Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Next AU course

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    That was an, ummm, interesting post Aqualung.

    Don;t get me wrong, btw... I am still into SP games, and intend that there will be future AU courses with same.

    It just seems that the current action is in PBEM MP, so let's take advantage!

    Responding to some other thoughts:

    Modo, NM & Krill: I'm sure you know my attitude, i.e., that even it's run as a tournament, we put our own unique AU stamp on it... ya know, not so much about *winning* as about mutually getting better and having fun. That means also taht the course objective is not just to win, but should be something more. For instance, when Nathan kicked my *ss in 601, I still had a great time, and learned a great lesson about how the tiniest edges can be exploited into dramatic effects.

    The pirate: Yes, Sir Ralph is quite correct... you'll be surprised at how easy it is to get involved in a PBEM.

    NM: Yes, I think the AU Mod is still quite worthwhile. I don't think it will be much of a deterrent.

    And last but not least, to Aqualung I say:

    Quasi-god? QUASI-GOD??!!!

    The greatest delight for man is to inflict defeat on his enemies, to drive them before him, to see those dear to them with their faces bathed in tears, to bestride their horses, to crush in his arms their daughters and wives.

    Duas uncias in puncta mortalis est.

    Comment


    • #17
      I like what Theseus has to say. Our next step, would be to define the specifics of the course etc. I think that if we wanted the participation of other sites in this AU Course/PBEM/Tournament, we should ask when it's all set up.

      Comment


      • #18
        The reason that I say "win" is that every single AU course so far has been to explore a facet of the game. Not a single one, with the possible exception of 601, has shown how to bring it all together into a win (with the exception of T v Nathan, Alex v jshelr and Doms' account of how to set up an empire (my attempt was absolute ****. 5-6 towns? 5CC against Dom? F%&*ing Suicide!! ))


        Don't forget that most PBEMs are finished before the IA, and that they are won by Domination or Conquest. If the players show how they won, using, say, a mass upgrade, or a Philo beeline to rep and a superior economy, then that shows the "Less Experienced" (I use quotation marks since i still partially include myself in that group) the tactics and strategies that work in this game.


        OTOH, diplomacy and tech trading could be the aim, showing how different this is in multiplayer. (Humans rarely sell tech. Look at PTWDG )
        Last edited by Krill; November 2, 2004, 14:26.
        You just wasted six ... no, seven ... seconds of your life reading this sentence.

        Comment


        • #19
          I don't really like conventional PBEM games because of a combination of three factors:

          1) The risk of backstabbing.

          2) The risk of a "gang up on the leader" mentality.

          3) The problem of how to engage in honest diplomacy in an environment where the person I'm negotiating with and I both want to win.

          I know that with many PBEM players, those kinds of elements are exactly what makes the game fun for them. But that's not the way my mind works. Real life is not defined in terms where only one civilization can win and everyone else has to lose, and for me, a civ game with more than two human players defined in such terms does not feel right.

          If there are enough others out there who have a mindset similar to mine, we could provide an option of playing by a set of special rules or principles to make the game less cutthroat. I'm thinking in terms of something along the lines of the following:

          1) The goal is not necessarily to win, but rather to play our civilizations like real civilizations, doing what we believe is in their best interest. Warfare is fine if it looks like the benefits outweigh the risks, but players should not atttack another civ that they've been in a good relationshiip with just because the other civ is ahead and they want to win.

          2) Players are expected to keep each other apprised of how their people feel toward each other, and to act accordingly. Civs that have good relations with each other shouldn't suddenly attack without a very, very good reason for a change in attitude, while civs with hostile feelings might attack at any time. Such relations should, at least in part, reflect events in the game - for example, favorable trade arrangements would make a civilization feel better toward another civ, while a border dispute where two civs are trying to grab the same land might hurt relations. Note that if players explain the reasons for good or bad relations, other players can take those reasons into consideration in formulating their policies.

          (I might add that players could contrive entirely artificial reasons to "justify" a deterioriation in relations if they really want to. But major shifts in attitude should take place over time, not in just two or three turns.)

          3) Civs can, of course, seek to win the support of other civs with gifts, sales on favorable terms, or other considerations. That could be especially important if the two most prosperous civs in the game end up in a hostile rivalry, in which case each would seek allies against the other. But here, too, relationships between civs ought to play a role. Bribing a civ into a partnership or alliance against a civ it already dislikes should be relatively easy if the odds of success are good, but civs should be extremely reluctant to attack a civ they've been on good terms with for centuries even if they are given a good offer to do so.

          That kind of set-up would still leave a lot of room for military action if players decide it's in their civilizations' best interest. But it would also leave room for permanent friendships and partnerships, with players able to feel like their civ was successful even if they don't officially win.

          What do others think of the idea of a game defined along those lines, at least as an option for those who prefer it?

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Krill

            OTOH, diplomacy and tech trading could be the aim, showing how different this is in multiplayer. (Humans rarely sell tech. Look at PTWDG )
            In the early stages of the PTWDG, there was a lot of tech selling and trading. More generally, tech selling and trading among allies can be a very powerful tool to gain an upper hand over rivals under the right circumstances. Further, there can be a lot of pressure to sell if there is a feeling that if you don't sell to a civ, someone else will. I haven't played in or followed enough PBEM games to know what patterns hold true how often, but I do know a lot can depend on the players and the situation.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Theseus
              And last but not least, to Aqualung I say:

              Quasi-god? QUASI-GOD??!!!

              Not sure where that one came from.....must have been the JD talking. Of course, I clearly meant demi-god.
              So if you meet me have some courtesy, have some sympathy and some taste
              Use all your well-learned politesse, or I'll lay your soul to waste

              Re-Organisation of remaining C3C PBEMS

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by nbarclay
                I don't really like conventional PBEM games because of a combination of three factors:

                1) The risk of backstabbing.

                2) The risk of a "gang up on the leader" mentality.

                3) The problem of how to engage in honest diplomacy in an environment where the person I'm negotiating with and I both want to win.

                I know that with many PBEM players, those kinds of elements are exactly what makes the game fun for them. But that's not the way my mind works. Real life is not defined in terms where only one civilization can win and everyone else has to lose, and for me, a civ game with more than two human players defined in such terms does not feel right.

                If there are enough others out there who have a mindset similar to mine, we could provide an option of playing by a set of special rules or principles to make the game less cutthroat. I'm thinking in terms of something along the lines of the following:

                1) The goal is not necessarily to win, but rather to play our civilizations like real civilizations, doing what we believe is in their best interest. Warfare is fine if it looks like the benefits outweigh the risks, but players should not atttack another civ that they've been in a good relationshiip with just because the other civ is ahead and they want to win.

                2) Players are expected to keep each other apprised of how their people feel toward each other, and to act accordingly. Civs that have good relations with each other shouldn't suddenly attack without a very, very good reason for a change in attitude, while civs with hostile feelings might attack at any time. Such relations should, at least in part, reflect events in the game - for example, favorable trade arrangements would make a civilization feel better toward another civ, while a border dispute where two civs are trying to grab the same land might hurt relations. Note that if players explain the reasons for good or bad relations, other players can take those reasons into consideration in formulating their policies.

                (I might add that players could contrive entirely artificial reasons to "justify" a deterioriation in relations if they really want to. But major shifts in attitude should take place over time, not in just two or three turns.)

                3) Civs can, of course, seek to win the support of other civs with gifts, sales on favorable terms, or other considerations. That could be especially important if the two most prosperous civs in the game end up in a hostile rivalry, in which case each would seek allies against the other. But here, too, relationships between civs ought to play a role. Bribing a civ into a partnership or alliance against a civ it already dislikes should be relatively easy if the odds of success are good, but civs should be extremely reluctant to attack a civ they've been on good terms with for centuries even if they are given a good offer to do so.

                That kind of set-up would still leave a lot of room for military action if players decide it's in their civilizations' best interest. But it would also leave room for permanent friendships and partnerships, with players able to feel like their civ was successful even if they don't officially win.

                What do others think of the idea of a game defined along those lines, at least as an option for those who prefer it?
                This may be premature, and I am not responding to the specifics but rather to Nathan's general tenor:

                HURRAY!!!

                The next level!!

                I don't know how many AU members have seen my recent posts re Ancient Historical Fiction in the OT forum, but I have started a sweep of reading from Crete onwards, thus far planned to the end of the Roman Empire and the commencement of the Dark Ages with the Mongol onslaught.

                I'm still early into it, still pre-Classic Greece... what occurs to me is that NONE of the 'civs' back then had then-world domination in mind... they just wanted to survive. And the interplay must have been mind-boggling.

                Thanks Nathan... yes, let's try an AU course of human PBEM, but what is there to stop us from changing the paradigm?
                The greatest delight for man is to inflict defeat on his enemies, to drive them before him, to see those dear to them with their faces bathed in tears, to bestride their horses, to crush in his arms their daughters and wives.

                Duas uncias in puncta mortalis est.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Nathans proposals (I won't quote all of it again) sound promising indeed and as a whole matches my feelings about a fun game. However I doubt that it will work, simply because it is very hard to introduce a ruleset to enforce it. Games like this are generally called games of diplomacy. The Civ2 community plays them as online MP games and there has been an attempt to launch a Civ3 one in the Civ3-MP forum, which however, unfortunately didn't fly. The Civ2 community does have a diplomacy ruleset, perhaps you ask them for help. It has grown for years and should be near perfect. You should contact OzzyKP, he's the master diplomacy gamer.

                  I will watch your effort with interest.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Well SR, would it be that hard to enforce a ruleset to four people (assuming that's the number) who are interested in playing with it?

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Yes it is hard, because the goals are not well defined. Who except me is to decide, if a war is "in the best interest of my civ" and not to "stop the other side to win"? As far as I remember, one of the game goals of the Civ2 diplomacy community is to keep all civs in the game by all means. This does not exclude warfare per se, but if one side is going to be extinct, it obliges the others to help this side and not to gang up against it.

                      All I am trying to do is to help you by pointing in a direction, where such a ruleset already exists and is tested over years. You are of course free to ignore it and try own ideas, especially since I am a non-participant by all means. I just would stop to bother and move on with the games I enjoy.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Rhothaerill
                        conmcb25 (the evil Beta clone), etc.
                        Beta is my twin brother for Petes sake.

                        We cant be clones hes Canadian and liberal
                        *"Winning is still the goal, and we cannot win if we lose (gawd, that was brilliant - you can quote me on that if you want. And con - I don't want to see that in your sig."- Beta

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Chiming in:

                          In my opinion, PBEM and AU do not really fit together; very rarely do people report on PBEM games, and the only thing you really learn about is human diplomacy (which is only "about the game" in a loose sense). Notice that all the previous "MP" AU courses had some mechanism built in to encourage reflection and reporting.

                          An "AU PBEM" would just be like any other PBEM. Trying to save the AU forum by transforming it into another PBEM forum seems like a bad move to me.

                          Nathan's idea sounds fun, but like Sir Ralph I think it would break down in practice, that is, in the PBEM environment which is essentially competitive. What Nathan really wants is a certain level of security both during the initial buildup stage and against backstabbing; the goal is still to win. If the goal is truly to create a sort of "realistic diplomacy" game with no real victory conditions, then I'm not particularly interested in it and I suspect many others feel the same way. And again, what would such a game have to do with goals of AU?

                          There's still plenty of stuff we have not done in SP that could potentially be a lot of fun. For example, we have yet to tackle one of the Conquests. Each one of those is like a premade AU course. In fact, since they're typically shorter than Epic games, they're even more amenable to comparison. Just a thought.

                          In short, my vote is not to combine PBEM and AU.
                          And her eyes have all the seeming of a demon's that is dreaming...

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Krill
                            The reason that I say "win" is that every single AU course so far has been to explore a facet of the game. Not a single one, with the possible exception of 601, has shown how to bring it all together into a win (with the exception of T v Nathan, Alex v jshelr and Doms' account of how to set up an empire (my attempt was absolute ****. 5-6 towns? 5CC against Dom? F%&*ing Suicide!!)
                            IIRC you won that game, so you must have done something right!
                            And her eyes have all the seeming of a demon's that is dreaming...

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Here's another idea Theseus had some time ago:

                              A "veteran" player plays a Deity game up to a certain point (say, mid-Medieval era), either on a random map or with the help of a map-maker. The player then posts a DAR of his/her exploits (or lack thereof). Then the savegame is posted and is open to everyone to be played as any other AU course (with appropriate DARs, etc.). This would be interesting in a couple of ways:

                              1. Less experienced players get to try their hand at an empire crafted by a "veteran".

                              2. The "interesting" phase of the game is pushed beyond the Ancient era, assuming the game is difficult enough for the veteran player. Players who are not used to Deity will have an interesting time of the late Medieval and Industrial eras, but will have a good start to build upon.

                              Alternatively, a less experienced player could try his/her hand at a Demigod game up to a certain number of turns, then the save turned into an AU course as above. The idea would be to transform an poor-to-average start into a winning position.
                              And her eyes have all the seeming of a demon's that is dreaming...

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Since i don't have inet at home (i'm doing illegal stuff with an usb-stick to join the discussions) i'm not interested in the PBEM.

                                Well i think i'm going to do some of the older courses.

                                Cya
                                http://www.danasoft.com/sig/scare2140.jpg

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X