The Symbiotic Nation: a Civ 'goal'

[MrBaggins]

Consider the following proposition:

2 players

2 identical islands

30 cities each with 'averaged' terrain

no more viable room to expand

equal 'skill' and knowledge of game mechanics

equal techs

both players have evenly improved their cities, so that their output is increased by 1/4 in all aspects. Additional technical innovations later in technology increase this to 1/3, and later 1/2.

With the current improvments tiles are worth, say, 10 food units, 10 production units and 10 commercial units. Additional technical innovations later in technology can increase all by 2, and later 3.

player 1 has his cities size 10, having just reached that size at all his cities
player 2 has his cities size 11, having just reached that size at all his cities


player 2 has a production and science bonus, that equates to 12 units at each city (2 more than the extra tile alone)

Player 1 will 'catch' up to player 2, but only temporarily, and soon player 2 will be in the same situation having the same 12 unit advantage... again, and again.

A proportion of the total advantage will also be put into science. player 2 will get to advantageous technical innovations quicker than player 1... the most vital of which being growth and science improvements. They give player 2 more of an edge, first... and the science and growth bonus advantage will continue to lengthen, ad infinitum.

MrBaggins

[DrSpike]

Not really, techs can be stolen.......and there is a military in the game as well as science. Also some games penalise the leader in research.

Failing all that.......just don't fall behind in the first place.

[MrBaggins]

Spys (and invasion troops) can't get there... there is a naval meat grinder between the two islands. Which player 2 has an advantage in, due to his production and science advantage.

And your quote, "Failing all that.......just don't fall behind in the first place. " actually can be paraphrased, "Yes, Bigger is better IS a problem."

MrBaggins

[DrSpike]

So in your world of constrained growth for the leader there is no way to capitalise on a lead. What is the point of being the best civ then?

[MrBaggins]

Being bigger still should be better, just never as good as the last time... the advantage should regress, at each growth, so that accelerating away becomes more difficult. It flattens the game state, to bring opponents closer together.

It doesn't stop you finding edges... just that those edges in terms of resources, as less profound, which allows you to concentrate on the game more as an exercise in achieving different victory conditions, than getting to an advantageous resource situation... which is *THE* victory condition now.

MrBaggins

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
Being bigger still should be better, just never as good as the last time... the advantage should regress, at each growth, so that accelerating away becomes more difficult. It flattens the game state, to bring opponents closer together.

Well if its any consolation the latest game (Civ3) tried in part to do this by penalising the research costs of the leader. I have previously stated in this forum that this works well for SP, so perhaps we are not so far apart in goals........though some of your arguments need to be rethought IMO.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by DrSpike


Well if its any consolation the latest game (Civ3) tried in part to do this by penalising the research costs of the leader. I have previously stated in this forum that this works well for SP, so perhaps we are not so far apart in goals........though some of your arguments need to be rethought IMO.

Research is one aspect of the game which is a 'positive-feedback-loop'. Research spread is a good way of dealing with this.

I've numerically proven that city size... given multiplied rewards is yet another 'positive-feedback-loop'.

If you disagree with the arguments, i've made, why don't you state which ones exactly, and why they are not correct (using numerical situations)?

MrBaggins

[DrSpike]

You can numerically prove whatever you want......try playing some civ.

Even in your example where optimal empire size is essentially fixed you still face trade-offs. You could get the maximum number quickly, at the expense of technological development, or you could develop a few quickly and forego some expansion to capture some of the rewards you allude to.

Perhaps the guy that expands can steal tech, or capture cities with a bigger production base, or perhaps the guy who techs will get better units and buildings and pull ahead.

All these things are possible..........everyone starts with equal resources, all civ is just trade-offs. If someone sets up a situation where they hold all the cards then the other players did not play well - end of story.

[MrBaggins]

I do play civ. That is irrevelant to the discussion.

To analyse the exact effect of a component of a complex system, you must isolate the component. The situation given is exact and equivalent in all regards except one... the city size... the component in question. Its actually irrevelant which path has been taken to this point, if the situations are exactly identical NOW.

All strategies in civ are predicated on the resources gleaned from cities. Units, science,improvements and gold.

The simple fact is that you have more resources... given the 'positive-feedback-loop' from your cities. The other 'paths' are merely additional layers of advantage or penalty. These layers are actually useful in terms of giving choices. True, they need to be balanced... but they should allow for differences, and in some cases, advantages. Its just the underlying resources AKA city production that should be compressed.

Have you read the Brian Reynolds article, btw?

MrBaggins

[DrSpike]

I read the article, and for SP many of the points are valid.......it is easy for the game to be over when the player gets an advantage. Hell, I have been civving since Civ1 so I know the problems. I have stated above I support the doctored research costs for SP.

I think some of your posts are a misinterpretation though. Let's stipulate 20 cities with maximum workers is your goal. You still have to choose between an expansion path getting 20 as quick as you can, then growing them, or trying to build up a few to lock in a research lead, and adding the rest later. If you can reach the goal quickest avoiding all the possible setbacks then you should win.

Now for SP sometimes things do need to be tweaked, but you cannot go too far else you risk all strategies just having the same result (regardless of their intrinsic merit) because of restrictions the game imposes to keep things equal.

[MrBaggins]

You fall into a trap if you try to analyse a complex situation in its entirety.

You are forced to use reductionist analysis:

* Isolate the layer

* Isolate the component.

* Test the component in an isolated case.

* Iterate with different layers and components.

The city 'case' is the most important because cities are the primal construction component of empires. A case can be made that techs are at the same level, but ultimately techs are researched from resources generated by cities. Units are a property of cities. The construction of anything else, is a property of cities.

Any strategy, including military, infrastructure or technological 'options' are predicated on cities... specifically that the more productive a city, the better qualitively or quantitively the strategy can be pursued.

These strategies can be fed back into the 'system'. I don't believe in less importance to these subsequent strategies. They form the basis for option that a fun game is predicated on (*assuming that all opponents are free to choose and employ similar options.)

A strategy can give an advantage without the 'city-production-positive-feedback-loop'... for instance... say you develop a military technology which allows you to develop an improved infantry unit. You would still have an advantage on the battlefield... Say you develop a growth improvement instead. If you develop a growth component instead, your cities *will* grow faster, and produce increasing amounts, just that the rewards will diminish. No strategy is crippled.

Being ahead, with less of a positive-feedback-loop, means a declining advantage, as you get further ahead= more challenge, yet one that you can still win... but won't necessarily, which is the whole point of continued play= funner game, even in MP.

MrBaggins

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
You fall into a trap if you try to analyse a complex situation in its entirety.

You are forced to use reductionist analysis:

* Isolate the layer

* Isolate the component.

* Test the component in an isolated case.

* Iterate with different layers and components.

Or you could just try playing some civ and see.

Seriously though, the bigger is better problem as you outlined it in your first few posts is just not an issue. Of course holding everything else constant bigger is better.....what else would you expect?

The fact remains that whatever the game there are various ways to reach the optimal 'big' state, and if you can get there first you will probably win. So what?

If you aim to get there as quick as possible and I come along and take all your goodies because I prioritised unit production then tough cookies. If you can hold off my attack and lock in a scientific advantage tough cookies to me. That's the game.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by DrSpike


Or you could just try playing some civ and see.

Seriously though, the bigger is better problem as you outlined it in your first few posts is just not an issue. Of course holding everything else constant bigger is better.....what else would you expect?

The fact remains that whatever the game there are various ways to reach the optimal 'big' state, and if you can get there first you will probably win. So what?

If you aim to get there as quick as possible and I come along and take all your goodies because I prioritised unit production then tough cookies. If you can hold off my attack and lock in a scientific advantage tough cookies to me. That's the game.

Arbitrary experimentation through "play" is the least accurate and efficient way to discover how a change in a component of a complex system affects the whole. Isolate first, recurse... then test.

You are entitled to your opinion, that bigger=better is fine and well... Brian Reynolds disagrees, and I concur. QED... The mathematics of the isolated situation show it to be so. It happens equally in SP as well as MP. Brians comments are written not only for SP but for MP, and I agree with that also.

Insisting that something isn't so when faced with absolute evidence to the contrary strikes me as "flat-earthian" in the extreme.

Sure you can play the game 'as is' and sure it will produce a viable game each time. That doesn't mean that the game isn't unbalanced- in mp as well as sp getting a city advantage= a massive advantage each and every time. I've statistically showed that this is a 'positive-feedback-loop'. The designer of the game that you are playing thinks that those are counter productive in good game design. So, common sense says eliminate the obvious underlying 'positive-feedback-loop'.

MrBaggins

[DrSpike]

Yours and Reynold's points are very different. Reynolds is talking solely about technology costs, and I have already repeated stated I concur that something needs to be done to stop a small early tech lead snowballing.

I was restrained in comments before, but the rest of your stuff on positive feedback loops through getting a city advantage is rubbish, and I begin to doubt you have ever played much civ of any flavour. If I have more or bigger cities than you, with no other disadvantage, then I am better placed and have the best chance to win. What else would you suggest? As soon as one player get a city lead of 2 cities he is not allowed to build any more? If that sounds silly, there's a good reason, because its damned silly, along with your precious feedback loops.

You start with the same resources, and if I have more cities you must have bigger ones, and probably a slight tech lead, or you are not a good player.

Anyway this is boring me now........I think I might just play some civ.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by DrSpike
Yours and Reynold's points are very different. Reynolds is talking solely about technology costs, and I have already repeated stated I concur that something needs to be done to stop a small early tech lead snowballing.

Complete and utter rubbish...

Brians comments use an example of tech, but goes on to say that this applies to all general game mechanics

In The Poor Get Richer: The Ancient Art of Game Balance, Brian Reynolds said
The rules of the game should work to keep the game competitive for as long as possible. Players have the most fun when the game is a tight contest, so our game systems should help keep players who fall behind "in the race" and try to prevent players who get ahead from simply "running away with it."

Ideally, a game should end at the exact instant a player has effectively been guaranteed victory, a player should be eliminated at the moment victory for him becomes essentially impossible, and both of these situations should occur approximately when the players have experienced the expected game arc--that is, in a game about a 10,000 year timeframe we don't want to have 80% of the games end after the first 1,000 years. These ideals cannot be practically achieved in every game session, but our games and game mechanics should be tuned to push toward these goals rather than away from them.

Originally posted by DrSpike
I was restrained in comments before, but the rest of your stuff on positive feedback loops through getting a city advantage is rubbish
*SNIP*

So point out EXACTLY how it doesn't. Try using proofs... numbers are the only way to ultimately prove what comes down to a formulaic situation. You should be able to simply disprove this in the isolated example, if its true. Disprove the math that somehow a culmulative bonus is not a culmulative advantage.

Originally posted by DrSpike
*SNIP*(what) would you suggest? *SNIP*

Diminishing returns, not caps or 0 returns, except in extreme cases.

MrBaggins