Teach me!

[Blake]

OMG you actually gifted spies to avoid building multiple Scotland Yards :X.

[snoopy369]

I'm aware it wasn't in my best interests to attack you. Mostly I wanted to:
a) Take a city
b) Do something that's not boring
c) Finish the game

I accomplished all three of my goals

[snoopy369]

I do generally feel like you all were too defensive against Blake... The best way to deal with someone like that is to just invade him on multiple fronts, forcing him to keep more defenders in the back ranks. When he's not forced to do that, he can put more forces in the front.

I remember a game with Dominae in MP that I did just that - sent a couple of galleys full of cavalry to his homeland while he was warring elsewhere - and took three cities from someone about 100% bigger than me with no trouble at all. I didn't win ultimately - but he stopped attacking elsewhere for a good thirty or forty turns, which gave plenty of time for others to regroup and recoup their losses.

If you had parked two transports full of infantry in front of each of Blake's port cities, this game might have been somewhat different...

[Blake]

Btw, if not for war-weariness I would have played a lot more aggressively.

I had to be confident I could wipe out an entire player in a very short amount of time. If a player was left alive, like they got gifted a distant city, I would've been rather screwed because my economy would have got sunk.

War-weariness DOES suck. Once you're in a final war situation it means you can't really fight over land. You have to take the whole lot in one swoop.

And as noted, if anyone was devious enough to gift cities, I would've been screwed. So I had to be immensely caution with invading.

I also had to basically only invade demolarized players, meaning I had to break their army and get them to want to actually die rather than live. A demolarized player is unlikely to send out settler-transports, and unlikely to accept a gifted city if one is offered.

I doubt I could have made Japan "want to die", so I had to be prepared to eliminate both all of Japan and all of Egypt before the war-weariness would go away. That would have been way too much war-weariness. So even if I wanted to, I couldn't really invade Japan/Egypt. Even Alexman was a bit too big to invade before War-weariness would've started sucking big time.

edit: It is true that I could have teched to the end of the tech tree, built jails everywhere, mount rushmore, and run Police State permanently, but that would mean fighting end game wars, with every city optimized as state-property powerhouses capable of popping out a unit every turn or two and just in general a bazillion trillion units to manage. No thanks.

[Blake]

I would like to thank Alexman for a great game - it was encouraging to feel there was a true ally who'd not let me do the dirty work, while working on his own victory. While I'll take my side according to the cruel logic of this game, once I take it, I no longer care about my personal goals until the war is over. It was great to feel the same from Zululand. If you ever need an ally again, ring me up, Alex!

Vondrack, I'd love to see you try and justify that more.

I'd especially love to know WHY you decided to side with me against Carborga.

And what on earth do you mean by "a true ally who'd not let me do the dirty work, while working on his own victory"?

Justify for my amusement!
Please .

[condor223]

I believe that this refers to Alex taking care of the allies, such as gifts of resuce money, etc, instead of teching to take the SS win on his own.

My part of the coop was to build defensive units, Draft early in the war, and to go on cash when needed, to give to the Eastern allies for either tech or upgrades.

This type of role assignment is quite common in ladder team games. Everyone has a tactical role, which could vary depending on the expertise of the players and their placement on the map. Vondrak had the luxury of not needing much defense, so he made most attacking units and operated them on the western front.

[Blake]

Sorry, I meant, that I perceived some kind of stab at MY conduct. Maybe there wasn't one there - but it seems like there is.

[vondrack]

Originally posted by Blake
I'd especially love to know WHY you decided to side with me against Carborga.

I don't know what makes you think I was siding with you against CarBorga...? I made a tech deal with you that netted me something I wanted. A consequence of that tech deal was you're able to attack CarBorga with Cavalry instead of Horse Archers, which I knew would happen but didn't particularly care about. I did not mind you becoming the big bad guy, the prime target for all other players.

It was Solver siding with you against CarBorga, not me.

Originally posted by Blake
Sorry, I meant, that I perceived some kind of stab at MY conduct. Maybe there wasn't one there - but it seems like there is.

No idea what kind of stab you think there is. Me and you were never allies, so I do not know how that could apply to you. I meant my words the way I put them - I have been in games where my allies would keep their own little agenda despite being supposed to care about the Allied cause in the first place. Alex was not like that - he was fully commited to the war, no matter what kind of help I needed or asked for.

It was my ill advice (or misjudgment of the situation) that cost him his first large stack at Birka. He never said a single word about it and trusted me later on again. I messed up another plan of ours badly by misclicking (I still don't know how I did that..) and sending a key arty-filled transport Alex gifted me someplace crazy... instead of telling me I was an idiot to let something like that happen (which was what I told myself about a dozen times), Alex actually apologized for a clumsy UI... We later took Nidaros anyway, but still... and few turns later, Alex was on board to commit a major part of his offensive forces to attack Uppsala, following my plan again.

:shrug:

Dunno what you saw in there... if I wanted to thank you for something specific, I would...

[condor223]

I know there was none intended.

It seems that the whole purpose of the game.. "Teach Alexman" was for exploration. Given the players in this game, what was experienced will only make the future games better.


As a Head Ladder Tourney Director, I've watched the changes in the MP lobby. Now there are two groups.. one of about 30 aces and the rest are struggling to master the details of the game and to do so in a quick or blazing game setting. Right now there is a large group of younger, rasher players.

If I have my finger on the pulse in the lobby, future games have to allow easier mastery of the games. Not everyone can build a " giant Blake civ" or rush their neighbors off the map in thirty turns, yet they really want to play with the "big boys" to learn and have some joy. The younger players tend to quick action, less thought to teaching the noobs the finer details, and I think it effects the attitude of many MP players. Many move on to something they can master if they really devote time to learning it.

It has been wonderful to find creative aces who are wlling to "bring up" the guys who are still mastering the game. There is usually something useful the learning players can give to a team. Fun for more usually = $$ in the marketing sense.

It is no fun to ALWAYS get a licking. There are very few mature players who have taken a game of mixed talent and made fun for the noobs. One could take a less talented player and cooperate, teach and make friends, resulting in good feelings in the lobby, = repeat players. Human nature runs both ways, one can be for themselves or go for making a fun experience for all. Perhaps there is a puzzle here for game devs. How can you please the aces, the noobs, the SP guys, the MP fans?

I remember C3C having a real "bell curve" in the evaluation of talent, which explains its longevity and attraction to this day.

I really enjoyed playing this game and the company of players. Thanks for having me.
Nolan

[Wittlich]

Well stated Nolan!

This is exactly why, after a few days of playing "ladder-ranked" civ games on gamespy, I quitely ducked-out of that rat-race. There is WAY too much pressure on new joinees to the "ladder world" with very little guidance given and a sh!tload of belittlement give for simple mistakes. IMO, it turned into how fast can you "click" without making mistakes on a 2 minute (or less) turn timer...and just forget about going to the bathroom during one of those matches!

[Blake]

Originally posted by vondrack
No idea what kind of stab you think there is. Me and you were never allies, so I do not know how that could apply to you. I meant my words the way I put them - I have been in games where my allies would keep their own little agenda despite being supposed to care about the Allied cause in the first place. Alex was not like that - he was fully commited to the war, no matter what kind of help I needed or asked for.

Okay.

As you may know, I don't actually have any real experience with MP. Nor does Alexman, AFAIK. Nor many of the other players. So maybe you can see, when looking at this context - it could seem there's a bit of a stab there? But if you're just going off on random tangents, that's fine .


Anyway, to just ramble for a bit. Not directed at vondrack, not at all.

I'm not bitter, but I am kind of saddened that not one player chose to side with me, when I dared them to / not to.

They decided it was better to stalemate the game (essentially put the outcome in doubt), than to allow the most glorious player to win a glorious victory.

You can say all you want about victory conditions, but the truth is, there were only two - maybe three, players who had a chance of winning. Every other player, could do whatever they want.

I never said I had ambitions of conquest, I never razed a city above size 1. There was no indication I was going start razing cities and try to kill everyone instead, indeed there were several players I'd clearly promised that I'd never attack.

So I asked "Do you support my victory?"

The answer: No. You've not worked hard enough for it yet.

Maybe people lacked the foresight I did, that modern age warfare is horrible and worthless to engage in. Maybe this is truly the outcome everyone wanted.

And it's true that I did deliberately dare everyone to dogpile me. But I hoped at least one player would refuse to be dared, I mean, being dared, is kind of stupid. It's why my military campaigns were so successful, I dared people to do the wrong thing, and they proceeded to. (more on that in my strategy writeup, I guess)

As I note, I don't care about winning and I mean that so sincerely. So I'm always going to do what is interesting in favor of what is best for strictly winning.

A good question is; what would have happened if I'd stopped at the Vikings. Just taken that territory. And started playing nice then, vied for space. That would have been the optimal thing to do, and I think I even said that to Vondrack.

What if I'd stopped at Carthage, and vied for space from that point.

What if I'd even just used only my original territory, which was quite large, if maybe not as large as Alexman's?

The game would have been more boring, in any case, without anyone taking the role of a menace, just a tech into space, perhaps dogpiles on whoever seemed to be closest to launching. Lame.


I am quite disappointed that several players decided to make the move towards making the game more boring rather than more interesting. Not actually SURPRISED, the dogpile instinct is extremely strong, and people have trouble overcoming that.

After wiping out Mongolia, while being pressured by 3 other players, I truly thought I'd worked hard enough to earn victory. And the game was entering the doldrums of end game.

And then I proceeded to kill Mali too while at war with everyone. That was really the last interesting thing I could do in the game. It's not fun to play a multiplayer game all alone .

So even though I'm not bitter nor surprised, I am disappointed and saddened. All I would've needed was one ally (or even really a neutral), to allow me to win a domination victory which wouldn't have been impossibly hard work. I mean I am GOOD, but there's a limit to just how good someone to be, real time constraints and that kind of thing. Even ruthlessness constraints. I can be a bit ruthless, but not really that ruthless. I just don't want to fight everyone.

As noted, if I was motivated BY winning, I'd have taken quite a different tact. I'd not have been sympathetic towards Solver in his boring corner. I'd have killed Alexman when oppurtunity knocked. If I made mistakes - those were the two big ones. Being a bit too kind, for a good world menace. But they weren't mistakes because my objective was always to make an interesting game.

Oh and I'm not THAT disappointed either. Some of my diplomatic moves were purely experimental, just to see what would happen. I'm into that kind of thing a lot. Again it's the "not winning" thing, I'm into interesting journeys. SO I'll try things and see how people react. , that's how my AI project started. I always learn things by trying such things, and thus it's positive. Maybe one of the costs of such experiments was needing to cut the game off in an anticlimactic way, but ah so.

[condor223]

Blake you won that game in my book.

What I felt was that you ::wanted:: to extend the game and challenged the weaker civs to learn more. Just as I entered the game officially they leapt to the challenge! Yar, there be ::gamers:: around! I felt you wanted us to experience the fun of fighting something bigger than the rest of us. Indeed, it was the most fun I've had in months. We all love to challenge the "big boys" yet the opportunities are rare. Thanks for offering that wonderful experience.

I was your informal ally when I joined the game. Yet when in the diplo chat window with you, there were at least a dozen techs you ::might:: have shared and made ME your buffer vs Egypt. Two turns later Egypt created Japan as a nice fat fluffy barrier, brought me up in tech, gave me the tools to defend, showed up with units while I developed. I will have to remember this for another game. (lesson ::: keep the war far away if possible) I don't think you would have had two fronts to distract you if you'd created Japan as your buffer.


From my perspective, the western front tactics were all about units, not about cities. Yes land is good, but one can wear down a big civ with geruilla tactics. Much to my surprise, Radek said.. take it and leave.. every time the population would go down, more units were lost, navy and air stacks gone. It essentialy ate tiny bits of the giant. We did have a backup force for something less than a gigantic stack. It was better to dare, to do it carefully than to rush for cities. With an eastern and western front, there was enough chance to inch away at your military garrison.


I'd sure hate to face the next AI that Blake programs.. ::

Congrats Blake, and a big thanks for the best fun I've had in a long time!

[Blake]

To rehash, either deliberately or accidentally, Vondrack had led me to believe that he wanted to invade Japan or at least wouldn't let me use Japan as my ally. Because I felt more loyalty to Vondrack than Solver - mainly because Solver wasn't actually playing and seemed determined to let Japan just die off, I decided to just plan the war without the support of Japan.

As I noted when I declared war on Japan, when a player receives a massive tech bribe, that can mean only one thing. They've been bribed.

And since Japan's only two neighbors were Celtia and Egypt, that meant that if I had donated Japan all my tech, Vondrack would have to take that as a bribe. I didn't want to do that to Vondrack, not of my own initiative, I mean if Japan had ASKED me, I would have.

Again, I played too nice. But it wasn't a mistake.

I couldn't predict that Japan would be taken over by someone who was both reasonably skilled (not a stab at Solver; okay it is maybe), but also with pre-existing loyalty to Vondrack. I could not have predicted that. If I could have predicted that I might have even stamped Japan flat. But that was genuinely unforeseeable.

[Blake]

The two players I want to take a stab at in particular:

Beta, who has expressed sentiment that dogpiling sucks.

Andydog, for being a small cat and not taking a chance at revenge over being denied an england-kill.


I would have LOVED to get a chance to test the Japanese Maginot line (test = smash, of course) and I offered that possibility to Beta, Andydog and Snoopy. Sadly, they refused.

It WOULD have been more interesting for everyone if I got to invade Vonolan and the others could fight it out on a relatively fair battle field. I don't think anyone could deny that.

[condor223]

LOL

revelations, dealmaking, etc are quite interesting.

When Solver asked me to give a consistent presence in Japan, he told me he was at peace with both neighbors and that I should give Blake units. I did give him every unit that was not on garrison duty.. and those promoted units took the eastern cities.

Well, nearly the next day, Solver told me the arrangement was different as he'd talked with others and they decided to take the challenge. I told him I wanted to be neutral till I could understand the politics.. I was very new to the game, was sick.. went to the hospital etc.. still tried to fullfil my promise to Solver.

Solver encouraged me to join Alex and Radek. At that point I was free to choose sides, but I remember the diplo window with Celtia, it offered nothing, left Japan in the dark ages with longbows etc. Celtia offered me an ultimatum.. the decision was made for me.

If you recall I'd asked to remain neutral while I developed the civ.. but that was not to be.. the only contact with Celtia was no neutrality.. its me or war... Ermm I dont "do" that kind of ultimatum in real life so I didnt appreciate the heavy approach.

On first contact with Egypt a gift of tech was offered without strings attached. along with it came a promise of help in units and more tech... and real communication that I'd not found with Celtia. It suited my personal style better than the "hard ball approach"

In summary, I did not have a prearrangement, but rushed through with advice, given no chance to talk with Blake... I recall begging for time to get acclimated.

Much happened.. spilled milk. I dearly would have loved to have a partnership with Blake and to learn a few tricks, but it wasnt on the menu at the time of decision. Erm. thats more of the MP approach. Everyone in the lobby either plays strongman or diplomat. The diplomat lasts longer.

Anyway, ive had a lovely time. I will read this thread when I can, but I have a full schedule the rest of the week.

Jon, its still on for 7 pm wed night for FF?