Announcement

**Stavros** · December 19, 2000, 19:59

The diplomacy is fun, and I enjoy bantering, and bargaining with me allies and apponents... but the fact is that this is a GAME OF WAR.... and Games have winners!!!

If you avoid all conflict, the game loses 90% of it's appeal...OK I don't like the sneak-up-and-nuke'em-from behind method either, but some conflict and "action" has to come into the game. I hope that I never get to the 250+ turn mark. You might as well play with your model railway at home.... It goes round and round, and is nice to look at, but... what for!!!???

I'm a little disapointed that so many people disaprove of conflict in this forum. This is not the real world. It's a meduim invented so that people can hone( or enjoy) their tactical skills.
For example: If I send a slaver out to capture one of your settlers.... It does not mean that I personally condone slavery. I am using a tactical tool within the confines of this game, to gain an advantage over my apponents. I've met people who won't use slavers in CTP for (real world) political reasons.... I find sticking holes in people with spears, equally abhorant, but I chose to play the game anyway....

Maybe it's time for a no aliances, no stigma game (I think that was what Lung was aiming for in his DM series) If you play long enough and don't get into a fight (6 months is usually the critical time) you tend to get triger happy....

**quinns** · December 19, 2000, 20:09

Very good points Stavros. This is a very interesting game because some people play it for the role-playing, diplomacy, and the building of a Civilization, (which is what the name of the game is). Where some people play it as a War game. I, personally, enjoy the war gaming strategy aspects of the game, but I admit, at the same time, I believe the key to the best military strategy here is "good building".

There are other games that are better suited for exercising strategy and tactics. The thing is, Civilization is such a good game that it attracts all types of players.

I really didn't say anything here, did I?! Just commenting really. Stavros has a good point.

And Stavros, I don't think people are telling you that is against the rules to use Slavers or that you are a bad person if you attack, I think that they are just role-playing to "brow beat" you away from attacking them (so that they can attack you later when they are better prepared to fight ). I could be wrong here. Maybe some people think that it is "unfair" to attack after making a treaty. That's ridiculous. But at the same time, I wouldn't think it "unfair", if in some other game, that same player that you "misled" attacks you and only you throughout the entire game. What goes around comes around
[This message has been edited by quinns (edited December 19, 2000).]

**St Jon** · December 19, 2000, 20:45

I believe you cannot ignore 'winning' in an effort to maintain interest in a Game that is basically over. I have only won one PBEM Game and that was by the surrender of the remaining Players but to have continued would have been pointless. Nothing was going to make any difference to the result and if it had been 'Solo' I would probably have hit 'New Game' before the surrender came. That Victory was achieved basically by Diplomacy and subterfuge, noble arts in the real World, and was planned as a single killer hit. I'd built for that attack for over six months of Game Play and I reckon that to take that out of the Game is to destroy it's very raison d'etre.

In only one other Game am I in a position from where I can see 'victory' but that is entirely different. I am, in 'Ratings' terms way ahead but I am far behind in Tech and Money with my remaining opponents. If I were to 'take it easy' I would quickly be overhauled because all I have is very high Production, Infrastructure and a very large standing Army. I have to win the war I am fighting, it's with Musket and Cannon not Nukes, or I will lose the Game for certain. What should I do?

I am by nature a 'Builder' rather than a 'Conqueror' but CtP is a 'War'Game in exactly the same way that the old-fashioned board strategy wargames were. The reason that most of us have migrated to PBEM is the pitiful nature of the AI in CtP rather an objection to winning. Winning only becomes a bore when it is too easy and there is no fear of failure. In Solo Ctp once you get 5-6 Cities established and running then it's 70-30, at worst, that you will win at Deity. That's very dull but just because your opponents are human does not mean that I want to beat them, economically, scientifically or militarily, just the same. The tactics may change but the goal remains the same.

Victory is a noble quest!

**King Thor** · December 19, 2000, 21:15

Quinn, my point was that , if you aren't ranking the skill of a player , whats the point in rating them? Frankly, I think sneaking up behind your enemy and nuking the $hit out of them is a great strategy! . Its the same as flanking someone when they aren't looking, keeping your true potential hidden. I mean that is EXACTLY what gave me the upper hand in a fight agaist Creator in World Scenario. He knew of only one of my divisions and had no clue that I actually had another stronger division right next to his capital.

When you get into PBEM, skill no longer just means good internal civilization handling, but now includes foreign affairs. If you are able to keep all the players in the dark about your true intentions then thats something admirable. If someone is able to create alliances and manipulate other players to get himself ahead that is skill too. I think anything that a player does (short of cheating) to win the game shows skill. If he wins the game using the legitimate and fair practices that countries in real world do, then its a fair win and he has outsmarted his foes. I mean its not cheating when a person stockpiles nukes and then annihilates his enemies. I think its a legitimate way to win the game. And if he successfully manages to do that, then thats awesome, he beat the other players.

**Swissy** · December 20, 2000, 01:10

I am playing in two of the most advanced games, US and APQS, which have many similarities. And the game does not keep going round and round. Both games will probably end in an Alien Life Project victory or go the full game and have a high civ score winner.

These games have seen players take hugh leads only to be reeled back in by players working together. They have developed into struggles with changing loyalties. Players tryinmg to avoid war because it costs so much. Not only units but the enviormental effects. APQS has gotten to the point that an good quarter of the land areas are dead zones.

I find these two games are more fun to play. More than the other games that I am leading in the power graph.

**quinns** · December 20, 2000, 10:48

Alright. Sounds like were getting a pretty good concensus. Now we just need to interpret these ideas into hard numbers and exact rules as they relate to the rating system. (That's how this thread started.)

How is this then? (And it is just an idea, either to shoot holes into or support, not the final rule of course.)

If a player: a) resigns; b) gets annihilated; or c) gets "next turned" for three turns in a row, then that player's civilization reverts to A/I (if necessary) and every remaining player in the game DEFEATS THAT PLAYER THREE TIMES (as measured by the normal ten turn phase defeat).

For example, in a 5 player game, the first person who gets eliminated would be "defeated" 12 times (as measured by the normal power graph 10 turn defeat), (3 multiplied by 4 remaining players.) This equates to an average decrease in ratings of about 2 to 3 points for the eliminated player. The second player eliminated would be defeated 9 times (3 multiplied by 3 remaining players), ... etc.

Let me know what you all think!

**MOBIUS** · December 23, 2000, 22:04

Well people only play these games to win...

But as usual there is more than one way to skin a cat!

As for the military method - against human beings, sheer brute strength just doesn't hack it!

You might be beating one, but others may scent the smell of opportunity and attack you whilst you're occupied!

Besides, if there's 6 of you playing and 2 of you are at war - the other 4 continue to build up, adding to their infrastructure and not wasting their resources in large armies...

As for methods of victory - anything does go if you can get away with it... But you do have to consider if say treachery is such a good idea if you're playing in more than one game...

I have built up a dossier if you will, in my memory on all those I play and their playing styles. I have a fair idea who I can trust(!) and those I cannot, except from a position of strength...

As for your AI and penalty ideas...

I really do think you have to avoid the use of the AI - it's NOT why I'm here to play PBEM!

Indeed, one challenge was to rescue a 'doomed' Civ in Swissy 2 and turn it around - that was/is fun to play! We're in a state of 'Total War' in that game, an attack was made because we were lagging further and further behind in tech and needed to strike before it was too late - perhaps it was already too late, but the war is far from lost!

At the end of the day, you just can't beat good old fashioned Diplomacy!!!

**quinns** · December 25, 2000, 01:16

MOBIUS, Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this.

Well then, without objection, how does this "Elimination Rule" sound to all of you. If we don't hear any objection, it will become a new Rated Game rule soon.

*** RATED GAME RULE CHANGE/ADDITION PROPOSAL ***

Elimination Rule --

If, in a rated game, a player:

a) resigns;
b) changes status from "rated" to "unrated";
c) gets annihilated; or
d) gets "next turned" for three turns in a row,

then every remaining player in that game "DEFEATS" THAT PLAYER THREE TIMES (as measured by the normal ten turn phase defeat).

For example, in a 5 player game, the first person who gets "eliminated from the ratings in that game" would be "defeated" 12 times (as measured by the normal power graph 10 turn defeat), (3 multiplied by 4 remaining players.) This equates to an average decrease in ratings of about 2 to 3 points for the eliminated player. The second player eliminated would be defeated 9 times (3 multiplied by 3 remaining players), ... etc.

In the case of resignation or three consecutive "next turns", then that resigned player's civilization will be "next turned" until a replacement player, (either rated or unrated), takes over that civilization's control.

*** END PROPOSAL ***

Announcement

Winning in Civilization?

Winning in Civilization?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment