Civ Choice Final: Poll by Paws and Points

[DeepO]

Yeah.. OTOH, is there a deadline on any of the choices yet? Maybe we should address this in the general forum, and try to wait a little what the others are doing. The new team is messing a bit with the timing of our disinformation campaign

DeepO

[Theseus]

Anybody wanna totally screw with the other teams heads, and let them pick our civ?

[Dominae]

Wow, Theseus, I like the way you think.

For me, MP is all about playing with the (human) opponents' heads. We can assume that all teams have more or less mastered the game mechanics by playing SP, so the real difference is how capable each team will be in outwitting the others (this is why is signed up for the Diplomacy Schola, by the way). My arguments for picking the Americans as our civ is related to this idea.

Completely surprising the opponents (for example, by letting them pick our civ) is sure to mess them up significantly. The question then is: will "messing them up" in this way be enough to offset the chance they pick a truly horrid civ? I don't think we can answer this question.

Maybe we could give them 3 choices and let them pick? This would force them to "cooperate", but it would yield great info for us (Glory of War is afraid of the Iroquois? Hmmm...).

I don't think the rest of the team will think this is such a great idea, but this kind of lateral thinking is exactly what is going to win this game for us in the end...if we use it.


Dominae

[Meshelic]

I like the idea, but what if they pick a civ we really really don't want to be at all? And on that note, what civz out there could they pick that would really be terrible for us?

[Dominae]

I don't think we want to be any Commercial civ. The English and the Koreans are probably the two worst possibilities for us, in my opinion.

How about letting them choose among our top three? That is, get them to each rank our top three civs:

1. Egyptians
2. Iroquois
3. China (or is it Aztecs?)

This would certainly confuse them, and (as I mentioned before), give us a lot of info. The nice part of this plan is that all the choices are fine options.


Dominae

[Meshelic]

So you're suggesting we hold a poll on the main PTW forum saying "Choose Gathering Storm's Civ!!!" and giving the choices as Egyptians, Iroquois, or China?

Could be very interesting PR tactic...

[nbarclay]

Isn't there a risk that letting other teams pick our civ would alienate other teams by seeming arrogant? We're already hearing complaints about how many regulars from the strategy board are on this team. Giving the impression of saying, "We can beat you no matter which civ you pick for us," seems likely to fan the flames of such attacks. (And if I were a political dirty tricks specialist for one of the other teams, I might very well try to promote that image.)

By the way, I definitely like Egypt as my number one choice of civs. Some terrain conditions could seriously devalue war chariots for offensive purposes (and I wouldn't especially want to hit Carthage or Greece with them), but even if that happens, they would still make a powerful counterattacking force in a defensive war. And Egypt's traits are very strong regardless of other considerations, which is important with a random land mass.

The Iroquois would be far more of a hit-or-miss proposition. At a standard map size, their Expansionist trait would be nice for a true pangea map, but far less valuable if we end up on an archipelago map or on a small continent on some other kind of map. And while their UU is almost certainly the most potent in existence for single-player play, I'll bet humans could take a lot better advantage of their poor defense. (Yes, WC's have an equally bad defense, but losing one to an enemy counterattack only costs two thirds as much.)

After Egypt, my second choice would probably be Persia. Immortals would give us the option of early warfare, and their Scientific/Industrious trait combination is a powerful one on a wide range of map settings. The down siide is that a cleaver human player with a religious civ might go into Monarchy and refuse to make peace for as long as possible in order to play havoc with a Persian Republic. (Whereas if we're religious, we could do that sort of thing to non-religious opponents ourselves. )

China would probably be my third choice. I'm guessing that riders' mobility would be an even bigger advantage against human opponents than it is against AIs, since human players would likely be better at positioning swordsmen, longbowmen, and medieval infantry for counterattacks against units with lesser movement.

Nathan

[Meshelic]

Man nbarclay where were you when we were voting? Persia and China were among my top 3 before they were voted off....

I don't know if I dare call for a re-vote... just kidding

[Dominae]

Concering the arrogance of getting the other teams to vote for our civ, I think it's a matter of presentation. Instead of saying "we can beat you with any of these civs", we could say "we're having internal conflicts concerning civ choice; please help us decide between our top 3 choices". I'm not very good at PR, but someone could surely come up with a convincing way of putting this. Yes, we would be lying, but it's not a very destructive lie (and I doubt any MP game is played in perfect honesty; Q: "are you planning to attack us in the next 20 turns?", A: "well of course!").


Dominae

[Dominae]

I almost forgot: nice to have you in Gathering Storm nbarclay!


Dominae

[nbarclay]

Personally, I have a strong distaste for dishonesty, and I also see practical problems with it. If people figure out that someone is perfectly willing to lie to them, they aren't going to trust that person as much in the future. The same also goes for teams.

Ideally, I think games like this should be played with a sort of code where no one asks someone else something like, "Are you going to attack me in the next twenty turns?" except maybe as part of a larger agreement. ("If I attack Rome, would you promise not to attack me while I'm doing it?" would seem eminently reasonable.) That way, people/teams can play honestly without having others take unfair advantage of their honesty.

Nathan

[Dominae]

Hm, I don't like to lie either, but there are gray areas. Playing a game for fun that involves "shady" diplomacy is fine in my book.

In any case, we don't have to lie about it. We could just say: "You guys wanna pick our civ for us? Here are our top 3 choices. Which one do you want to play against?" I think that's perfectly honest, but would still have the effect of getting into their heads.

I think we're going to encounter some resistance within the team between people who don't mind a little "social engineering" for the sake of a game and those who do. I personally have no qualms about causing uncertainty and confusion (maybe a bit of terror!) in my opponents, but some may think this isn't very sportsmanlike. It may be a good idea to write up that code we were discussing to determine exactly what kind of team we want to be.


Dominae

[notyoueither]

Some head games would be good, but intentional deceit to gain advantage on the map would be another thing entirely in many situations. 'Are you sending a settler there?' No... 3 turns later... PLONK. Could seriously dent credibility.

We have already engaged in some 'head fakes.' Whenever the subject of civ choices comes up and someone comes near discussing it in public, or when someone answers a question, I have piped up re Korea, and SR has proclaimed Vikings.

Never hurts to keep them guessing, and besides, after a while I hope someone approaches and asks 'just what exactly is the Korean Strat?' Hehe.

[Dominae]

Yup, as long as "head games" are just that: games. Intentionally breaking your word is not part of my conception of "social engineering".

BTW, what exactly is the Korean strat?


Dominae

[nbarclay]

I don't mind a few "head games" in the context of a game as long as they involve misdirection rather than outright lies. In any case, I can't imagine myself being thrown off balance to any significant degree if another team asked us to help choose among their top three civ choices, so it's hard for me to see it messing an opponent up to any significant degree. I think the benefits of getting our own first-choice civ heavily outweigh any psychological advantages that letting our opponents choose for us might generate. (Then again, the fact that I'm squarely in the pro-Egypt faction may skew my thinking just a little. )

Nathan