The Whore of Babylon Speaks - GoW Official Statement

[Darekill]

The pact between ND and GoW was forged at exact the time when it became obvious that neither of the two nations would be able to win the game alone.

Consider it fair or unfair as you wish but it was as much an option in my eyes as it was an otion to ally with someone until another someone was defeated.

We could have allied with the goal to eliminate GS and Lego and then have a NAP of some 30 or 40 turns to ensure we both have the same chances to build up and then strike.

The winner would probably be ND in that case just we'd be the first to strike because of the gamemechanics. That would have been realy cheesy!

Concerning the achievements of GS AND Lego. You have my greatest respect. You played as good as you could given the circumstances.

If I were asked we'd have endet this game after the great bobian war with another winner but that was not it.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by vondrack

I am sure you do know what the difference exactly is. You can commit to war (speaking about both wars here, you+GS vs. us and you+ND vs. GS) in a very different way, if you know you're never going to fight the only neighbour sharing a land border with you - simply because you and him are going to win together. Neither you, nor him need to care about the (im)balance of power, about gaining or losing relative strenght (as compared to the other member of the pact), because there is never going to be a war these relative strenghts would matter.

That is the difference.

GoW risked a major imbalance of power vis-a-vis GS for having our stack attacked by Lego (and we knew that if you were going to attack, you'd attack us, not GS). We risked it not once but twice (by both landing and by attacking Stanwix)

ND risked a major imbalance of power vis-a-vis GoW during the Bobian War because turn order dictated that they would be the ones to attack GS's stacks during the major battles first and GoW would merely get the mopping up work. Because of this and Leo's, GoW ended the war with almost twice as many Riders than they had Ansars and we could have attacked them afterwards (our alliance lasted only until the war ended, we had no plans of winning the war together back then).

GoW also risked having Lego backstab us during the Bobian War. All our troops were either in the Alamo or in the Yellowknife while your nice little stack of knights rode through our territory. Yet we took the risk regardless. Likewise we took the risk of sending our initial Rider stack across the mountains in the east before striking RP. During this time ND could have backstabbed us (we never wrote an alliance treaty against RP, they could've nailed us then and there). What was the logic behind these risks? That if we didn't take them, we'd lose anyway.

As you can see, when relative strength did matter, teams went on with their plans regardless.

It would have not changed the result (and perhaps not even the course) of the Lego War. But I seriously doubt the rest of the game would be the same, too.

As of this turn I can almost assure you that nothing would have changed.

The pact signed between you and ND decided the outcome of this game before GS sank our first sentry ironclad. Anybody could have done that (if considering a shared victory an option) and nobody else could have done that (if considering a shared victory not an option).

Of course I would, I am not crazy. No team can win a game like PtWDG against an alliance of two other teams (assuming the teams are generally of comparable strenghts).

But that's the point, you DIDN'T do it and now you're complaining when other teams did. You didn't do it because you thought that Lego had a chance of winning alone, anyone who started with an entire continent to themselves and a huge advantage of not wasting time building massive armies and fighting wars could have seen it. I doubt I would have considered a joint victory if I were Lego. Same with GS. The difference being that they had lesser long-term prospects of victory at least economically/militarily though scientifically they were far ahead of our capabilities. I wonder, why did GS never once ask GoW to ally with them to defeat a rising ND and then duke it out for a winner afterwards with us? They never approached us. Even if their odds of winning were less, they would have been a bit bigger if they had chosen to seek an alliance with GoW against ND than having to fight the Yellow Perilâ„¢ by themselves.

So, like I said in my last post, don't complain now about a lack of foresight and about a different perspective on your shots of victory. In contrast with you and GS, GoW and ND were convinced that we could not win the game alone which is why we pacted our alliance. Tell me Vondrack, in retrospective would you have now preferred to ally with GS to fight the Bobians in a last 2-on-2 confrontation to decide the winner? Now, do you think we would be so stupid as to have allowed such a thing which would have compromised our shots at even a shared victory? We might be cheesy, but we are far from being idiots. Tell me, if you saw the evil backstabbing GoWers getting too powerful by conquering Bob, would you not have allied with GS? Likewise would you have permitted a non-Apolyton team (ND) from winning this game alone? I doubt it in either case. Don't blame us for not being powerful enough to hope for a lone victory. And don't blame ND for not being an Apolyton civ.

I wonder what did these two games have in common... can't think of much. ISDG did not end because of two teams proclaiming a shared victory - and as far as I can remember, there was a team we pretty much considered the winner. A single team.

Did GWT "prove" they were the best? Could Apolyton not have been their equal by the industrial age perhaps? Did we fight a final titanic war to decide the winner? Were our chances of victory 0% so as to have warranted quitting? Nope. Victory was a subjective decision taken because most people didn't want to play anymore and of all the teams, GWT seemed to have the biggest odds of victory (as well as the highest score).

That was not my intention. My remark was inspired by your post where you talked about how it would be your bombers levelling our cities if GS failed in the west - I do not seem to be able to find that post now...

It's in the Glory of News thread

And that comment was inspired by a quote of yours which spoke of the damage each Carrier raid was causing. Think 10 more turns and 10 more raids...

If you or both of you were in the west, things would have been different, that's for sure. Probably not the outcome, though. But it's not how it happened.

And the way it happened ensured that the team which would have the fate of the war in their hands was GS not us. Yet you and Zargon seem to imply that our participation in that war was irrelevant and that GS alone did you in. I can assure you that the months of preparation, the anxiety of our knowing how precarious our position was, the cruel knowledge that geography dictated our role would be no better than a bulwark despite such a tremendous spending on units, and in short the effort of our team made as a whole sure as hell doesn't warrant your team's comments that our participation was irrelevant. How would you like it if GoW started blabbering that Lego's participation in the game was irrelevant because they ended up losing? You wouldn't like it, that's how it feels on this side of the fence.

-MZ

[vondrack]

We both better save our time, MZ... not on the same wavelenght this time. You're a good chap and I have no desire to continue this coulda woulda ping-pong about the merits of a shared victory.

Enjoy it.

I posted primarily because of someone else, sorry to ruffle your feathers.

[Master Zen]

Consider it forgotten.

I'd hate for grudges to emerge at the very end of this game

[Master Zen]

Btw, I didn't want to make it public until after GS opened this turn's save but:

On 1360 AD a 120+ unit GoW Expeditionary Force (GeForce2) landed in Stormia. Major battles will surely follow testing the courage and sacrifice of the brave men (and bearded women) in uniform on both sides.

[Beta]

I have delayed quite a bit in posting here, as I had to make sure my opinion was not simply a knee jerk reaction to GoW and ND's announcement. I have thought about it fair bit, and read the posts in this thread a couple of times.

I am with UnOrthOdOx and Vondrack on this. I do not think the 'shared victiry' concept is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the game, and for me, it is a bit of a shame to see a game, which was such a wild ride at times, and was the first and still most significant Civ3 MP game, end like this.

In my mind, this sets a very bad precedent for future games. What happens next time - a three team alliance and a 3-way shared victory? I know - I am extrapolating here, but it is not a whole lot different. And the fact that the 'hard' alliance and idea of the shared victory did not arise until later does not make much of a difference. In future games, it will be on everyone's mind right from the start, and that will kill one of the greatest dynamics of MP civ - the strategy and diplomacy and international balancing act that is key to success.

It is so very key and fundamental to the game that all teams have to playing on the same premise - that they are trying to win. Otherwise, the game becomes flawed, and unfair to some teams.

I find it interesting that most sets of PBEM guidelines speak to each player trying to win the game - not share a win (unless of course it is a team pbem scenario). And has been stated earlier, everyone assumed that was the case heading into this game. And all teams played on that understanding, even after GoW and ND had decided otherwise - which obviously affects the entire balance of power and diplomacy. Had this intent been stated earlier - then I would have seen a GoW/ND vs Lego/GS/RP/Vox scenario shaping up.

In fact, had we in Vox any idea this was going down, we certainly would have waded into the Lego conflict. We stayed out of it for two reasons - part self-preservation (let the big guys duke it out and keep our heads down), and part not wanting to be a liability to Lego (in other words, if we were attacked, they would have had to come to our assistance thus weakening themselves.) And given what a 'close-run' thing that conflict was, Vox involvement might have tipped the scales.

And as it stands right now, Lego and GS have been eliminated, but not Vox. Now, I fully recognize that a war against Vox would be a two nanosecond event (notwithstanding the Elite Immortal guarding the capital ), but, to be honest, would we have even bothered to stay in the game had we known this was going to be the outcome. Speaking for myself, probably not. We rebuilt and supported Lego, as we clearly owed them our existence. But in the back of my mind was the hope that the game would develop exactly as it did, with the larger teams taking each other out with whatever alliances they could create. We would keep our heads down and maybe there would be an opportunity when the last two large teams went head-to-head. That is not going to happen now. Now knowing that, GoW and/or ND could simply wipe us out, and say there - ends that line of logic. But again, it goes back to the understanding each team was playing under.

All that being said, I fully appreciate that the game has gone on a long time, and in some respects has become tedious - particularly with a large modern-age civ such as GoW and ND now have. The game takes "energy", and that was clearly declining. So on another level, I can understand ending it as GoW and ND have.

However, I still would like to see the showdown played out. Make it non-nuclear - set a start date 5 turns hence so each team can be prepared, toss a coin for who gets to attack first - and let us all watch. Now that would be fun.

In my mind, a game of civ only has one winner - that is the way it was set up and intended to be played. No 'shared' victories. And no second or third places. The GoW/ND proposal, IMHO, means that no one wins the game - or conversely - we all do. Maybe that is the best interpretation.

Because, without that showdown, it will be as T.S.Eliot suggested:

This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.

[UnOrthOdOx]

No offense, inside joke. You'll probably get it soon.

[Hot_Enamel]

Originally posted by Beta
However, I still would like to see the showdown played out. Make it non-nuclear - set a start date 5 turns hence so each team can be prepared, toss a coin for who gets to attack first - and let us all watch. Now that would be fun.

In my mind, a game of civ only has one winner - that is the way it was set up and intended to be played. No 'shared' victories. And no second or third places. The GoW/ND proposal, IMHO, means that no one wins the game - or conversely - we all do. Maybe that is the best interpretation.

Because, without that showdown, it will be as T.S.Eliot suggested:

This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.

If you note the discussion in the other demo games, agreements are being made that there can be only one winner. This Demo game was the first. We learnt a lot from it. Perhaps this was also a lesson. Having a one winner agreement at the start will fix it up for all the furture games.

Anyway..

The problem is that you should take a look at the border we share with ND. How do you defend that ? He who strikes first will win. So whoever wins the coin toss will win.

If its a spaceship race ... is that fair ? ND & GoW have been sharing techs & gold quite unevenly. Is it fair that we should start at the same tech level ?

In my mind, a joint victory is far more satisfying than just tossing a coin. ND & GoW wont attack each other.

[Theseus]

Originally posted by Beta
... it will be as T.S.Eliot suggested:

This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.

I wish there were a smiley showing a little guy shooting an arrow for a bullseye.

[Master Zen]

What would a GoW vs ND faceoff prove? Nothing.

If a x-number of turns was set before war the outcome would already be decided: ND would win because of turn order as GoW would find it impossible to defend all our territory against their army.

Likewise if a coin-toss was made and GoW struck first, same thing, it's be a matter of cracking ND's outer shell and swarming in with tanks/settlers.

In either case, no team could conceivably withstand a first strike from the other (a kind of conventional M.A.D. - mutually assured destruction).

The other possible victory is a space race. Are you honestly expecting us to play for another 3-4 months just to prove who was the better builder? Moreso would you expect Vox to tag along for all this time when they would pretty much have no role in this?

In either case it is pointless. No team can prove anything by beating the other at this stage of the game. And since ND and GoW would have probably had a "reach the end together and then duke it out" agreement had shared victories been deemed illegal by Trip, no outcome in this game would have changed.

That's honestly what I don't understand about this whole argument. Nothing would have changed except who the 6th loser would be. And considering GoW and ND's relationship throught the game we don't feel the need to prove anything to the other (and much less to the other teams).

[DeepO]

Originally posted by Master Zen
That's honestly what I don't understand about this whole argument. Nothing would have changed

MZ, CIV is going to have a shared victory thing. Now, assume that in order to get it, you are required to sign a treaty in game, much like the MPP treaty in SP. So... anyone with an embassy would be able to see that you had a treaty.

I know this is not in Civ 3, I know it was an out-of-game agreement, but let's just suppose it can somehow show up in-game.

Now, before invading Lego, you sign a treaty with ND. Do you really believe we would have invaded Legoland If we had spotted this? Do you think, that if we got Lego to join us in invading you, you even had a chance of surviving? ND was out of the picture, as they were still finishing their buildings before building defenses, they couldn't help you. Would it have changed the game? You bet.

I don't mind shared victories, if these have repercussion in game as well. There is no balance, while everything else in the game is balanced. If you build more units, you are penalised each turn as you have to pay more upkeep. If you go for more culture, you can't build units. If you build more cities, your efficiency goes down due to corruption. Every aspect of Civ 3 has a counterweight. A shared victory has not, it's just a free advantage without any penalty. Making an alliance visible in a diplo game, could have proved to be too much counterweight, but it certainly would have tried to balance out the advantages you get from it.

DeepO

[Master Zen]

DeepO, you're assuming that teams would blow their cover by signing treaties in-game risking that others might see them. Did we ever sign a formal alliance vs Lego? Never. Should we have done so the moment we agreed on GAUL? It would have been the epitome of stupidity since Lego would have seen it many turns before we actually invaded.

Players sidestep the technical aspects of the game when it suits them. All of us are guilty of this.

[DeepO]

I agree, but the difference is that even before you built the first unit that invaded Lego, Lego was well aware of an alliance between us against them. We were never to secretive about that, it was of no use anyway... we weren't going to share a single tech with them, and the moment we kept techs from them they knew what was going to happen.

This same thing doesn't apply to the GoWND situation. You even fought a war with us as allies (without any treaty signed, I might add) while more strongly allied to ND. We could not have known.

And yes, everyone is guilty of sidestepping technical aspects, but there is a difference between capturing catapults and declaring a new victory type.

It's also just a suggestion, but I certainly hope that in CIV, a shared victory would be visible a long time beforehand, so there is some way of reacting against it. Maker it visible in game, and give something in return as well. E.g. give both teams all unit information, share research and gold reserves, etc. But balance it so that it others have a chance to respond, instead of after the facts just be told "ow, we had an alliance for the last year or so. Sorry, we win."

DeepO

[Kloreep]

Originally posted by Hot_Enamel
The problem is that you should take a look at the border we share with ND. How do you defend that ? He who strikes first will win. So whoever wins the coin toss will win.

Indeed, quite a problem, isn't it?

However, from what I've read, you guys seem to think the GoW-ND relationship ran deep enough that you would have both signed a wipe-everyone-else-out pact and honored it if the shared victory had been overruled by Trip. I must say, that's the only reason I am not pissed off about this.

[Beta]

Originally posted by DeepO

Now, before invading Lego, you sign a treaty with ND. Do you really believe we would have invaded Legoland If we had spotted this? Do you think, that if we got Lego to join us in invading you, you even had a chance of surviving? ND was out of the picture, as they were still finishing their buildings before building defenses, they couldn't help you. Would it have changed the game? You bet.

I don't mind shared victories, if these have repercussion in game as well. There is no balance, while everything else in the game is balanced. If you build more units, you are penalised each turn as you have to pay more upkeep. If you go for more culture, you can't build units. If you build more cities, your efficiency goes down due to corruption. Every aspect of Civ 3 has a counterweight. A shared victory has not, it's just a free advantage without any penalty. Making an alliance visible in a diplo game, could have proved to be too much counterweight, but it certainly would have tried to balance out the advantages you get from it.

DeepO

Where's that bulls-eye smiley when you need it.

Beautifully stated DeepO. You have explained well what I was trying to say.

MZ - understand your point about the showdown - but it would be fun. So maybe we boil it down to simply the coin toss. (Or a best 4 out of 7 rock, scissors, paper contest. )