Next AU course (after AU601)...

[Aqualung71]

Nah, too open to subjective interpretation IMHO. And if you take the subjectivity out of it, it may be unfair in some circumstances.

[nbarclay]

Dominae, my latest version mostly parallels your original proposal in terms of what players should aim for (the "superior" level). The one big difference is that I close a loophole that would allow players to make almost unlimited use of their military as an alternative to having to succeed culturally. With that loophole left open, players could buy time all the way to 2050 using tactics similar to what are used in "milked" games, up to and including completely destroying all but one civ and leaving that one civ with just a single city. The same basic logic that says the space race victory condition should be enabled in order to create time pressure also argues against allowing virtually unlimited use of military force. In my view, it would be hypocritical to argue that we need the space race victory condition enabled to create a time limit, yet to support an ability to make unlimited use of military means to avert AI victories.

But at the same time, I recognize that rapid cultural victory won't always be compatible with leaving major rivals intact, and I don't think it makes sense to define games as being lost if that happens. So I add an intermediate outcome that is neither complete success nor failure. And in defining that intermediate outcome, I do not draw a distinction between using scientific (space race) means to thwart a threatened AI space race victory and using military means to do so. Military means aren't given a specially favored status just because of the technicality that military force can be used without a player's triggering a victory condition.

So far, no one has come foward with any specific objections to my latest proposal or specific concerns about problems with it. And I don't view the arbitary preferences of some players, in and of themselves, as a good reason to impose more restrictions than necessary on how others can play without being regarded as losing.

[Modo44]

Personally, I like the idea of a more difficult game - not attacking overseas. I'm going to try it this way.

One more question. What about retaliation after a sneak attack? I just had one in a test game - the Egyptians, worlds greatest culture (just 2,5 times less than mine - really close) and coming in with knights on galleons. Now they really deserve to be punished, but if I wanted the "superior" victory, would I have to sit back and take it (confine myself to dispatching the invaders before they land)? I think maybe taking a city in retaliation would be ok?

[Tall Stranger]

Well, consider this the first objection to your "compromise," Nathan. I strongly dislike it (surprise, surprise!!).

Originally posted by nbarclay
Dominae, my latest version mostly parallels your original proposal in terms of what players should aim for (the "superior" level). The one big difference is that I close a loophole that would allow players to make almost unlimited use of their military as an alternative to having to succeed culturally.

First off, this is not true. As I stated in my earlier (albeit massive) post, keeping the domination win condition active will set a firm limit on how far a player can go in the use of their military. Furthermore, no amount of military conquest will lead to a "real win" in this course. Overusing the military instrument is counterproductive.

Second, by trying to denigrate or limit the use of the military tool, you are once again trying to force players to play the way YOU think is best/ most fun. If I decide to invade and raze a few cities in an overseas civ (both to stunt their culture growth and to reduce their long-term threat to me), that is a valid and appropriate strategy. I should be able to do it and still get a "superior" rating. (For the record, I really dislike any plan for rating of each others' games. AU is pass/ fail in my mind. Formal grading is completely contrary to the spirit of AU.)

With that loophole left open, players could buy time all the way to 2050 using tactics similar to what are used in "milked" games, up to and including completely destroying all but one civ and leaving that one civ with just a single city.

Again, the domination win condition will prevent this extreme use of the military. Furthermore, a player would have to be an idiot to milk a game to 2050 in this course. The point is to win ASAP: why on earth would someone be so stupid as to drag this game out?

The same basic logic that says the space race victory condition should be enabled in order to create time pressure also argues against allowing virtually unlimited use of military force. In my view, it would be hypocritical to argue that we need the space race victory condition enabled to create a time limit, yet to support an ability to make unlimited use of military means to avert AI victories.

See above. The use of military force will be limited both by the domination condition AND by common sense. Maybe I was not clear in my earlier messages: I believe ALL victory conditions should be on. Players will need to avoid any victory other than 100K.

It seems to me that this all gets back to your desire to make the tech race go as fast as you'd like. That's fine, but you need to recognize that, in this game, there is a risk of losing via SS in doing so. (I'll point out that even that risk is neglible, as long as you are willing to (gasp!) use the military to prevent it.) If you really hate the idea of using the military in this way, then you need to either slow down the tech pace or accept the risk of losing.

So far, no one has come foward with any specific objections to my latest proposal or specific concerns about problems with it. And I don't view the arbitary preferences of some players, in and of themselves, as a good reason to impose more restrictions than necessary on how others can play without being regarded as losing.

I fail to see how you can keep saying that we're trying to impose huge numbers of restrictions on how people can play. You are the one imposing restrictions on how the military can be use. By my count, there are 3 restrictions:

1. We must play the civ that is chosen;
2. We must win via 100K culture; and
3. We must NOT win via Dip, Dom, Conquest, SS or 20K city culture.

This is NOT a big deal.

[Edit: clarified a little language.]

[Theseus]

I would be in favor of fewer restrictions.

[Aqualung71]

Actually, I thought I disagreed too. Perhaps my 2 lines got lost in the verbosity of this thread....or perhaps my lack of a detailed reasoned argument discounted the noteworthiness of my mere opinion.

[nbarclay]

Tall Stranger, you're missing a critical point. The domination victory condition does not come into play if you raze cities instead of capturing them. A player could conquer 64% of the world, raze all the rest of the AI lands except for one city, blockade that city with units, and coast to cultural victory however long it takes. If cultural growth brings his territory percentage up to 65%, he could abandon a city to bring it back down. (Or the player might settle for 62% or 63% just to make sure a lot of cultural expansions at the same time can't put him over the domination threshold.)

I doubt that players would go quite to that extreme, because I doubt that they would have to. But it's not that hard for me to imagine someone razing a civ or two beyond the domination threshold, and it's even easier still to imagine players making civs that are causing them cultural and/or potential space race problems priority targets for invasion. That's great from a perspective of flexibility for players, but if flexibility for players is the priority, why in the world should we leave the space race victory condition on but demand that players not use it?

To me, that situation makes Dominae's original design grossly inconsistent. On one hand, you and Dominae keep insisting that it is vital to have the space race victory turned on in order to provide time pressure. But on the other hand, players are free to use their military to make that time pressure irrelevant. On one hand, you want players to have the choice of making the game easier for them by using their military to damage culturally strong opponents. But on the other, you don't want players to have the choice of making the game easier by winning the space race themselves so AIs can't use that victory condition to beat them. The only way such a mismatch can make sense to me is when viewed through the lens of a completely arbitrary definition of victory, a definition that itself is impossible to set up in the game configuration options. By any other standard, the idea of calling a space race victory by a player a loss while at the same time allowing almost unlimited use of the military to damage rivals makes no sense to me because a military solution can accomplish pretty much exactly what you claim to want the space race victory condition to prevent: buy players however much time they need whether they do well with their own culture or not.

[Dominae]

Originally posted by nbarclay
By any other standard, the idea of calling a space race victory by a player a loss while at the same time allowing almost unlimited use of the military to damage rivals makes no sense to me because a military solution can accomplish pretty much exactly what you claim to want the space race victory condition to prevent: buy players however much time they need whether they do well with their own culture or not.

Ah, but that's Civ3. The idea in this game is to explore what the fastest possible route to a 100k Culture victory is. If it ends up being warmonger-till-you-drop, then cash-buy-every-culture-improvement-known-to-man, so be it. Players will have learned that about Civ3. All your arguments are purely theoretical, and it's exactly this theory that we're trying to learn with this course.

Whatever you consider a "perversion" is irrelevent to the aims of this course, as I originally proposed it. Just because what you theoretically believe might be the best strategy is not appealing to you does not mean the course should be altered to fit your comfort zone. I can guarantee you that a great majority of the players will enjoy this course independently of whether or not pure military action and tech stifling ends up being the proven best strategy (although with all this pre-game discussion, many are probably jaded by now).

For those of you who are voting for "fewer restrictions", how about just agreeing to "fewer non-standard rules". Here, re-cast in its original form, would be the purpose of the course:

Win the game by a 100k Culture victory as fast as you can.

It's about time we got started, so let's make like Occam and simplify!

[Theseus]

I'm in a movie quotin' mood today:

"We are the music makers. And we are the dreamers of the dreams."

Simplify: Dominae's basic premise is fine. If for some reason a player wants to explore beyond same, or NEEDS to, then fine... we are all here for our own fun and reasons, and yet can all stand as each other's judge/teacher/friend.

Play.