
|
I thought there was something in there about there being not any bad start locations? Maybe my hardrive(brain) is corrupted?! Or would it be considered RAM? A question for the Philosopher's?
|
|
| |
|
|
vondrack
|
 |
Praha, Czech Republic
Jan 2002
time: 06:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by bigfree1
I thought there was something in there about there being not any bad start locations? |
Even if it was, our starting location can hardly be considered "bad". It is not great, that's right, but to rate it as "bad", it is too early. What if we are alone on a fairly big sized island, just starting from a less than optimal place? What about if the closest neighbour is far away from us and we have lots of space to expand to? What if...?
Judging the starting position this early is premature. I suggest we wait a bit before labelling it "bad". So far, I can see a game forest, three bonus grasses, and a luxury in the radius of our capital. That is not "bad", I'd say. It's certainly something we can start with.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by vondrack
Even if it was, our starting location can hardly be considered "bad". It is not great, that's right, but to rate it as "bad", it is too early. What if we are alone on a fairly big sized island, just starting from a less than optimal place? What about if the closest neighbour is far away from us and we have lots of space to expand to? What if...?
Judging the starting position this early is premature. I suggest we wait a bit before labelling it "bad". So far, I can see a game forest, three bonus grasses, and a luxury in the radius of our capital. That is not "bad", I'd say. It's certainly something we can start with. |
You're right. I shouldn't be so negative about where we are. I'm just used to expecting the worst while hoping for the best. Our Capitol site is plenty 'good'; it's the area into which we expand (and we can't see it all yet, so your point still stands) that sort of worries me, just a little though.
Should we all break into a hymn now of "We Shall Overcome"?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by bigfree1
This would only happen if we didn't trade with the other Civs that are bound to also be on our Continent.
|
But, you see, that's the very point: if we spend our time making war while the teams on the other continent focus on their economy and research, by the time we meet them we're behind with nothing to offer. We're thus out of the trading loop, which is deadly in MP (compared to SP). On the other hand, if we trade with our neighbor, we'll be ahead of those teams who do decide to war early. Both scenarios suggest we make peace early on.
quote:
It would only work against them once, more than likely, but we don't really need it to work against them again. We could get other trading partners, and through trading we'd end up getting what they researched because they would likely still be trading to the other Civ's on our Continent and those Civ's would be trading with us.
|
First, it is obvious you're discounting the effect of reputation in an MP game. More on that below. But your scenario here is flawed two other counts: 1) the civ we weaken will be in no position to trade, and 2) they will most likely require a no re-sell agreement with the other teams (probably targeting us specifically).
quote:
Who says that we have to be honest about what happened? Is there a rule that says we can't be underhanded sneaky little rat bastards as far as Diplomacy is concerned?
|
No, there's no rule. But, assuming we're ever discovered, there's goes our reputation with all the other teams.
quote:
We take out their Settler, they cry 'foul', but who are they crying to? Where are the witnesses? It would be our word against their's. We could actually tell other Civ's that they did it to us! We say "This is an outrage, they attacked us without provocation! Will you not embargo all trade with insert_Civ_ name?"
|
This would never work. Other teams would figure it out through various means (screenshots from the targeted civ, etc.), and then our reputation would be down in the negatives.
quote:
We have the ultimate tool of deniability.
|
It would not be a court case, it would be an open social forum, where public opinion rules. Consider OJ.
quote:
We could even claim that there was a barbarian Horsemen right behind us.
|
Your ingenuity is commendable. But really, the potential losses outweigh the gains considerably. Sure, we get a leg up on our nearest neighbor. At the same time, all the other teams are reticent (more likely unwilling) to 1) trade with us, 2) ally with us against an enemy, 3) come to our aid in defense. They would not be at all reticent to target us in a military campaign. The goal is not to paint a big bullseye on our team.
quote:
There are many ways for us to be tricky and still not have every other Civ put us on their Black List.
|
Like I said, other teams will not be as gullible as you imagine.
To go back to the point of this thread: I'm not big on the idea of attacking the first Settler we see, since we're better off with a trading partner. But I'm completely against the lying and backstabbing bigfree1 is suggesting. I think there are times to lie and backstab in games, but using these tools in every encounter (especially early ones) inevitably leads to trouble.
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dominae
But, you see, that's the very point: if we spend our time making war while the teams on the other continent focus on their economy and research, by the time we meet them we're behind with nothing to offer. We're thus out of the trading loop, which is deadly in MP (compared to SP). On the other hand, if we trade with our neighbor, we'll be ahead of those teams who do decide to war early. Both scenarios suggest we make peace early on.
Dominae |
Ok, you left out the points I make about how there are very likely more than just one other Civ on the Continent with us, most likely 2 others(not including Civ we attacked) if not 3. And the fact with Map Making we'd find other viable partner's
And we're not 'spending our time making war' we're only taking out a settler or two with one unit, not a very costly endeavor to our Civ in terms of resources now really.
quote:
Originally posted by Dominae
First, it is obvious you're discounting the effect of reputation in an MP game. More on that below. But your scenario here is flawed two other counts: 1) the civ we weaken will be in no position to trade, and 2) they will most likely require a no re-sell agreement with the other teams (probably targeting us specifically).
Dominae |
Nope, not discounting reputation at all. More on that later
As to your point #1
Yes, the Civ will be weakened a bit by our actions, but that is the whole point! 
My point is that even though the are 'weakened' they will still trade with other Civ's and they will in turn trade with us.
As to your Point #2
Even if they say they wanted this 'no re-sell' agreement the other Civ's would only accept these terms if it wanted to or possibly if we admitted to the attack on the other Civ; which we would not do. If Civ A (the Civ we attacked) wants to trade with Civ B, C, D and only if they agree to not trade with Civ E (us) and Civ's B, C, D don't really have any valid reason to do so (because we approached them with the same proposition) then Civ A is out of luck. It would be in the best interests of the other Civ's to trade with all in this situation, otherwise the are already making alliances without too much information to go on.
Plus it's possible that not all Civ's will have contact with each other and so even though (for sake of argument) Civ B refused to trade with us they trade with Civ C (who has no contact with Civ A) and Civ C then trades with us. There are so many possible ways aound this I cannot go through them all without getting carpal tunnel!
quote:
Originally posted by Dominae
No, there's no rule. But, assuming we're ever discovered, there's goes our reputation with all the other teams.
Dominae |
How would we get discovered? First you'd have to assume that they would have Map Making by the turn that we attacked them on (because providing maps from a time in which you did not have Map Making should not be legal, since it wouldn't be possible in RL; you can't simply go back to an earlier time in your Civ's history and make a map). Second, that the other teams or the team we attacked didn't believe our 'Horsemen' story (they might hold us in suspicion, but not enough to withhold trade).
quote:
Originally posted by Dominae
This would never work. Other teams would figure it out through various means (screenshots from the targeted civ, etc.), and then our reputation would be down in the negatives.
Dominae |
See above.
quote:
Originally posted by Dominae
It would not be a court case, it would be an open social forum, where public opinion rules. Consider OJ.
Dominae |
It would be open to the Civ's that had contact only. If Civ A had contact with Civ B and Civ B had contact with Civ C but Civ A did not have contact with Civ C; then those three could not participate in a discussion about it.
I do not doubt for a minute that one of our representatives could not, without fault, deliver a group of words that would in the very least cast doubt on any other Civ's minds as to what happend. If no evidence can be presented (as I stated earlier, I sure that they cannot), what makes you believe that other teams won't believe us?
quote:
Originally posted by Dominae
Your ingenuity is commendable. But really, the potential losses outweigh the gains considerably. Sure, we get a leg up on our nearest neighbor. At the same time, all the other teams are reticent (more likely unwilling) to 1) trade with us, 2) ally with us against an enemy, 3) come to our aid in defense. They would not be at all reticent to target us in a military campaign. The goal is not to paint a big bullseye on our team.
Dominae |
Thankyou; I'll take that as a compliment.
All of these points you make rest on the presumed (on your part) facts that we were indeed seen as guilty by the other Civ's. As I've made clear, I think our 'guiltiness' cannot be proved, and thus only a 'we better keep an eye on them' stigma could be attached to us at this time. And as a bonus, the other Civ that we counter accused will be seen in the same light!
quote:
Originally posted by Dominae
Like I said, other teams will not be as gullible as you imagine.
Dominae |
I'm not counting on the gullibility of anyone here. There won't be any facts to support one side or the other. That's the beauty of it. 
quote:
Originally posted by Dominae
To go back to the point of this thread: I'm not big on the idea of attacking the first Settler we see, since we're better off with a trading partner. But I'm completely against the lying and backstabbing bigfree1 is suggesting. I think there are times to lie and backstab in games, but using these tools in every encounter (especially early ones) inevitably leads to trouble.
Dominae |
Except for the reputation hit that you say we'll take (I say we won't); why is it ok to 'lie and backstab' latter in the game and not now?
I say we have more to gain from it now than later.
1. If we do it now, teams will lack the proof to show other teams that we in fact did 'lie and backstab'. (This is the biggy!)
2. If we take out a Settler this early we prevent all of that Civ's gains from that one Settler, which can be immense considering how early it is. And the cost to us is very minimal, one warrior, maybe (he may make it back home or do more reconnaisance).
It's good to debate with you Dominae, I like your style.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by bigfree1
And we're not 'spending our time making war' we're only taking out a settler or two with one unit, not a very costly endeavor to our Civ in terms of resources now really.
|
Do you think they'll agree to a peace treaty so easily? And if we do catch them with their proverbial pants down, I still think it's better to ask for "gifts". This way they do not feel like a cornered dog, and will not act like one.
But I concede your point that if we find ourselves on a big continent with 3 other civs, we have ample trading opportunities, so we can (maybe) afford taking one of them out. But even so I would not want to put too many resources into a big military campaign.
As I see it, the only acceptable scenario for really early war involves 1) at least 3 civs on our continent, 2) we've made contact with all the other civs (subsumed by point 1, obviously), 3) our "target" civ is a very easy target, and 4) the other civs are more or less "on our side". Those a pretty difficult conditions to meet, especially if we chance upon an undefended Settler really early.
quote:
Yes, the Civ will be weakened a bit by our actions, but that is the whole point! My point is that even though the are 'weakened' they will still trade with other Civ's and they will in turn trade with us.
|
I understand why you want to weaken our neighbor. But you're also claiming that this does not hurt our trading opportunities, since our target civ will likely trade with third parties, which we can subsequently trade with. This second point I disagree with, since if we weaken our target civ sufficiently, their trading options will be very limited (low research, etc.) and so our benefits from the third party will be limited as well.
quote:
Even if they say they wanted this 'no re-sell' agreement the other Civ's would only accept these terms if it wanted to or possibly if we admitted to the attack on the other Civ; which we would not do.
|
The lure of a tech is more powerful than the downside of a no re-sell clause. If our target civ claims that we're bad guys, they can and will attach a no re-sell on techs they discover. Other teams will not really care, since they'll get their techs and laugh at our little dispute.
quote:
There are so many possible ways aound this I cannot go through them all without getting carpal tunnel!
|
Again from my limited experience, human players/teams have a funny quirk about prioritizing contacts once Writing is discovered. You can bet all civs will have contacted all others civ's within reach (not across an impassable body of water) relatively quickly.
quote:
How would we get discovered?
|
People do not "cry wolf" very often in real life (at least, adults do not). So any team that cries 'foul' will be given the benefit of the doubt. Our word against theirs will simply not work, because we're pegged as the bad guys before we're allowed to open our mouths (call it "poisoning the well").
And let's say we do get away with it, for a time. Eventually we'll be discovered (such secrets cannot be kept for the entire game, and if you think they can...well, I simply disagree). And once we're that happens, we'll look bad for lying to everyone, and being opportunists. Forget the type of "power" you're seeking; real power in this game will come with the strength of our diplomatic contacts.
quote:
All of these points you make rest on the presumed (on your part) facts that we were indeed seen as guilty by the other Civ's.
|
Yes. My point was that either we do get discovered, or we do not. In the first case, we're screwed. In think the second case is highly unlikely, but even then the four conditions state above would have to satisfied, which are also highly unlikely.
quote:
Except for the reputation hit that you say we'll take (I say we won't); why is it ok to 'lie and backstab' latter in the game and not now?
|
You're defending a "lie and backstab" policy: if we do not get caught, we can do whatever we want. The type of lying and backstabbing I think is acceptable is quite different. It would have to involve a sure way of putting us ahead relative to the rest of the world (not just one civ), and would only be against one civ. What you're proposing is lying to all the other teams, just to gain a small advantage over one unlucky neighbor.
quote:
2. If we take out a Settler this early we prevent all of that Civ's gains from that one Settler.
|
Think bigger. We want global superiority, not local superiority. Sure, two extra Workers would be nice, but simply not as nice as doubling our research rate.
quote:
It's good to debate with you Dominae, I like your style. |
Likewise! I'm no diplomat (for this team or in general). Too much stressful work for my taste! But I do know diplomacy is key here; let's not take any chances by ruining our reputation just to get a momentary advantage.
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Aeson
You assume the other civ is going to sit back and just let us build in peace after we take their Settler. They could do that, they could make it their team's personal vendetta to hinder us at every possible point, or somewhere inbetween.
|
Considering our UU, the other Civ just may decide it's better to not mess with us for right now. This is one way to take advantage of our UU without having to actually use him and trigger our GA.
quote:
Originally posted by Aeson
We weaken them, but if they send a couple spearmen into our territory to just rip up roads and such, they could really set us back in relation to the rest of the world... especially considering where we could rank if instead we both agree to some sort of mutually advantageous course of action.
|
That's a possibility, but we could do the same to them. I think they's rather leave us be than to tangle with our UU; at least untill they get their own UU up and running.
How hard is it to deal with a few spears comming to pillage; not very, IMO.
quote:
Originally posted by Aeson
Down a Settler to us though, generally causing havoc could very well be their best option as they already are set back in relation to the rest of the world. Certainly the dislike for us would be in favor of such action. |
Yes, but it would work against them if they wanted an all out war. They would already be behind by a lot because of the lost Settler. Look at realpolitic's thread reference above, it would be difficult for them to recover enough to come after us and not fall to far behind in tech and expansion.
I think the'll just cut their losses; if not we baited them into becoming our 'whipping civ'(as noted in realpolotic's thread)!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by bigfree1
Considering our UU, the other Civ just may decide it's better to not mess with us for right now. This is one way to take advantage of our UU without having to actually use him and trigger our GA.
|
If I were the unlucky team, I would send a couple of units over just to blow the Apolyton GA prematurely. Therefore we would have to not build Mercs. to avoid this possibility. Which means our defenses are weak (Warriors) or expensive (Swordsmen, Horsemen require strategic resources). I guess we could defend with Archers, but then we're wasting our precious Shields on a big dispute with a tiny civ! Even if they're behind a Settler, they can sure annoy us big-time.
quote:
How hard is it to deal with a few spears comming to pillage; not very, IMO.
|
More annoying that not having to deal with them. And depending on the force of their counter-attack, it may not even be worth the 2 (foreign) Workers we would get.
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dominae
Do you think they'll agree to a peace treaty so easily? And if we do catch them with their proverbial pants down, I still think it's better to ask for "gifts". This way they do not feel like a cornered dog, and will not act like one.
Dominae |
Yes I do, wholeheartedly, because of our UU. A way to take adavntage of this unit without risking an early GA is to just have the 'threat' of him there.
quote:
Originally posted by Dominae
But I concede your point that if we find ourselves on a big continent with 3 other civs, we have ample trading opportunities, so we can (maybe) afford taking one of them out. But even so I would not want to put too many resources into a big military campaign.
Dominae |
Yes, taking out one early, especially one close to us, will free up resources that may have otherwise been unavailable to us.
quote:
Originally posted by Dominae
As I see it, the only acceptable scenario for really early war involves 1) at least 3 civs on our continent, 2) we've made contact with all the other civs (subsumed by point 1, obviously), 3) our "target" civ is a very easy target, and 4) the other civs are more or less "on our side". Those a pretty difficult conditions to meet, especially if we chance upon an undefended Settler really early.
Dominae |
1. I think that the possibility for at least 3 is 80%
2. Won't be to hard to meet them.
3. They are only an 'easy' target because they left their Settler unprotected. This is where the whole question stems from, this is a must! If he's unprotected that mean they didn't have any avaiable units and are thus(more than likely) building an improvement. They would be forced to abandon that project (waste shields :lol to beef up security, further weakening them.
4. No one's going to be on any one's side, at least yet. We may have an early situation where we as 'Continent dweller's' may decide to help out each other in case of invasion from outside our own Continent.
quote:
Originally posted by Dominae
I understand why you want to weaken our neighbor. But you're also claiming that this does not hurt our trading opportunities, since our target civ will likely trade with third parties, which we can subsequently trade with. This second point I disagree with, since if we weaken our target civ sufficiently, their trading options will be very limited (low research, etc.) and so our benefits from the third party will be limited as well.
Dominae |
Yes the tech that the weakened Civ may have may be few and far between, but be sure they will put forth more effort into research if they feel that they are getting behind. Where I claim that it does not hurt us is that we will be trading with the other non-weakened Civ's. How we will be compared on our Continent to the other Continent depends on who are the Civ's on each Continent (Civ's on same Continent with same starting techs and similar research before contact will be less than those that were arranged otherwise). This is left up to chance for the most part, we cannot forsee or control this.
quote:
Originally posted by Dominae
The lure of a tech is more powerful than the downside of a no re-sell clause. If our target civ claims that we're bad guys, they can and will attach a no re-sell on techs they discover. Other teams will not really care, since they'll get their techs and laugh at our little dispute.
Dominae |
The other teams wil have to care. If there are 4 Civ's on our Continent and 2 'laugh at our dispute' they will have only themselves as trading partners, hurting themselves. They will not do this. We both have a claim aginst the other that 'they attacked us!' how will they choose which Civ to believe and thus which one to abhor trade with?
quote:
Originally posted by Dominae
Again from my limited experience, human players/teams have a funny quirk about prioritizing contacts once Writing is discovered. You can bet all civs will have contacted all others civ's within reach (not across an impassable body of water) relatively quickly.
Dominae |
Contact is fine, it helps to get our story out also. I'm counting on this to happen eventually. The point I was making was that if the Civ's didn't all have contact at that time, then they couldn't discuss what happened to them then. We could even present our counter to their 'they attacked us' case before they did!
quote:
Originally posted by Dominae
People do not "cry wolf" very often in real life (at least, adults do not). So any team that cries 'foul' will be given the benefit of the doubt. Our word against theirs will simply not work, because we're pegged as the bad guys before we're allowed to open our mouths (call it "poisoning the well").
Dominae |
Like I said earlier, we could prempt them by claiming that they did it to us before we even did it to them!
How's that for being underhanded and tricky?
quote:
Originally posted by Dominae
And let's say we do get away with it, for a time. Eventually we'll be discovered (such secrets cannot be kept for the entire game, and if you think they can...well, I simply disagree). And once we're that happens, we'll look bad for lying to everyone, and being opportunists. Forget the type of "power" you're seeking; real power in this game will come with the strength of our diplomatic contacts.
Dominae |
I see no reason that the 'secret can't be kept indefinitely. Do you know of anyone that would 'leak' the truth? Yes, if, and only if, the truth got out, we'd be sunk in terms of Diplomacy. For the life of me, I can't see how it would get out, and for that matter if it did get out what proof would the person have and where would it come from?
I trust the people here to not leak this sort of information.
I admit that 'real' power can be had through Diplomacy; but only later in the game. Power now comes mostly through force or threat of it, or else why would we build any Military units at all! This 'proposal' I'm making does not preclude the use of Diplomacy or it's effectiveness with all of the other Civ's.
quote:
Originally posted by Dominae
Yes. My point was that either we do get discovered, or we do not. In the first case, we're screwed. In think the second case is highly unlikely, but even then the four conditions state above would have to satisfied, which are also highly unlikely.
Dominae |
See above.
quote:
Originally posted by Dominae
You're defending a "lie and backstab" policy: if we do not get caught, we can do whatever we want. The type of lying and backstabbing I think is acceptable is quite different. It would have to involve a sure way of putting us ahead relative to the rest of the world (not just one civ), and would only be against one civ. What you're proposing is lying to all the other teams, just to gain a small advantage over one unlucky neighbor.
Dominae |
Yes, we would be lying to all other teams, till the end of time. But there will be no way for them to tell otherwise. We claim our story as 'scripture' and never waiver.
This "small advatage" now can be parlayed (because we have the best players!) into a huge advantage over time.
quote:
Originally posted by Dominae
Think bigger. We want global superiority, not local superiority. Sure, two extra Workers would be nice, but simply not as nice as doubling our research rate.
Dominae |
We want and need both, eventually. We have to start locally, we can't very well start globally. 
So you're saying our research rate would effectively be doubled if we don't attack this heretoforeunknown Civ? That doesn't make sense.
quote:
Originally posted by Dominae
Likewise! I'm no diplomat (for this team or in general). Too much stressful work for my taste! But I do know diplomacy is key here; let's not take any chances by ruining our reputation just to get a momentary advantage.
Dominae |
I agree that our reputaion is a strong trait that we'd want to keep reasonably clear. That's why the truth shall not ever be known except of course for us and the poor unlucky Civ with that unprotected Settler.
If DarkCloud was to write for them, their History would state that the downfall could be traced back to the fateful day that they sent out thousands of it's citizens to found a new city without any protection from Barbarians nor Maurader's (Apolytonian's)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Theseus
Nice debate, but you are all on drugs.
We will not see an undefended Settler. |
Nah, I'm high on life dude! 
You are more than likey right; an unprotected Settler is a huge risk that could pay off big for a Civ. That's one of the reaons that I'd have to make them pay for it; so as to keep them from gaining that advantage.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by bigfree1
Yes I do, wholeheartedly, because of our UU. A way to take adavntage of this unit without risking an early GA is to just have the 'threat' of him there.
|
It is nice to debate with you, bigfree1, but you do not appear to be addressing some very important points. The "threat" of our UU does not mean anything when all another team wants to do is stir up a little trouble. In fact, it's worse than this, because if we do use our Mercs. to defend against their rabble, we'll lose our GA!
quote:
Yes, taking out one early, especially one close to us, will free up resources that may have otherwise been unavailable to us.
|
If by "resources" you mean land area, the continent would have to be pretty small not to be able to support both of us. Let's assume it is big enough. Then, because of Corruption, we're always better off trading for with them than not! If by "resources" you mean Luxuries, you've got a point, but we can always trade for those as well.
quote:
1. I think that the possibility for at least 3 is 80%
|
Huh? You're saying that there's an 80% chance that the map generator put 4 teams on the same island, and that we're one of those?
quote:
3. They are only an 'easy' target because they left their Settler unprotected.
|
See Aeson's post. Now let's say that the team in question got a better start than we did, or mabe they're Expansionist and they got a free Settler. Then we're going to war with a civ very early, a war in which they're far from an "easy" target. We want to avoid such wars as much as possible!
quote:
4. No one's going to be on any one's side, at least yet.
|
I think you would be surprised at how fast relationships are formed between teams. Ask any participant in the PTW DemoGame.
quote:
Yes the tech that the weakened Civ may have may be few and far between, but be sure they will put forth more effort into research if they feel that they are getting behind.
|
No more effort than a unmolested civ. Tech is key in this game, no one is going to neglect it, or even settle for slow research.
quote:
Where I claim that it does not hurt us is that we will be trading with the other non-weakened Civ's.
|
Too contingent. We want to make sure we get those trading partners ASAP. Hurting a close neighbor works against this goal.
quote:
The other teams wil have to care. If there are 4 Civ's on our Continent and 2 'laugh at our dispute' they will have only themselves as trading partners, hurting themselves. They will not do this. We both have a claim aginst the other that 'they attacked us!' how will they choose which Civ to believe and thus which one to abhor trade with?
|
You've missed my point: if our target civ agrees to sell a tech they discover to other civs, but only on the condition that they do not re-sell it back to us, those other civs will not care at all about this added restriction. They'll just take the tech, say "thank you", and let us go about our little quarrel. Thus we will not be the target civ's techs through third parties.
quote:
Like I said earlier, we could prempt them by claiming that they did it to us before we even did it to them!
|
It should be plenty obvious to those who keep their eyes open which civ was the aggressor. Think about the PowerGraph, for instance.
quote:
Yes, if, and only if, the truth got out, we'd be sunk in terms of Diplomacy.
|
The very possibility is bad enough. Add this to the fact that I'm certain the truth will become known, and you'll see my point of view.
quote:
I admit that 'real' power can be had through Diplomacy; but only later in the game. Power now comes mostly through force or threat of it, or else why would we build any Military units at all!
|
This is where I know you're wrong. If we get a tech trading partner early, and we agree to share the tech costs on the way to, say, The Republic, then that partnership is extremely beneficial. It would be a diplomatic victory. If you think "diplomacy" necessarily involves military units, then we're not talking about the same type of diplomacy here.
quote:
We want and need both, eventually. We have to start locally, we can't very well start globally.
|
The tech race is a global affair right from the start of the game. Thinking we're hot-shots after killing our neighbors will only make us feel stupid when we meet the civs on another continent, who have peacefully traded into a insurmountable tech lead.
quote:
So you're saying our research rate would effectively be doubled if we don't attack this heretoforeunknown Civ? That doesn't make sense.
|
Team 1: "Say, how about you research Mathematics while we research Writing?"
Team 2: "Sure, that sounds great!"
For every 1 Beaker we produce, we get the equivalent of 2 when converted to techs. Sweet, huh?
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
Oh, my is bigfree1 joining Lux? How is that for a biased viewpoint!?
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
|
|
I wrote:
quote:
Originally posted by bigfree1
Yes I do, wholeheartedly, because of our UU. A way to take adavntage of this unit without risking an early GA is to just have the 'threat' of him there.
quote:
Originally posted by Dominae
It is nice to debate with you, bigfree1, but you do not appear to be addressing some very important points. The "threat" of our UU does not mean anything when all another team wants to do is stir up a little trouble. In fact, it's worse than this, because if we do use our Mercs. to defend against their rabble, we'll lose our GA!
Dominae |
The 'threat' does mean something. It means they are risking an all out war costing them much more than a Settler at this point.
Even of they did decide to come after us it will take more than a few turns to first 'find' this Settler, and even more for them to counter our attack. We should have 4-5 cities (using conservative estimates) by the time they could get a unit, that we we have to worry about (cause we wouldn't be worried about a warrior or a spearmen, we could defend with warriors or take him out with an archer or two) thus preserving our GA.
See also my earlier points how this would be very costly for them to come after us.
I wrote:
quote:
Originally posted by bigfree1
Yes, taking out one early, especially one close to us, will free up resources that may have otherwise been unavailable to us.
quote:
Originally posted by Dominae
If by "resources" you mean land area, the continent would have to be pretty small not to be able to support both of us. Let's assume it is big enough. Then, because of Corruption, we're always better off trading for with them than not! If by "resources" you mean Luxuries, you've got a point, but we can always trade for those as well.
Dominae |
Mostly I mean resources such as iron, saltpeter and the sort; but also luxeries. Yes we could trade for them but how do we get an advantage from that (there's a slight possibility); if we just 'trade luxeries' then we have no advantage over the other Civ, they get the same happiness from it (more than likely). If we secure the luxery for ourselves, then we have a distinct advantage if you have more luxeries in all than the other Civ's.
Having luxeries in multiples is not linear in terms of creating happiness; it is a exponential function (sort of).
I wrote:
quote:
Originally posted by bigfree1
1. I think that the possibility for at least 3 is 80%.
quote:
Originally posted by Dominae
Huh? You're saying that there's an 80% chance that the map generator put 4 teams on the same island, and that we're one of those?
Dominae |
Yes I am. Because IIRC, we're supposed to be on one of two Continents. In fact, the chance of us not being on one of them is less than stated earlier. I'd say around 5-10%.
I wrote:
quote:
Originally posted by bigfree1
3. They are only an 'easy' target because they left their Settler unprotected.
quote:
Originally posted by Dominae
See Aeson's post. Now let's say that the team in question got a better start than we did, or mabe they're Expansionist and they got a free Settler. Then we're going to war with a civ very early, a war in which they're far from an "easy" target. We want to avoid such wars as much as possible!
Dominae |
Even if they are ahead, somehow, it would behove us to 'even' it out a little. However, they could'nt be that far ahead as for us to be in utter fear for them. Knocking them back a notch is still called for.
I wrote:
quote:
Originally posted by bigfree1
4. No one's going to be on any one's side, at least yet.
quote:
Originally posted by Dominae
I think you would be surprised at how fast relationships are formed between teams. Ask any participant in the PTW DemoGame.
Dominae |
Relationships cannot be formed quicker than teams could meet. As this might be our first encounter with another Civ (as they would protect a Settler from here on out); how many other Civ's do you suppose they've met? I wouldn't think that they could possibly of met more than one other.
Even if every Civ on the Continent knew of one another, what are the basis for Alliances? I met so-and-so first, we are now an Alliance? Maybe, but not likely; Alliances will take hold a little later (5 turns?), IMO.
In any event if an Alliance was achieved by the Civ wouldn't the other Civ be inclined to break it because there was no proof as to who attacked whom? They could not afford to take sides this early because of the very thing you seem to harp on; tech trading. The would effectively cut off one of the supply arms of the 'tech trading tree'.
I wrote:
quote:
Originally posted by bigfree1
Yes the tech that the weakened Civ may have may be few and far between, but be sure they will put forth more effort into research if they feel that they are getting behind.
quote:
Originally posted by Dominae
No more effort than a unmolested civ. Tech is key in this game, no one is going to neglect it, or even settle for slow research.
Dominae |
Not true. A civ with more units to suport cannot in fact divert its gold to tech just as easily as one without as many units; some of it is tied to it's unit's upkeep or to a barracks or granery or temple. A Civ behind in tech can opt for all out war or maximize his gold and go for tech.
I wrote:
quote:
Originally posted by bigfree1
Where I claim that it does not hurt us is that we will be trading with the other non-weakened Civ's.
quote:
Originally posted by Dominae
Too contingent. We want to make sure we get those trading partners ASAP. Hurting a close neighbor works against this goal.
Dominae |
I'm saying that it doesn't hurt us more than it helps us in other areas. "Hurting a close neighbor" helps to ensure our growth and survival into the future.
I wrote:
quote:
Originally posted by bigfree1
The other teams will have to care. If there are 4 Civ's on our Continent and 2 'laugh at our dispute' they will have only themselves as trading partners, hurting themselves. They will not do this. We both have a claim aginst the other that 'they attacked us!' how will they choose which Civ to believe and thus which one to abhor trade with?
quote:
Originally posted by Dominae
You've missed my point: if our target civ agrees to sell a tech they discover to other civs, but only on the condition that they do not re-sell it back to us, those other civs will not care at all about this added restriction. They'll just take the tech, say "thank you", and let us go about our little quarrel. Thus we will not be the target civ's techs through third parties.
Dominae |
I disagree. I think that the tageted Civ will want a no-sell agreement with the other Civ's; but that the other Civ's will say "no way"!
Follow this;
1. The other Civs don't know who to believe.
2. If there's only 3 Civ's on the Continent:
If they believe one and side with them then it's 2 gainst one; not good. But I don't believe that they will take sides, beacuse two trading partners are better than one. They don't want to get behind as far as the other Continent is concerned.
3. If there's 4 Civ's on the Continent:
If the side split their decison on who to believe/side with, it is not good for any of the parties beacuse tech research is again limited to only two Civs.
The other Civ's involved would be better served to take no sides on this matter and will only be willing to trade techs openly (no restrictions) to either of us.
Of course there's the chance that there might be 3 Civ's all against us, but the chances of that happening are pretty slim indeed. They would have to sniff us out as liars from the very begining, which I don't think that they could do.
quote:
Originally posted by Dominae
It should be plenty obvious to those who keep their eyes open which civ was the aggressor. Think about the PowerGraph, for instance.
Dominae |
It not going to be 'obvious', there's many a reason as to why the graph changes from turn to turn; but capturing a settler should not take then down on the graph or put us up by any noticible margin(if any at all). If you think it would please explain how this would happen, thanks.
quote:
Originally posted by Dominae
The very possibility is bad enough. Add this to the fact that I'm certain the truth will become known, and you'll see my point of view.
Dominae |
I trust the people here, it seems you don't? How would the truth 'leak' out?
quote:
Originally posted by Dominae
This is where I know you're wrong. If we get a tech trading partner early, and we agree to share the tech costs on the way to, say, The Republic, then that partnership is extremely beneficial. It would be a diplomatic victory. If you think "diplomacy" necessarily involves military units, then we're not talking about the same type of diplomacy here.
Dominae |
You are kidding, right? If you walked up on an ungaurded Capitol and you could take it out on one of your turns, and that Civ would be gone; you wouldn't do it? This is the Power of Military Diplomacy (Something Bush wants to show Saddam :lol.
Do you think the US would have as much influence in World Diplomacy if it were not for the fact the US had the greatest Military force on the Planet? There's always force backing up Diplomacy, always!
quote:
Originally posted by Dominae
The tech race is a global affair right from the start of the game. Thinking we're hot-shots after killing our neighbors will only make us feel stupid when we meet the civs on another continent, who have peacefully traded into a insurmountable tech lead.
Dominae |
4 against 3 in a tech race will still be very close and dependent on other variables. Plus, we have no idea what's going on over there. They could be down to two Civ's by the time we make contact, we just don't know.
I wrote:
quote:
Originally posted by bigfree1
So you're saying our research rate would effectively be doubled if we don't attack this heretoforeunknown Civ? That doesn't make sense.
quote:
Originally posted by Dominae
Team 1: "Say, how about you research Mathematics while we research Writing?"
Team 2: "Sure, that sounds great!"
For every 1 Beaker we produce, we get the equivalent of 2 when converted to techs. Sweet, huh?
Dominae |
You are assuming too much here my friend; for one,we would be trading techs with the other Civ's and that we wouldn't trade with the 'targeted' Civ. I say we will. I say we will end up getting the techs that the 'targeted' Civ traded to another Civ.
So to say we couldn't benefit from trade or that aother Civ's won't trade with us also is wrong. Our research rate could be double-triple; depends on the attitude of the other Civ's and NOT on the one of the 'targeted' Civ.
Last edited by on 02-03-2003 at 06:12
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
bigfree1, I think we're starting to argue in circles here, which is a natural conclusion of many debates. That's fine by me. Let's just say that I'm hard-headed concerning trading partnerships (at least until we're aware of the world diplomatic situation), while you're a little hard-headed concerning exploiting weaknesses. Fair?
But, of course, there are some points I would still like to address.
quote:
The 'threat' does mean something. It means they are risking an all out war costing them much more than a Settler at this point.
|
You must have missed a few of the recent posts amidst our discussion. The weakned civ could very easily send 2-4 Spearmen to pester us. That may not seem like much, but it can accomplish plenty. We would have to spend time and money on defense, we could potentially lose a couple of improvements, etc. These are all bad things that we do not want, especially if the reward is two lousy, unproductive Workers. The weakened civ need not attack us full out to hurt us, they can threaten and we will have to react.
quote:
Because IIRC, we're supposed to be on one of two Continents. In fact, the chance of us not being on one of them is less than stated earlier. I'd say around 5-10%.
|
I would like to know where you're getting this information. Knowing that we're most likely on a continent with 3 other neighbors will seriously affect our early decisions. Please back up your claim.
quote:
Even if every Civ on the Continent knew of one another, what are the basis for Alliances? I met so-and-so first, we are now an Alliance? Maybe, but not likely; Alliances will take hold a little later (5 turns?), IMO.
|
The point is not that other teams will be creating full-fledged alliance. The point is that anything that hurts our reputation early will most likely affect our trade with other teams. This is a bad thing.
This is my main point, which you seem to be avoiding: if two civs cooperate fully, they will be ahead of other civs who do not. We do not want to be left behind. Attacking one civ 1) removes a trading partner and 2) affects our reputation for the worse (unless you finesse some sort of "whodunnit" situation, which is unlikely).
quote:
Not true. A civ with more units to suport cannot in fact divert its gold to tech just as easily as one without as many units; some of it is tied to it's unit's upkeep or to a barracks or granery or temple. A Civ behind in tech can opt for all out war or maximize his gold and go for tech.
|
Barring game mechanic constraints, I think we can agree that most (all) teams will be prioritizing tech advancement. I sure hope we will. Maybe if we hit Knights we can stop research for a bit to get some upgrades done. But even then we'll lag behind and end up facing Musketmen. The tech race defines the game in MP.
quote:
I disagree. I think that the tageted Civ will want a no-sell agreement with the other Civ's; but that the other Civ's will say "no way"!
|
It is not in the other teams' interest to refuse the deal. Let's try a specific example:
Team A is us, team B is the team we attack, team C is a neutral third party. Team B discovers, say, Map Making. They do not want to trade it to us, for obvious reasons (they might, but let's assume not). But team B has no problem with trading it to team C, on one condition: team C is not allowed to trade it back to us. Uh-oh. Team C will make the trade anyway, because they're getting the trade on even. The requirement that they cannot trade it back to us will not affect their decision to accept the deal.
quote:
It not going to be 'obvious', there's many a reason as to why the graph changes from turn to turn; but capturing a settler should not take then down on the graph or put us up by any noticible margin(if any at all). If you think it would please explain how this would happen, thanks.
|
Graph-reading is a very important part of PBEM MP play, actually. The "proof" will be that our targeted civ is lagging behind in score, for no apparent reason. If they're claiming that we bopped one of their Settlers and the scores reflect that, other teams will most likely believe them and not us.
quote:
You are kidding, right? If you walked up on an ungaurded Capitol and you could take it out on one of your turns, and that Civ would be gone; you wouldn't do it? This is the Power of Military Diplomacy.
|
That's not diplomacy, that's warfare. War is what happens when diplomacy breaks down. Military might therefore plays a part in diplomacy, of course, but it is not the sole driving force behind it. Again, I refer you to the PTW DG, where there is plenty of diplomacy going on across continents. Military might has nothing to do with most of it. Diplomacy is not "we have big guns, let's talk", that's extortion. Diplomacy is "perhaps we can come to an agreement, hopefully mutually beneficial".
quote:
Do you think the US would have as much influence in World Diplomacy if it were not for the fact the US had the greatest Military force on the Planet?
|
This is not the place to discuss this, but let me just say that, IMO, the example you've put forward does not describe an entirely healthy state of affairs. This is a typical reaction, though, seeing as I'm Canadian.
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:26.
Apolyton Time is 00:26. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
01-03-2003 13:52
)
|