FG: Go 12:"Even Older School Revisited"

[Jaguar]

Oh, also, I should add that I think the 2 counterspy "fix" is a little odd. It's an inflexible number, the same for both long and short games, and it's rather arbitrary.

[Spaced Cowboy]

We could make spies less powerful, they only cancel an attack (or allied defend), but don't muck with building a spy or shield, and then dump the anti-spies all together.

[Jaguar]

That's elegant, but it might make spies too weak. OTOH, people rarely care when they spy someone and they prevent shield creation or whatever. Because often the spy's just going there to hold the other player down while an attacker goes in for the kill.

[joncha]

Hmm... not a bad suggestion.

[snoopy369]

1. Yes- it exists, presuming a lack of counterspies. So, not only does the main player have to get allied against (not unreasonable to assume), but they have to have chosen to use their counterspies. That's not the same thing as saying it exists as a strategy in and of itself.

2. There's nothing wrong with something looking 'arbitrary'. Nothing. Fixes to game balance often are arbitrary, the same as the nuclear bomb in civ4 is arbitrarily set to be a particular strength so as to not make it too powerful (or too weak), or various civics have particular meanings that don't necessarily make sense. Game balance is the key - and having pre-built, unbuildable counterspies solves the problem. I'd argue for 3 instead of 2 - to give them SOME value in the regular game - but you tell me. If it weren't for the unending spyfest possibility, would we even have counterspies? Do we want people to be using counterspies - AT ALL - during the main part of the game? (Of course they're always going to be permitted to use them, but I say it should be a hard choice - between setting up a safe attack, and risking losing late in the game.

3. Since the spy has been made unbuildable on turns it's used, what is the main effect of the risk of a spyfest?









It discourages alliances over 2 players, late in the game. Spaced never would have had this problem, if he'd only had one ally (Whoha OR me) and not both. Thus, it encourages pairing off - alliances of exactly two players; two means you are safe from spyfests, 1 means a pair can spyfest you and 3 means your allies can.

4. Spaced's suggestion is not wholly unreasonable, although I'd argue it's more arbitrary than the counterspy, and affects the game balance more significantly. In the late game, spies preventing the building of a special becomes more important, because special count matters a lot in a 2 or 3 player game. Just like in NW, where when it's down to 2, you essentially count the specials, and the larger count wins nearly 100% of the time. Not all the time, but most of the time - and really only poor play loses in nearly all cases.

Overall - I'd again argue wait and see. See if this happens again and again - in which case it's a serious problem - or if it stops, because people get more conservative with their CSs. I recall a few rounds ago Joncha and whatnot talking about how you had to save at least 2 CSs to prevent this from happening; a few rounds later, people are talking about how it's poor strategy not to use some of them early on. In the short run, I'd suggest going back to 3 CSs, to give a slight push back towards saving CSs (meaning you can still safely use 1 early on and not have to worry).

[Spaced Cowboy]

Or we could simply make the shield build also be mucked, but you could still build a spy such that would not be caught in indefinate spy sleaze, if one desires to keep spies a little stronger.

[Ljube]

First of all, there is no guarantee that Spaced Cowboy has no remaining counter-spies. He may just be bluffing.

Second, even if he has none, it's entirely his fault as counter-spy is a device for spy deadlock prevention and not attack orders protection.

Third, I reduced the number of counter-spies from 3 to 2 because I thought that 3 encouraged early overuse (misuse) while 2 I thought would discourage any use of it for fear that the option might get exhausted and become not available when it's needed the most (in endgame).

Fourth, we can always vote again and adopt some other mechanism for preventing spy deadlocks. I still think that anti-spy is the most elegant solution which does not change the original game fundamentally.

[Ljube]

Round 19


Due to a critical error in Colony I mainframe no build was attempted and when the spy sent by Danz infiltrated Colony I's bases he found nothing of interest to sabotage. Having failed in his task, the spy jumped off the tallest building.


********


It seems that the allies have capped their self built bases at 12 each. Interesting....


Next turn will be processed on Friday evening.

[Sparrowhawk]

If both Snoopy and Whoha sent in que's and Spaced has conceeded, can't you process to the end of the shortest of the que's?

It would greatly speed things up for those of us that are waiting patiently.

/me

[Ljube]

No, because in the first turn Spaced Cowboy sent his default orders which I'll use if he sends no orders. I don't see that he conceded and in any case he can only concede to one player, not two.

[joncha]

Originally posted by Ljube
Fourth, we can always vote again and adopt some other mechanism for preventing spy deadlocks. I still think that anti-spy is the most elegant solution which does not change the original game fundamentally.

There is nothing elegant about counterspy at all. It is a clunky hack that had only only thing going for it: it worked. Now not even that is true.

I vote for Spaced's suggestion of ditching it and making spies only work against attacks.

Originally posted by Spaced Cowboy
Ya know what, I have no chance at this game and will not be sending any more orders. Do whatever you will.

This looks like he has walked away to me. Can't say I blame him.

[Sparrowhawk]

Seems pretty clear to me.

Ya know what, I have no chance at this game and will not be sending any more orders. Do whatever you will.

It seems to me that you could safely process the que's of both Whoha and snoopy to their conclusion. Spaced would have a massive number of BPs by that point I suspect, perhaps you could convince him to continue trying to attack at that point (though I strongly doubt it).
____________________________________________

Also, on the topic of whether he has any anti-spies left:

Originally posted by Spaced Cowboy
For the record, I did save one of my anti-spies for last. As I used one earlier for a crucial attack, much like I used the second one. But I should have saved a spy.

It seems clear that he is not bluffing and indeed doesn't have any anti-spies left.

At this point it seems just a matter of time before snoopy and Whoha allied attack Spaced and eliminate him, why drag out the inevitable??

If you don't have time to process their que's that is acceptable, but I hope you arn't waiting until Friday to get further orders as I don't think any are coming.

/me

[:) Smiley]

If I was Snoopy I'd make a move soon while the difference in power was relatively small.

[Ljube]

Originally posted by joncha


There is nothing elegant about counterspy at all. It is a clunky hack that had only only thing going for it: it worked. Now not even that is true.

How is that not true?

[joncha]

Clearly it does not prevent infinite spy sleaze at the end of the game. Has the problem with the last several turns escaped you?