AU 601: Looking for an Ambivalent Opponent

[nbarclay]

I've been debating whether or not to get involved in AU 601 ever since it was announced. Part of me hates the idea of how much time it could consume, but another part of me thinks it would be interesting to give the game a try.

If anyone else is feeling more or less the same way, we could try playing with the understanding that if either of us decides the game is taking too much time away from other things, we can slow the game down, suspend it for a while, or stop it outright, whatever is necessary to keep it from intruding too much into real life. My schedule is such that I can probably play multiple turns per day at first, but as the game gets more complicated, I'm not sure how fast a pace I'll be willing to try to keep up. Also note that probably sometime around late July or early August, I'm planning to go in vacation for a couple weeks or so. I'm not sure whether keeping the game going during that time will be practical or not.

Anyhow, I figured I'd put out the feeler to see if anyone's interested.

Nathan

[Theseus]

Me.

Same caveats... I'm trying to catch up on 'poly, AU, the teams, life, etc. But, that said,...

You and me, eh, Nathan... interesting.

And I haven't even read ANY of the 601 threads yet, truly. I just like the idea. Won't even read'em tonight, as I am still catching up in general.

But yeah, as I understand it, I'll take you on.

Again, the caveat, we both have RL in the way, and thus slow is OK.

/me has no clue as to what he is getting into... fer chrissakes, goin' head to head with nbarclay...

Gimme a day or two to catch up and understand what I've just bought into.

[Theseus]

OK, lemme see if I got this straight...

This is all Greece versus Rome, random. No reading of DAR threads until the four stages as outlined by alexman are reached, and then only of whatever civ you are.

How are people doing their DARs? Every turn? Or when significant events occur? Or upon completing each of the four stages?

Nathan and I need to agree on difficulty level, AI city acquisitions, and whether to abide by the Iron Civer rules.

Yes?

And I have agreed to go in against nbarclay on what is to a great extent a REXing challenge... wonderful. Lord have mercy on my me.

[alexman]

I post in my DAR when significant evens occur, but we're we're averaging about 10 turns per day, so I post several times per day.

[nbarclay]

Theseus, keep in mind that we'll have to worry about each other bribing AIs to attack us, so I won't be able to engage in quite as pure a REX as I normally would.

Since we each have our own DAR thread, we can do our DARs however we want to. I'll probably do mine on a "significant events and decisions" basis, possibly editing minor developments into existing posts in order to keep the number of separate posts in the thread down.

I would suggest playing on Emperor level, since we're presumably both comfortable there (although it will be a lot more of a challenge not being able to capture AI cities at will). You're welcome to go first if you want to. I’ll leave it up to you whether you’d rather play standard or AU Mod rules. We should be able to go ahead and get started while we work out other details, since the exact rules we agree to won't matter for the first few turns.

Regarding the exact rules, I'd like to propose the following (and I wish I’d thought to offer some of these ideas when the game was first being set up):

- We are allowed to recapture cities captured by an AI, and to raze AI cities that are in the way of rebuilding cities we have razed by an AI. (Alternatively, we could impose a cap of only being allowed to recapture or rebuild two thirds of the cities we lose. That would give us some flexibility to reclaim lost territory but would impose a price if we allow large amounts of our territory to be taken.)

- Otherwise, no attacking AI cities unless an AI engages in an unprovoked attack against us. If an AI engages in an unprovoked attack, up to two of its cities may be captured, razed, and/or obtained in peace negotiations before reaching peace. There are three ideas behind this. First and foremost, if we get AIs to attack each other, we would have to worry about giving each other an excuse to capture AI cities. That should discourage us from trying to involve each other in perpetual warfare against AIs. Second, the ability to grab a couple AI cities if an AI attacks us on its own would help offset the cost of fighting off such attacks. And third, with a limit of capturing two cities per attacking AI per war, we wouldn't have to worry much about running out of AIs to use in diplomatic machinations against each other as the game progresses.

- AI declarations of war that result from our telling an AI, "Remove your forces or declare war," will be considered provoked unless the AI forces being ordered to leave are clearly an invasion force. (In other words, we can’t start wars as an excuse to claim AI territory by telling AIs to remove settler/escort teams and such, but ordering a Stack of Doom to leave of declare war is fine.)

- AI declarations of war resulting from failed spy missions will be considered provoked.

- AI declarations of war triggered by MPPs with other AIs will be considered provoked. AI declarations of war triggered by an MPP with the other human player will be considered unprovoked.

- Culture flips may be accepted. Cities lost to AIs in culture flips will be treated as AI cities, not as captured human cities, for the purpose of the city capture rules. (So we can try to flip AI cities, but we do so at our own risk if the AIs end up flipping our cities instead.)

- Changes to build orders and such during the production phase will be permitted so long as genuine exploits (such as using the same tile for two cities the same turn) are avoided. (I’m hoping after Gathering Storm, we both feel comfortable with such maneuvers, but if you don’t, we can disallow them instead.)

- If either of us isn’t sure whether something is legitimate or an exploit, we’ll discuss the matter as it comes up or as we think of it. (One option would be to go ahead and do what we want to and send an explanation of what we did so the game can proceed unless the other player objects.)

----
How do those rules sound?

[Theseus]

Originally posted by nbarclay
Theseus, keep in mind that we'll have to worry about each other bribing AIs to attack us, so I won't be able to engage in quite as pure a REX as I normally would.

Yeah, right, I feel so much better now. I'm gonna get my butt kicked, so let's get on with the show. But then again, I did MUCH more pillaging than you in 503, so who knows?? (yes yes, DARs are coming)

I would suggest playing on Emperor level, since we're presumably both comfortable there (although it will be a lot more of a challenge not being able to capture AI cities at will). You're welcome to go first if you want to. I’ll leave it up to you whether you’d rather play standard or AU Mod rules. We should be able to go ahead and get started while we work out other details, since the exact rules we agree to won't matter for the first few turns.

Emperor, AU Mod. BTW, for everyone's benefit, I intend to do a version of that unit chart I made a while back for the AU Mod... when I get it done, I'll post it in the C3C AU Mod thread. Regarding going first, I'm OK either way... but how does it even happen? Do we give our email addresses to Sir Ralph? If so, SR, I know you have mine somewhere, but it is richard at podos dot net. And what do you do, flip a coin for who gets which civ?

- We are allowed to recapture cities captured by an AI, and to raze AI cities that are in the way of rebuilding cities we have razed by an AI.

I'm fine with the way you first phrased it. Recaptures and razes should be mandatory DAR items... they're a big deal, I think, the way that alexman has intellectually designed this.

- Otherwise, no attacking AI cities unless an AI engages in an unprovoked attack against us. If an AI engages in an unprovoked attack, up to two of its cities may be captured, razed, and/or obtained in peace negotiations before reaching peace. There are three ideas behind this. First and foremost, if we get AIs to attack each other, we would have to worry about giving each other an excuse to capture AI cities. That should discourage us from trying to involve each other in perpetual warfare against AIs. Second, the ability to grab a couple AI cities if an AI attacks us on its own would help offset the cost of fighting off such attacks. And third, with a limit of capturing two cities per attacking AI per war, we wouldn't have to worry much about running out of AIs to use in diplomatic machinations against each other as the game progresses.

I understand your thinking, but I think this is too easily abused. Perhaps a further limitation: No more than 4 cities captured per AI civ EVER?

- AI declarations of war that result from our telling an AI, "Remove your forces or declare war," will be considered provoked unless the AI forces being ordered to leave are clearly an invasion force. (In other words, we can’t start wars as an excuse to claim AI territory by telling AIs to remove settler/escort teams and such, but ordering a Stack of Doom to leave of declare war is fine.)

Not in favor of this one. SoD shows up... well, deal with it. We know enough ways.

- AI declarations of war resulting from failed spy missions will be considered provoked.

Absolutely.

- AI declarations of war triggered by MPPs with other AIs will be considered provoked. AI declarations of war triggered by an MPP with the other human player will be considered unprovoked.

Subtle and interesting. Fine.

- Culture flips may be accepted. Cities lost to AIs in culture flips will be treated as AI cities, not as captured human cities, for the purpose of the city capture rules. (So we can try to flip AI cities, but we do so at our own risk if the AIs end up flipping our cities instead.)

Thanks for bringing this up. I did not like the idea of having to refuse flips. And further, if we blow it bad enough to lose native cities to CFs, well, we deserve it!

- Changes to build orders and such during the production phase will be permitted so long as genuine exploits (such as using the same tile for two cities the same turn) are avoided. (I’m hoping after Gathering Storm, we both feel comfortable with such maneuvers, but if you don’t, we can disallow them instead.)

I'm not well practiced at it, but fine with me. On a related note, I am also comfortable with the limitations on such exploits that Trip was developing for the PTWDG.

- If either of us isn’t sure whether something is legitimate or an exploit, we’ll discuss the matter as it comes up or as we think of it. (One option would be to go ahead and do what we want to and send an explanation of what we did so the game can proceed unless the other player objects.)

I'm comfortable with that. I'm also comfortable with an umpire, e.g., Trip in the PTWDG, or putting such issues up for public debate/decision.
----

How do those rules sound?

As usual, Nathan, you put forth well-thought and rational points. Also, what do you think about the Iron Civer rules? We will want to memorialize our parameters at some point, although I agree that immediacy is not a problem. I suggest that the other game pairs consider these issues as well, and that we even codify them across as many games as make sense... especially useful to late-comers over the summer, I think.

To paraphrase the immortal Regis Philbin: "Let's play ambivalently!"

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Theseus

Otherwise, no attacking AI cities unless an AI engages in an unprovoked attack against us. If an AI engages in an unprovoked attack, up to two of its cities may be captured, razed, and/or obtained in peace negotiations before reaching peace. There are three ideas behind this. First and foremost, if we get AIs to attack each other, we would have to worry about giving each other an excuse to capture AI cities. That should discourage us from trying to involve each other in perpetual warfare against AIs. Second, the ability to grab a couple AI cities if an AI attacks us on its own would help offset the cost of fighting off such attacks. And third, with a limit of capturing two cities per attacking AI per war, we wouldn't have to worry much about running out of AIs to use in diplomatic machinations against each other as the game progresses.

I understand your thinking, but I think this is too easily abused. Perhaps a further limitation: No more than 4 cities captured per AI civ EVER?

How about if we set a limit of two cities per AI ever for wars initiated by AIs, but have no cumulative limit for wars where an AI attacks as a result of an alliance or MPP with the other human? I'd rather not have things reach a point where we can sign up AIs to attack each other without a risk that the other player will gain AI territory from the resulting war.

My fear is that with an absolute limit, once you've taken four cities from an AI, I might say, "Okay, Theseus isn't allowed to attack any more of that AI's cities, so why don't I keep his neighbors fighting him as much of the time as I possibly can in order to distract him from building?" Or that you might do that to me. But if wars open up the prospect of the other player's capturing a couple AI cities each time, we'll have to consider carefully whether arranging an alliance against the other player will be worth the risk that the other player will gain territory as a result.

- AI declarations of war that result from our telling an AI, "Remove your forces or declare war," will be considered provoked unless the AI forces being ordered to leave are clearly an invasion force. (In other words, we can’t start wars as an excuse to claim AI territory by telling AIs to remove settler/escort teams and such, but ordering a Stack of Doom to leave of declare war is fine.)

Not in favor of this one. SoD shows up... well, deal with it. We know enough ways.

What ways did you have in mind? My normal techniques for dealing with stacks of doom and naval landings is to tell the AI to leave or declare war and then, assuming the AI declares war, to hit the enemy forces as hard as I can before they get a chance to attack me. But if saying "remove your forces or declare war" is regarded as provocation in such situations, the only way the AI would be regarded as engaging in an "unprovoked assault" would be if we wait for the SoD to find a target it wants to attack, thereby giving up the chance to whittle it down first. That seems a bit at odds with who the true aggressor is in such situations.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Theseus

Regarding going first, I'm OK either way... but how does it even happen? Do we give our email addresses to Sir Ralph? If so, SR, I know you have mine somewhere, but it is richard at podos dot net. And what do you do, flip a coin for who gets which civ?

Since you indicated that you don't especially care who goes first, and since whether Greece or Rome goes first is presumably part of the scenario, I went ahead and flipped a coin for who goes first just to make sure who gets which civ would be entirely random. I ended up winning the coin toss, but if you want to go first (and let the pseudo-randomness of whoever is programmed to go first in the scenario determine who gets which civ), that's fine too.

I went ahead and asked Alexman for a copy of the scenario. If you want to go first, let me know and I'll forward it to you when it reaches me.

I'm not well practiced at it, but fine with me. On a related note, I am also comfortable with the limitations on such exploits that Trip was developing for the PTWDG.

It's been a long time since I kept up with what was going on in the PTWDG (although I've glanced back at it a time or two since). If you could give me a pointer to what Trip came up with, I can take a look.

I'm also comfortable with an umpire, e.g., Trip in the PTWDG, or putting such issues up for public debate/decision.

We can cross that bridge when and if we come to it (which I'm hoping we won't).

Also, what do you think about the Iron Civer rules?

Several of those rules are oriented toward situations that are only serious problems when two human players cooperate. Since that presumably won't be the case here, I'm inclined to develop a stripped-down version that leaves a bit more leeway for "creative" gameplay. (For example, the restriction, "Cities may be offered diplomatically only as part of a peace treaty," seems unnecessary when the only possible recipients of cities are AIs and the other human player.) I haven't worked out exactly what I'd like to strip out and what I'd like to keep yet, though.

[Theseus]

Yes: limit of two cities per AI ever for wars initiated by AIs, but have no cumulative limit for wars where an AI attacks as a result of an alliance or MPP with the other human.

Note: We really do need a clear-cut outline of all of these 'provoked' and 'un-provoked' conditions.

Re AI SoDs: I propose we live with them.

You go first... I'm fine with your coin toss, although I had the random thought that a Spearman versus Tank battle might be the best method.

Re rules, umps, etc., I was just trying to indicate that I, also, am fine with just jumping into the game, and that we will mutually deal with whatever comes up, either just between the two of is or also with alternative means. No worries.

Let's GO!!