Next AU course

[punkbass2000]

I agree with Dom here. Beyond the fact that any real hard and set rules would be dificult to implement/enforce, what's the point of this diplomacy game as an AU course? Assuming you're just generally joining random games outside of AU for the simple fun of it, you're probably not going to end up in many games with any sort of code (except exploits). I mean can sympathize a bit, I personnally don't like the way some things go and wouldn't want to just destroy someone's empire on turn 10 (which just happened to me in a Sengoku-mod PBEM), but if it's later in the game (like turn 50 in my AP RoR PBEM), it's rather fun to slwoly eat away at those upstart Romans with their fancy Wonders and UUs. Very tactical, huge stacks of artillery and generally only taking a city every five turns or so. But it's still a lot more fun, and I can do this while still playing honourably. I even declared war before I entered the territory, just for the hell of it (well, yes, the AI players would hate me for not doing it properly, but my rep's shot from when the goddamn Romans went to war with the Celts). But it's worth it, cause once every few days you get make this your battle report

Rome:
4 Garrison killed in Veii.
1 Legion3 killed in Veii.
Veii captured.
Garrison SE of Mycenae bombed to 2/4 and then killed.
3 Legion3s killed in Tarentum.
2 Garrison killed in Tarentum.
Tarentum captured.
1 HC killed W of Rhodes.

Macedon:
3 HC killed S of Veii.
2 HC retreats S of Veii.
2 Swordsmen killed W of Tarentum.
1 HC killed SW of Tarentum.
1 HC retreats SW of Tarentum.
1 HC killed in Miletos.
1 HC killed W of Rhodes

[Modo44]

Technically, it's still a PBEM, because that's what the game allows. It still has the strategy inside - we use the same mechanics. But it's not like everyone will stay away from your borders, you know. Good roleplaying doesn't stop people from getting aggressive.

The concept of a diplogame gives you a combination of strategy and roleplaying. The second part comes very short in simple PBEMs. I don't think this would be fun for everyone, because of the less competitive approach. But hey, it's a game, and I enjoy it more this way - that's what counts for me.

I agree that it has even less to do with AU, than normal PBEMs. If you recall, I was against playing a normal tournament as an AU course.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Dominae

There is something distinctly unstrategic about not playing to win; how can you "strategically" play for fun?

The real difference is not a question of whether or not strategy is involved, but rather is a question of what goal the strategy is aimed at pursuing. In a conventional game, the goal is not merely to build up a successful civilization of your own, but also to stop any other civilization that threatens to reach a victory condition first. In contrast, in a more realism-oriented game, the goal of trying to make one's own civilization as successful as possible remains, but trying to block other civilizations from being more successful does not take on nearly as high a priority. In addition, the desire for realism constrains what strategic options are considered acceptable to a certain extent.

Even without "victory" being the top priority, all of the basic strategic elements of Civ are still present. A civilization that uses good strategy in REXing, build priorities, diplomacy, military action, and so forth will be more successful than if it used poor strategy. It's just that the strategy is aimed at a different goal, with success measured in terms that do not require the weakening or destruction of any civilization that's more successful.

Thus, there is a lot that can be learned about strategy within the context of a diplo-game or simething similar. Some of what is learned might be useful only in the context of other diplo-games, but then again, isn't some of what is learned in conventional PBEM games applicable only in other conventional PBEM games? So I don't see any inherent incompatibility between such a game and the goals of Apolyton University.

One other interesting thing about a diplo-game type setting is that with winning a much lower priority, players might feel more free to share strategic thoughts while the game is still going on. To whatever extent that happens, if it would happen, it would be good for learning.

[jshelr]

"But AU is about Civ3 strategy"

There are huge areas of cooperative strategy that human games make possible and that are not possible in AI games.

Just to show one example: In a game with players of equal skill, the starting conditions will produce wildly different civ sizes. I'm not sure that your population count really proves how macho you are in such circumstances.

For me, the really good civ player is the one who does the best possible job with the starting spot he or she gets. Is this utopian thinking? Why would anyone bother to commit lots of effort to a bad starting spot?

A larger country will have resource advantages, but consider that the corruption model often makes two small and beautiful civs stronger than one civ that is larger than the two put together. And the 4-turn tech floor enhances this effect.

It will often be the case that the leaders of two civs form a bond, such as the one you achieve with your teammates in sports, and that players can have fun by supporting the efforts of the other and also by overcoming communications problems to achieve the best joint efficiency possible.

With this kind of cooperation predominating among leaders, civ games can ultimately have the same kind of ebb and flow that history has actually had.

So, I think it would be useful for AU to explore the ways that humans can cooperate with each other in a civ game to overcome the effects of bad starting spots and other setbacks.

[Dominae]

Originally posted by nbarclay
The real difference is not a question of whether or not strategy is involved, but rather is a question of what goal the strategy is aimed at pursuing.

It is in my civ's best interest: to subjugate the other nations of the world; to control a source of every single Luxury; to control all the Wonders; to be the technological leader by a wide margin; to build a bunch of nukes before anyone else does; to launch a spaceship that will prove the Ultimate Power of my people over all others once and for all.

Unfortunately, those are in the best interests of the other nations of the world as well. Whatever shall we do? Well, I could form a temporary "alliance" with my neighbor to ensure that some third civ does not fulfill its best interests to a greater extent than we do ours. And this third civ could form an "alliance" with a fourth civ to do the same against us. In short, we could engage in competition.

[Dominae]

Originally posted by jshelr
There are huge areas of cooperative strategy that human games make possible and that are not possible in AI games.

Just to show one example: In a game with players of equal skill, the starting conditions will produce wildly different civ sizes. I'm not sure that your population count really proves how macho you are in such circumstances.

For me, the really good civ player is the one who does the best possible job with the starting spot he or she gets. Is this utopian thinking? Why would anyone bother to commit lots of effort to a bad starting spot?

A larger country will have resource advantages, but consider that the corruption model often makes two small and beautiful civs stronger than one civ that is larger than the two put together. And the 4-turn tech floor enhances this effect.

It will often be the case that the leaders of two civs form a bond, such as the one you achieve with your teammates in sports, and that players can have fun by supporting the efforts of the other and also by overcoming communications problems to achieve the best joint efficiency possible.

With this kind of cooperation predominating among leaders, civ games can ultimately have the same kind of ebb and flow that history has actually had.

So, I think it would be useful for AU to explore the ways that humans can cooperate with each other in a civ game to overcome the effects of bad starting spots and other setbacks.

I think you have mistaken my point of view (either that or you have abandoned defending Nathan's proposal for a PBEM game).

What I am saying is that, IMO, for PBEM games to within the scope of AU, they need to be competitive. Nathan's game, while it may very well be competitive on some level, does not really (as Sir Ralph pointed out) make explicit the rules of engagement, and so does not in its current form lend itself to useful strategic comparison. I thought you were defending the idea that PBEM can be "fun" without being competitive, which I agree with, I just do not think those games should be a part of AU.

What you just posted (and what I just quoted) is more a defense of the strategy that arises from competition between human players, i.e., questions of diplomacy. I completely agree with you that this is, as of yet, a hugely unmapped territory (at least, to my knowledge) in the realm of Civ3 strategy. And you are quite right good diplomacy will take you further than excellent population stats (having been part of a couple of demogames and a few PBEMs of my own, I do understand this).

For PBEM games to a part of AU, however, I think they need some sort of standardization so that players can usefully compare their experiences to those of others. This is why I initally disliked the proposal that we all just started a bunch of PBEMs willy-nilly and use the AU forum as a tracking thread. However, if we were to start a bunch of PBEMs on the same map and set checkpoints for reporting (mandatory reporting!), I would be the first on board.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Dominae


It is in my civ's best interest: to subjugate the other nations of the world; to control a source of every single Luxury; to control all the Wonders; to be the technological leader by a wide margin; to build a bunch of nukes before anyone else does; to launch a spaceship that will prove the Ultimate Power of my people over all others once and for all.

Not necessarily. Even in single-player games, a civilization is often much better off financially and scientifically leaving some major rivals intact as trading partners than it is wiping them out. Similarly, in a multi-player game, consider how much more quickly a spaceship can be built with two or three civilizations working together to research the necessary techs than with the civs diverting economic effort toward fighting each other. In the game, as in the real world, two allies can be stronger and more prosperous than a single civ resulting from one having gobbled up the other.

Unfortunately, those are in the best interests of the other nations of the world as well. Whatever shall we do? Well, I could form a temporary "alliance" with my neighbor to ensure that some third civ does not fulfill its best interests to a greater extent than we do ours. And this third civ could form an "alliance" with a fourth civ to do the same against us. In short, we could engage in competition.

It is the part I emphasized in bold that makes Civ unrealistic. In the real world, nations generally seek to maximize their prosperity in absolute terms, not to prevent another nation from being more prosperous than they are at all costs.

[Dominae]

Nathan, I think what you are getting at is that you want a PBEM where cooperative victories are allowed. Is this not like any other PBEM? To my knowledge, there are no hard rules against this. While it might seem "unfair" for two players to cooperate so fully, any other two players are allowed to do the same if they so wish.

Where I think you are taking the idea a bit further is the case where one player feels that the cooperation is not worth it anymore, and decides to go for it alone or with another partner (possibly involving a backstab): you do not think this should be allowed. But who is to say what is best for my civ but myself? If I'm a third-world power, what is wrong with my banding together with other civs (if they are so willing) to prevent another civ from achieving its goals? Maybe that's the best means I have of increasing my power in absolute terms (kill the big guy, divvy up his land).

It is the very fact that Civ3 is a game that is the source of the problem here. A game cannot be completely realistic. What prevented the Russians from attacking the U.S. when it was clear the latter was going to win the race to the moon? I'm guessing it was the value judgement that such a goal was not worth an associated loss of life (or economic drain). There are no such ethics in Civ3. Indeed, it would be pretty darn cool to set up a game where a player loses "points" based on the number of units/population he or she destroys (like inverse VPs or something). But such a game requires some rules so that everyone knows how it is supposed to work.

I am not opposed to your diplomatic game idea per se, I just think that for it to be AU-playable you need to define what "realistic" means in game terms. Otherwise you are roleplaying what "realistic" means, and IMO there is no strategy in that.

[punkbass2000]

I would agree that being co-operative could be beneficial for a Spaceship win, and all allies involved could easily claim victory. I don't think the same could be said for other voctory types (except maybe Diplo.). I also think it would be very unlikely for this situation to occur in a competitive game, especially since for there to really be any "game" left there would have to at least one other significant civ that is not part of this alliance. It would be interesting for a scenario to occur where one large, Communist human civ was racing for a domination victory and harrassing an alliance of at least two small, productive human civs that were racing for a spaceship. However, as I say, an epic game that has (at least) three surviving, strong human players in the Modern Age is a tall order indeed without a very constricting ruleset. Even with a ruleset similar to what you have proposed, I still don't think it's concrete enough to generally create this sort of scenario. Unless you're going to ban warfare outright, there are always honourable and realistic reasons for war other than bring down the leader, like as I posted above about my RoR PBEM.

[nbarclay]

Dominae, it's not that I want a team victory condition per se, but rather that I want the potential for stable, long-term friendships and partnerships in which the players can be honest with each other. That's very hard to have in a game where the goal is for a single civilization to win, where the only way to win is to make your "friends" lose and the only way your "friends" can win is to make sure you lose.

And on a related note, I don't like the way Civ's rules allow a seeming close friend to engage in a backstab with no warning of any kind. In the real world, there are almost invariably significant tensiions of some kind as a precursor to a surprise attack. But the game mechanics of Civ allow a player to act like the best of friends right up until he launches a surprise backstab he's been planning for centuries. The ability to get away with such dishonesty without even a possibility that the plans and war preparations might leak to the intended victim (at least as long as the backstabber keeps his plans to himself) takes a lot of the fun out of the game for me in MP.

[Arrian]

Dominae, it's not that I want a team victory condition per se, but rather that I want the potential for stable, long-term friendships and partnerships in which the players can be honest with each other. That's very hard to have in a game where the goal is for a single civilization to win, where the only way to win is to make your "friends" lose and the only way your "friends" can win is to make sure you lose.

I have a similar distaste for the way CivIII plays out in MP/PBEM. I don't think it's unrealistic at all, actually. Perhaps my view of History is darker than yours, Nathan, but it seems like distrust, intrigue and eventual backstabbing are par for the course IRL as well as in Civ.

That being said, I still don't like it. I don't find it fun. I HATE the zero-sum game, when it's not against the AI.

-Arrian, just chipping in with my $.02

[Dominae]

Originally posted by nbarclay
Dominae, it's not that I want a team victory condition per se, but rather that I want the potential for stable, long-term friendships and partnerships in which the players can be honest with each other.

There is always such potential in PBEM games. You just need to find a player/partner who thinks as you do. Requiring it is the tough part, which is my very point.

That's very hard to have in a game where the goal is for a single civilization to win, where the only way to win is to make your "friends" lose and the only way your "friends" can win is to make sure you lose.

Elaborate on your rules for ensuring this does not happen and I might warm up to your idea.

And on a related note, I don't like the way Civ's rules allow a seeming close friend to engage in a backstab with no warning of any kind. In the real world, there are almost invariably significant tensiions of some kind as a precursor to a surprise attack.

What you want is a game where Japan declares war before attacking the U.S. at Pearl Harbor. I quite like the fact that the threat of backstabs in Civ3 MP keeps everyone honest with respect to adequate defenses and meaningful alliances.

[Modo44]

Arrian, is the more recent history just as bad? Because what we are talking about here, is a late-game backstab, not something that happens in the Ancient Age. It happens in the PBEM game, but did it happen in the real world as well?

My history knowledge is not very good, except for WWII, so maybe I don't know some facts from other periods. But I do know, that the "surprise" attacks that happened during WWII were not unexpected at all. Sure, they sometimes took forms unexpected to the attacked countries, but the hostility was clear and plain long before the fighting took place. Is WWI any different to that? How about earlier wars?

Dominae, Pearl Harbor was an expected attack. Perhaps not in that form, but everything was leading to a war long before that day. And everyone knew it was coming. [EDIT: This is an example of what Nathan was talking about. Relationships deteriorated, talks failed, both sides were preparing for war, and both knew it was inevitable. It didn't come out of the blue, and certainly not from a close ally. ]

[Arrian]

Arrian, is the more recent history just as bad? Because what we are talking about here, is a late-game backstab, not something that happens in the Ancient Age. It happens in the PBEM game, but did it happen in the real world as well?

Of course it did. At least in the sense that everyone was out to get everyone else, and your ally one year might be your enemy the next. The ancient Greek city-states, for instance, were constantly jockeying for position.

In the real world, alliances exist because two or more states have common interests. Once those interests diverge, the alliance is doomed.

I think many of us wish that weren't so. And in Civ, which is of course fantasy, we hope to make it not so. We crave real partnerships & alliances to the very end. Some of us, anyway.

I *do* agree with the point about "surprise" attacks rarely being totally unexpected. But then again, I'm not sure that's really something we should be concerned with in Civ until the era of 3-move units and railroads (when such an attack can destroy an entire empire in 1 turn). For much of the game, the defender WILL have a chance to respond. Yes, the attacker may have a strategic advantage, but that's normal, really. The surprise attacks in history, even if they were suspected, DID convey advantages.

But anyway, IMO the "reality" angle isn't that important. The question that matters to me is "can we set up a game to play out in a manner we will find fun?" I'm coming into this discussion late, so I don't know if there have been concrete suggestions on rules or whatnot. If so, please direct me to them.

-Arrian

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Arrian


Of course it did. At least in the sense that everyone was out to get everyone else, and your ally one year might be your enemy the next. The ancient Greek city-states, for instance, were constantly jockeying for position.

In the real world, alliances exist because two or more states have common interests. Once those interests diverge, the alliance is doomed.

I'm not an expert on ancient history, but didn't the Greek city-states (for example) know more or less where they stood with each other at a given time? Keep in mind that with history that far back, it's easy to view shifts that took decades or even generations to develop as "sudden" because the overall timeframe we're looking at is so long.

To illustrate what can happen, consider an example from more recent history. In World War II, both England and the Soviet Uniion were allies of the United States. But even during the war, we recognized that our alliance with the Soviet Union was a temporary expedient, not part of a lasting friendship. In contrast, we expected to remain close friends with England.

I would imagine that situations among Greek city-states were much the same, with leaders generally having a good idea of whether an alliance was a matter of lasting friendship or of setting aside differences temporarily against a common foe. Maybe I'm off base projecting what I know of recent history onto ancient times, but I don't think human nature has changed so much as to eliminate all similarities.