Strategy Discussion - Metagame

[darrelljs]

The Templars should take over PAL.

Darrell

[T-hawk]

Facetious as that sounds, Darrell, that might not be a bad idea. Templars weren't very good at strategy, but they were engaged and reliable even in adversity.

But if this game ends because PAL quits, that's probably about par for what we've experienced all along. The entire course of this game has been controlled by outside factors more so than in-game Civ strategic play. PAL's ascendance came from their mapmaker gatekeeper position, plus Banana's early disappearance which also sealed Rabbits' fate by leaving PAL free to attack them. Templars raison d'etre was something other than winning and strategy from the very start. Imperio's language barrier prevented close cooperation between them and any other team - including Banana who as a result became a close RB ally. And RB's final ascendancy will come because Banana's replacement player was inexperienced early and did not know how to lay the foundations for a strong late game economy.

And some of our successes are largely out of sheer manpower. Whiplash or Donovan or Hercules or any single lone player could not have invested the aggregate time we did in micromanagement and analysis. And our manpower advantage also made sure we would never miss a turn, always claim movement initiative in wars, and always survive absences or withdrawals by any single person or even several.

At this game's inception, the Realms Beyond community wanted a chance to test our aggregate Civ ability against skilled multiplayer competition. But it seems that real-life logistics make that nearly impossible over this sort of extended time frame. RB's dedication as a community over multiple years is uncommon indeed in the fleeting world of online message boards.

At least the two biggest turning points - our Imperio backstab and PAL's capital loss - did come from quality Civ strategizing. It took a year but we'll always have that.

[Zeviz]

There are 4 things that could be done with the game:

1. Replace PAL with AI and let their neighbors tear it apart. That would be a nice reward to the Rabbits for sticking with it for so long. And even Noble AI would be better than an unwilling player.

2. Another alternative would be to find a non-PAL replacement, like we did with Donovan for Banana.

3. Or we could just agree that the game is over. (Because the only way we could lose is close cooperation between PAL and Banana starting right now, but that wouldn't happen with takeover AI, and might not happen with a replacement player.)

4. Wait for PAL to find their own replacements.

I personally would vote for option 2 or option 3.

[Sullla]

And some of our successes are largely out of sheer manpower. Whiplash or Donovan or Hercules or any single lone player could not have invested the aggregate time we did in micromanagement and analysis. And our manpower advantage also made sure we would never miss a turn, always claim movement initiative in wars, and always survive absences or withdrawals by any single person or even several.

While what you say is true T-Hawk, it's also true for each and every Civ Demogame that I've ever watched play out. The teams at the end are always a small remnant of what they were in the beginning. Heck, you could say the same thing about any online endeavor that takes months to play out. There's no reason to downgrade what we did accomplish simply because of the missteps taken by other teams. Quite the opposite. Our ability to hold a team together, and keep a high level of interest from more than a dozen people for months on end - that was our biggest strength as a team. Why do you think I bothered to post so many screenshots (approaching 300 now), and try to draw out discussion from everyone lurking and reading along? That stuff matters! Other teams simply did not have the same organizational skills. It's not metagaming; team constitution and overall organization is enormously important for an online endeavor like this. It's not enough just to have Civ skills (which PAL definitely possesses) or a good team dynamic (like Templars). You need some of both to be successful.

Anyway, I'd be really angry if PAL's quitting attitude brings this Demogame to an early halt. Seriously, the minute we reach the #1 position, everyone else just gives up and throws in the towel? What kind of bull is that?!

[Krill]

You could consider it respect for yor skills...

[mostly-harmless]

I would hate to not see a victory animation after investing countless hours in C&D number crunching and pissing off my wife.

mh

[darrelljs]

What kind of bull is that?!

The practical kind? I still say the game is over...any scenario that involves Banana switching from RB to PAL is pretty far fetched.

However, like MH and Rabbits posted in the main forum, plenty of people have fun even if winning isn't realistic. That's what I missed when I made my "let's accept their surrender and move on" post, so I guess I am in the MP a-hole boat . Of course I'd keep playing if everyone else wanted to, and it looks like PAL will at least make the attempt. Let's not fault them for approaching the game with a first or nothing attitude, and let's not be surprised when they don't dig deep, RB style . I expect their play to be fairly perfunctory from here on out, and I doubt we'll satisfy our apparent desire for more challenge out of this game.

EDIT: Cross post with both Krill and MH. MH, I feel for you and the others who really put the sweat into this game. Its easy for me to let go, I just lurked the forums and tossed out the odd suggestion.

Darrell

[mostly-harmless]

Yes, I really got attached to the game. 2000+ posts just for this game. 8)

mh

[Iamjohn]

I've been registered for ages, but never really bothered posting until I discovered this game.

[shadyforce]

In the hypothetical situation where all the other teams wave the white flag, you should not interpret that as a hollow victory. A win is a win. It shouldn't really matter if you see the actual win movie or not. Not all chess matches finish with an actual checkmate. Many's a game is surrendered when one player has a material or positional disadvantage and respects his opponent's ability to not screw up.

And in my opinion the fact that you may feel that they still have a chance is irrelevant. It's your job to exploit the weakness of the other competitors. Sometimes it's their raw civ ability and sometimes it's their lack of ability to dig in when the going gets tough. Demoralising your opponent's into poor play or submission seems just as valid as any other way to beat your opponent.

Anyway, as it happens Banana and Rabbits have not surrendered yet so PAL's civ will play on one way or another and we still have work to do. Also, I still think that a human in PAL's situation represents our biggest risk to winning, moreso than Banana even with an AI as a neighbour. So while an AI takeover would certainly make an interesting change in dynamic, it removes the only feasable way we can not win this game so counter-intuitively PAL's withdrawal (and replacement with an AI) will unfairly screw over Banana and Rabbits' chances for winning.

€0.02

[Zeviz]

Chess metaphor is a good one. High level chess matches are seldom played until checkmate. However, it's a moot point, because Rabbits and Banana aren't ready to surrender.

Ironically, PAL's current course of action (Imperio-style half-hearted playing) is the one most likely to give us uncontested victory: A real human would make peace with Banana. An AI would die quickly, allowing Banana to present a theoretical threat to us. But a half-hearted human would defend well enough to keep Banana tied up until we gain insurmountable lead.