What is the status of the game??

[Flubber]

I dropped out due to personal commitments some months back but had some time the last few days to peruse the threads. Is a Hive/Drones victory a foregone conclusion now if that alliance stays together?? It appears that a fair number of posters are implying this .. .

[Maniac]

MY 2160 the Hive-Drones conquered 7 PUT bases and destroyed some 40 or 50 units. (This really shows how annoyingly overpowered choppers are btw ). And even before this year the Hive-Drone mineral production was most likely double or triple that of CPU. So yes, I think the outcome of this game is a foregone conclusion. An outcome IMHO already decided the year an eartquake connected the Drone and Hive continents (at least I hope that's what happened), thus giving them the ability to cooperate much earlier and much closer than all other factions.

[Trithemius]

Originally posted by Maniac
MY 2160 the Hive-Drones conquered 7 PUT bases and destroyed some 40 or 50 units. (This really shows how annoyingly overpowered choppers are btw ). And even before this year the Hive-Drone mineral production was most likely double or triple that of CPU. So yes, I think the outcome of this game is a foregone conclusion. An outcome IMHO already decided the year an eartquake connected the Drone and Hive continents (at least I hope that's what happened), thus giving them the ability to cooperate much earlier and much closer than all other factions.

Even if they were linked originally, perhaps it was assumed that the two factions would dislike each other enough that they would become rivals, not allies. One would certainly think so looking at the "backgrounds" of both factions (Hive = "brutal serfdom"; Free Drones = "workers paradise"). Perhaps that idea was that the two industrially-powerful factions would "get it on!"
*shrugs*

Also, Machiavelli notes that being neighbours frequently leads to conflict, not alliance. Perhaps this is not true of SMAC/X PBeMs.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Maniac
MY 2160 the Hive-Drones conquered 7 PUT bases and destroyed some 40 or 50 units. (This really shows how annoyingly overpowered choppers are btw ). And even before this year the Hive-Drone mineral production was most likely double or triple that of CPU. So yes, I think the outcome of this game is a foregone conclusion. An outcome IMHO already decided the year an eartquake connected the Drone and Hive continents (at least I hope that's what happened), thus giving them the ability to cooperate much earlier and much closer than all other factions.

Ouch-- That sounds pretty conclusive of a winning advantage ( when combined with population, tech and the SP situation)

Not intending to restart any old fights but I predicted that any war between the PEACE and CYCON would lead to a result like this. Even in conquering all of PEACE with relative ease, the CYCON ended up expending resources and gaining something that is much less than what PEACE could have contributed as a full alliance partner ( bases pop go down and facilities lost or sold off). It might not have made a difference but if Cycon had conquered the Angels instead, or simply had the 3 southern factions grow and work together, they may have stood a chance . .. ( or perhaps not--- buster is the best player I personally ever faced and I believe he has a fair number of strong players to assist PLUS the Hive have shown remarkable work effort in testing and finding best play)

In any event, water under the bridge I guess but at the time of the attack by Cycon on Peace, I was astonished that any team would attack an ally when there was obvious Drone-Hive cooperation that was leading to a superpower coalition. It was a tactically smart but strategically stupid thing to do.

[Maniac]

Originally posted by Trithemius
Also, Machiavelli notes that being neighbours frequently leads to conflict, not alliance. Perhaps this is not true of SMAC/X PBeMs.

Nah, I'd say Macchiavelli simply made a very unscientific statement. Personally I'd say proximity to each other can both lead to stronger conflict or cooperation, depending on many other factors. But IIRC the Hive told us once that when they first met the Drones, a war was indeed possible. But they managed to work things out, eventually resulting in a permapact.

Originally posted by Flubber
Not intending to restart any old fights

That's almost inevitable no? No doubt eg foolish_icarus will storm in soon and cry out how despicable all cyborgs really are.

but I predicted that any war between the PEACE and CYCON would lead to a result like this. Even in conquering all of PEACE with relative ease, the CYCON ended up expending resources and gaining something that is much less than what PEACE could have contributed as a full alliance partner ( bases pop go down and facilities lost or sold off).

Most likely you will disagree and have the opinion that PEACE did everything to save the alliance, but - based on the PlaNets trade where PEACE refused to trade DocFlex, based on the IndAut trade where PEACE demanded a very high price, and based on the repeated failure to come to a DocFlex trade 15 years later - the Consciousness had the opinion that PEACE was not acting at all like a full alliance partner, but was instead just exploiting us as much as possible, and asking prices we couldn't afford. Thus by going to war we weren't losing a potential partner for cooperation. *shrug* I guess you will disagree. Who's to say who's "right"?

In any event, water under the bridge I guess but at the time of the attack by Cycon on Peace, I was astonished that any team would attack an ally when there was obvious Drone-Hive cooperation that was leading to a superpower coalition. It was a tactically smart but strategically stupid thing to do.

There's the element that the Hive claimed they were interested in a permapact with the Consciousness. Naturally MY 2150 - the year we were to start the war - they were so friendly to inform us they were suddenly no longer interested in such a permapact...
Another point though is that CyCon would probably always have been the little weak brother in such a three-way-pact. At least now the Consciousness had lots of fun and its - admittedly *very* short - moment de gloire in MY 2155, directly after the unification with PUT, when IIRC we had for one year the largest population, most advanced technology and largest army. Since only five years earlier in MY 2150 we were the weakest of all the seven factions, I think that's at least quite a good achievement.

[Nubclear]

Remember, we're going to leave personal attacks out of this thread, or this thread is going to be closed

[Minute Mirage]

Originally posted by Flubber

In any event, water under the bridge I guess but at the time of the attack by Cycon on Peace, I was astonished that any team would attack an ally when there was obvious Drone-Hive cooperation that was leading to a superpower coalition. It was a tactically smart but strategically stupid thing to do.

I agree, the CyCon made a bad move there. Anyway, if the next ACDG is going to be a multifaction game, maybe disallowing permanent pacts would maintain the interest until the end of the game.

[Trithemius]

Originally posted by Maniac
Nah, I'd say Macchiavelli simply made a very unscientific statement.

Inconceivable!

Personally I'd say proximity to each other can both lead to stronger conflict or cooperation, depending on many other factors. But IIRC the Hive told us once that when they first met the Drones, a war was indeed possible. But they managed to work things out, eventually resulting in a permapact.

Maybe in PBeMs
I guess in SMAC/X there is also more "population mobility" than there is in 'real life'.

There's the element that the Hive claimed they were interested in a permapact with the Consciousness. Naturally MY 2150 - the year we were to start the war - they were so friendly to inform us they were suddenly no longer interested in such a permapact...

I warned a CPU diplomat that the Hive might have been playing them. All the warning signs were there to be seen. Good work to the Hive for being able to string the CPU along for so long.

[MrWhereItsAt]

Thing is that since those trade failures there has been nothing in CyCon/CPU but distrust for PEACE. We have always had a vocal group hoping for greater cooperation with the Hive (and Drones too), no matter what the latest crisis was.

The situation is IMO rather disappointing, and I had high hopes for participation in the game post-PEACE war, especially with the greater use of chatting inter-faction as well as intra-faction. Please let this be a lesson for the next game - multi-faction games will ALWAYS lead to bitterness and disenchantment. Single faction game please!

[Trithemius]

Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt
Thing is that since those trade failures there has been nothing in CyCon/CPU but distrust for PEACE. We have always had a vocal group hoping for greater cooperation with the Hive (and Drones too), no matter what the latest crisis was.

From what I understand (I am new to this particular game) there was a lot of disenchantment with the Consciousness after some kind of exploitation of the pre-acception mechanic. This probably explains, in some way, reticence about dealing with the Consciousness. I know it has had an effect on the discussions on policy within PEACE.

The situation is IMO rather disappointing, and I had high hopes for participation in the game post-PEACE war, especially with the greater use of chatting inter-faction as well as intra-faction. Please let this be a lesson for the next game - multi-faction games will ALWAYS lead to bitterness and disenchantment. Single faction game please!

I think this is nonsense. Multi-faction games do not neccessarily lead to bitterness. That is almost always a response that is determined by the embittered individual. If people don't like feeling bitter, then they shouldn't make themselves feel bitter.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Trithemius
I think this is nonsense.

I think your wrong, and I'd probably know more about it than you

[Impaler[WrG]]

I joined Cycon just after the desision to go for an all out conquest had been made. That desision coincided with the Doctorine Initiative insident. And if you "exploit" you mean that PEACE sent us a pre-accepted tec and wanted a promise of a future tec exchange and we simply took the tec and made no promise then yes you could all that an exploit but persolaly I use exploit for something that blatantly violates the mechanics of the game such as using the protyped Probe Team of Planetary Networks to get the Rover Chassie without Doctorine Mobility.

I do agree with Flubber that once the Hive and Drones permpacted the only thing which could have averted their victory was a 3 way PermaPact of the other factions. And this is adsactly why I think we should ban this kind of PermaPacting in future games. First off it its simply too powerfull for the 2 factions involved, they can share and cordinate tecs, share protoyping, not build any kind of defenses vs the other ect ect. Secondly I think it goes against the spirit of the game, a permapact of this nature basicaly dictates the courses of the faction for the rest of the game denying anyone who joins at a later date any substantive contribution to the factions diplomacy. Lastly it ruins the job of Diplomates who are no longer needed to negotiate deals or smooth relations.

Their was a time when many Cycons especialy Drouge wanted us to join in a Perma-Pact with the Hive, it would have consisted of each of us simply giving away tecnologies and anything else that would help the other, in essense the success of the Aliance would take presidence over the success of our own faction. I and many other found this intolerable and insisted on a more realistic and self centered aproatch to the game. Cycon would always look out for its best interest and atempt to get the best deal that it could from friend or foe alike. If it means were not going to win a Co-op Victory with the Hive then so be it, I think we had much more fun this way then going with a no-chance-to-loss Permapact. Cycon has esentialy come in 3rd of 5 at this point and I am quite proud of that considering what we were up against.

And as for Multi-Faction = Bitterness, I dont buy that at all. I have treated this as a game and nothing more. In order to have bitterness you would have to extend some kind of personal trust towards the members of another team which on SHOULD NEVER DO because it is as I said earlier completly against the spirit of the game. I expect others to simply do what is best for their own interests or do what is in the Ethos of their Faction. If infact the Hive and Drones have based their Perma-Pact on personal trust between Voltaire and Buster then they have been fools to put their personal trust on the line for a game, that is a situation that could lead to bitterness if the Pact broke down. Ofcorse they prevented that by being total Dictators over their Factions. If victory means so much to them then by all means let them have it. I just hope we can avoid this kind of anti-climactic situation in future Democracy games.

[jtsisyoda]

Impaler[WrG]:
If infact the Hive and Drones have based their Perma-Pact on personal trust between Voltaire and Buster then they have been fools to put their personal trust on the line for a game, that is a situation that could lead to bitterness if the Pact broke down. Ofcorse they prevented that by being total Dictators over their Factions.

"Total dictators?" I'm getting tired of this attitude. It implies the other team members are mice. It's an attitude that can't be based on facts, unless obtained unethically (assuming such facts even existed).

The research pact and later victory pact were put to a vote on both sides. The team members had formed plenty of trust through generous exchanges of [strike]spam[/strike] information and resources over time.

Edit:
We met before the earthquake. But it forced an all or nothing situation, really. An opposing faction with such easy access is something the other three factions didn't have to worry about, so we chose to make it a strength rather than a weakness.

[Trithemius]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar
I think your wrong, and I'd probably know more about it than you

No comment.

[Trithemius]

Originally posted by Impaler[WrG]
I joined Cycon just after the desision to go for an all out conquest had been made. That desision coincided with the Doctorine Initiative insident. And if you "exploit" you mean that PEACE sent us a pre-accepted tec and wanted a promise of a future tec exchange and we simply took the tec and made no promise then yes you could all that an exploit but persolaly I use exploit for something that blatantly violates the mechanics of the game such as using the protyped Probe Team of Planetary Networks to get the Rover Chassie without Doctorine Mobility.

I think your reading odf "exploitation" is in its context as a term that has been coopted by players of coputer games. I meant it in a more general and less technical way; not as a manipulation of 'bugs' of 'features'.

And as for Multi-Faction = Bitterness, I dont buy that at all.

At least someone agrees with me. Any bitterness that arises has more to do with the personal outlook of the people who feel embittered than anything to do with the dynamics of PBeMs. The Birthright PBeM community, at least the parts that I deal with, has very little of this bitterness, despite the fact that large groups of the same people confront each other in the different games over and over again. Many of my most committed in-game enemies are good friends outside of the game.