RB Pitboss #1 [SPOILERS] Willem of Persia

[alexrdavies]

Phew! I'm the new turn player for the Shady Expanse. The game has only moved on 1 turn since shadyforce's last post, but it's about to get going again - and, with this being my first multiplayer game & already very developed, the diplomacy has blown my mind.

I was determined from the beginning to honour shadyforce's commitments to the other players. The thing is, as he said in his very last sentence (see above), he hadn't actually made any! So figuring out where I stood took a while. The first player to get in touch with me was Regoarrarr. He is one of the contenders for victory, having a lot of land and power, and being close to the Internet. He was very helpful and told me that, basically, I was about to attack him. So I said hi, no hard feelings, and moved on.

Next up was Twinkletoes. He's the new guy in charge of Daniel's old civ - traditionally, shadyforce's closest ally. The thing is that both Daniel and shadyforce are now gone, so where does that leave us? It turns out that TT had gifted me about half his army on the very turn I joined - and he'd had no idea that shadyforce was about to leave. I made my first promise as lord of the Shady Expanse: I would not start my campaign by attacking TT with his own army.

The puzzle really started to come together when I spoke to Broker, the 'mouthpiece' for the threesome of Broker/Munro/Lin who have stuck together for much of the game. Broker's team is the other major contender to win the game. They tech well, defend each others' borders, and have a good spy network up. Add to that, they're on the verge of nukes. Here's the plan that Broker and shadyforce had made:

- Broker's team research Fission and keep it
- Twinkletoes researches Rocketry and trades it to Broker's team
- I fight Rego while Broker's team provide nuclear support.

This is certainly a good plan for taking Rego out of the game. However, the more details I heard, the worse it sounded for... well, me. It turned out I would receive little to no military support. Broker and Munro had no intentions of sending troops (and said so to my face). They both insisted Lin would be my parter there. But Lin said he had a NAP with Rego and would not attack for 5 turns - and only then, when it was "to his advantage." Then the techs - basically, I wouldn't be getting them. I was a partner for the attack, but would not be admitted into the alliance. This was a killer... it meant I'd be eliminating the alliance's only threat except me, without actually getting 'in' or receiving any peace treaties from them. Oh, and I'd hand them nukes and the Internet. &they'd nuke the lands I was taking into oblivion.

So, I didn't like that. Then Elkad turned up. The same Elkad that had spent half the game fighting shadyforce. We talked and I was amazed. Despite being allied with Broker almost throughout the game, he had received almost no military support from him, and was still not allowed to receive the latest techs. To all intents and purposes, Broker's team had been treating him as a vassal.

This didn't really sound good. The Shady Expanse was about to take the lead in obliterating Rego. However that would leave the world with just one superbloc, who had nukes, and fresh armies - and I would be the closest thing they had for an opponent. On the other hand, I didn't wish to abandon the alliance with Twinkletoes, or the goodwill shadyforce had gained with Elkad when he ceded two cities (which apparently Elkad didn't actually insist on).

Eventually:

[COLOR="MediumTurquoise"]me: So... I've sort of been thinking about the options. I've got an idea to propose, and I think you're going to pound your head on the desk when you hear it.
[/COLOR][COLOR="Olive"]Twinkletoes89: i'm open to everything right now
[/COLOR][COLOR="MediumTurquoise"]me: As slippery as regoarrarr can be, I don't think he's as much of a threat as a solid three-man team with nukes and the Internet.
That's what Broker, Munro and Lin would be, and there'd be no way to stop them.
[/COLOR][COLOR="Olive"]Twinkletoes89: and planning to deny us nukes
[/COLOR][COLOR="MediumTurquoise"]me: Exactly. No Fission for us till after the UN vote.
But what if we turned the tables?
What if, for example, they never had Rocketry?
[/COLOR][COLOR="Olive"]Twinkletoes89: I know
[/COLOR][COLOR="MediumTurquoise"]me: And we had... ooh... the three biggest armies in the world on our team?
[/COLOR][COLOR="Olive"]Twinkletoes89: true
[/COLOR][COLOR="MediumTurquoise"]me: Elkad is not that enthusiastic about attacking Rego. He'd much rather go after the trio.
[/COLOR][COLOR="Olive"]Twinkletoes89: I know
[/COLOR][COLOR="MediumTurquoise"]me: Rego for obvious reasons, thinks the same.
[/COLOR][COLOR="Olive"]Twinkletoes89: I'm talking to him too
[/COLOR][COLOR="MediumTurquoise"]me: Thought you might be. I set this up with Elkad, brought him into it a couple of hours ago.
I figure you might want some kind of concession from Rego to be sure you can trust him...
But anyway, if you're fine with it then that's the way I want to go.[/COLOR]

Yes, this was my plan and I won't hide from that. However it's a plan I was only ever interested in if Mali, the Expanse's closest ally, was going to be on board.

[COLOR="Olive"]Hey guys,

Just so you know, I am in. I have received the guarantees I needed from Rego, which are a 'No War' agreement after this conflict, and 'FULL nuclear disarmament' once the war is over. I will trade both of you rocketry as soon as it is researched.

I would suggest keeping this out of the spoiler threads for a while. I want as much surprise as possible.

Let us hope that nothing gets in our way! And thank you for coming up with this proposal, it is very good work.

TT[/COLOR]

Yay!

*signs pacts with Rego and Elkad*

[COLOR="Olive"]Hi Guys,

*changes his mind*

I could fill this email with heavy handed words and misdirection and give you phoney reasons for this, but I will not. I am just doing what I think is the honourable thing to do.

Good luck to you all

TT[/COLOR]

.
.
.

[novice]

Thanks for a well-written and interesting update - what are your plans going forward, then?

[Krill]

The reason Shady wanted to attack was because regoarrarr started the cool down on the NAP between Shady and himself, just as Shady and Mali invaded Elkad.

[alexrdavies]

Thanks for a well-written and interesting update - what are your plans going forward, then?

Well, at some point I need to 'properly' bring you guys up to date with screenshots & quotes & all. Probably tomorrow.

In the meantime, let's say that Elkad doesn't seem to like Broker either. I pitched a plan to him, then Rego, then TT that had us banding together to take the Triple Threat down a peg. Once they'd all accepted I decided that was what I'd do - morally it was sound because I was still teamed with TT, and also because it made the game more competitive than attacking Rego so I wasn't ruining things the moment I stepped in.

In the negotiation of this plan I also promised NAPs with Elkad and Rego till 10 turns after the war, and offered the same to TT, but he said he trusted me & turned it down.

That was the plan until I got back from an Easter holiday last night, then woke up to find: TT has changed his mind, and is now back in camp with Broker after Broker sent us both an e-mail saying he smelt a rat and we should "at least follow through with previous agreements."

My problem is that none of my previous agreements are with Broker. They are all with Rego, Elkad, and TT - who are now not on the same team. The Shady Expanse has never made any promises to Broker's team, and as far as I know has never received any kind of assistance from them either (at least, that's what shadyforce led me to believe).

So how do I morally chime my commitment to a war with Broker, with an imperative not to attack TT with an army he gave me when he thought, after all, that I'd use it in his interests? To TT's credit, he's said he's not putting me under any pressure about this. I'm minded to offer him a 20-turn NAP where he doesn't attack my team & we don't attack him... then move on to Broker & co. However I've been unable to raise TT so far in chat.

My army is my only tangible asset. My alliance still has more than half the world's power, and less than half the world's economic power, so the situation is still finely balanced, and I will probably still go ahead. It's just that I like the situation a whole lot less now I'm going to be up against the guy I'd pegged as my closest ally, and who it now seems I disastrously misread.

If only he knew I meant it when I said I wouldn't join with Rego without his permission! He gave it. If only he knew I'd resolved that I'd be happy with a Mali victory, and that I'd work to protect him for the remainder of the game. Perhaps I should have spelled those things out more clearly (I thought I had!) - or perhaps he would have made these decisions all the same.

My friend, we go to war now.

EDIT: What I have done is given Broker notice that I'm 'considering my future' until I can raise TT in chat. I know, this completely blows any chance I had of surprise out of the water and it's strategically. However, nearly as bad as making a promise and then breaking it, is letting your opponent *think* you've made a promise and then breaking it.

Besides, says my less 'constrained' side, TT will probably tell them everything, and my armies (being poised to attack Rego) aren't close enough to invade this turn anyway. So I've only told them what they were about to find out.

EDIT2: Besides my consideration for the diplomatic promises I made, I am also finding it increasingly hard to honour my commitment to help the game. Twinkletoes just sent out an e-mail titled "A Last-Ditch Proposal." Reading between the lines of this and earlier conversations, I think that Broker threatened to wreck the game unless TT switched back. That's a huge amount of pressure for him to be under when he's just joined (and I should know). Now TT himself is down in the dumps about playing (who wouldn't be when that kind of OOG threat is hanging over them?). As I write this another player is confirming that Broker made precisely that threat. It is entirely possible that we will not have all our players next week - with either Broker or TT out.

[alexrdavies]

I've calmed down a bit since yesterday (I can get tetchy when most diplomacy has to be done when I'd normally be asleep), but meanwhile the game has heated up. Munro has declared war and fired off a nuke at me. This is actually good news because it means he's already disobeyed team orders - the first nuke was meant to go to the Internet in Rego's territory. He also hit the part of my army which wasn't actually ready to attack yet (too far away).

Anyway, the biggest military threat to me right now is Munro's capital, which I can see contains the Heroic Epic (thanks to Rego for that tip). This is 9 squares from my border, but most of this land belongs to TT who cancelled OB with me earlier in this turn. So my new plan is to - maybe - gift my eastern-most city &the nearest armies over to Elkad, who still has OB, and let him begin the assault. Then when he's taken the first city of Munro's, he could return the city and my army.

Here's the landscape:



There are three problems with this.

1) I'd be placing a huge amount of trust in Elkad. Currently he just wants to go out 'in a blaze of glory' - which is one reason he likes the idea of this attack in the first place. But if I gave him a significant chunk of my army, he might start dreaming of being a big player again and keep it/use it against me.

2) Elkad isn't online at the moment anyway, and time is ticking down

3) Rego says that temporarily gifting cities is against the rules. This isn't really a problem - for something as potentially significant as getting the jump on Munro's capital, I would actually give my Easternmost city away permanently. I'm mentioning this here because if any of you can tell me what the rules actually *are* here, and whether making it a permanent gift means it's all okay, then that would be really useful.

Oh, and I might as well leave you with a picture of the Eastern Theatre of War.

[Rowain]

You could declare War on TT but without attacking any of his cities/units. Perhaps you can come to an agreement with him to not hinder your advance. Afterall it was him who backed out of an already agreed alliance.

[novice]

You could declare War on TT but without attacking any of his cities/units. Perhaps you can come to an agreement with him to not hinder your advance. Afterall it was him who backed out of an already agreed alliance.

If he would agree to that he would also agree to Open Borders, I would assume.

Talk about a baptism of fire for you, Alex.

There's no rule against permanent gifting of cities. It's happened a lot in this game already. (There was also some temporary gifting being done but that was banned mid-game).

EDIT: The initial rules are in the second post of the planning thread, which I just bumped. (By default only threads that have been updated in the last 30 days are shown).
http://realmsbeyond.net/forums/showpost....ostcount=2

Rules have been updated as the game has progressed, after voting in the Email / tech thread. Unfortunately, the initial rules haven't been updated with these changes, as far as I can tell.

EDIT2: No temporary gifting of cities: See this post and the next 10 or so posts. http://realmsbeyond.net/forums/showpost....tcount=626
There never was a vote as such, but a consensus was reached.

[alexrdavies]

A baptism of fire is right!

The war began with Munro declaring and nuking The Hospital. A large chunk of my army was still passing through on the way to the front, and got badly injured - in fact I was alarmed at how effective the nukes were. Still, it wasn't actually a staging post so most of my troops were fine. With war now officially joined, it was well past time to go in.

There was still the issue of how to get through Twinkletoes' borders without fighting him. Elkad cleared up the rules as being no 'cheesy' gifting of cities, so that was that over because what I was considering was definitely cheesy. In the end I did just declare on Twinkletoes and march through his territory. I flagged this up with both TT and Munro beforehand to make sure the solution was okay:

[COLOR="DarkOrchid"]well, that would be ok in my book

as long as he didn't allow you use of his roads and stuff, then I wouldn't hold it against him if you came through anyway without a fight[/COLOR]

Twinkletoes did get back in touch with me as I passed Thangorodrim, which of course my massive stack could have razed in an instant. Despite my previous assurance that I wasn't planning to attack him, and advance warning of my plan, he was a bit nervous that I'd gone right past his city! I explained that I was keeping my army spread in fear of nukes.

Indeed, I am just passing by. I am also splitting my army up to make it harder to hit with nukes

Ok, just needed confirmation of that detail. I cannot give you open borders while the conflict is onwards. I can tell you that you will not be nuked while in my lands

So, a couple of turns later my army was gathering to attack Munro's closest city, Minority Report:



End turn, go to bed, wake up;

Munro declared war on Twinkletoes and nuked my army to destruction, despite TT's word that I would not be nuked in his lands (in exchange for, y'know, keeping his city).

Twinkletoes claims that Munro knew of the deal:

losing that big stack in my lands must have been a big blow?
Yeah. You know, you did tell me my units wouldn't be nuked in your lands
More fool me for realising you didn't actually have a choice in the matter!
I wasn't aware of the strike and yeh, I had no choice
I thought he would wait for the next turn when you entered his borders
Ah, but then my 2-move units could have attacked his city.
i suppose
His city's safety vs your promises...
exactly
Did he know that you'd promised me that?
Twinkletoes89: yeh
but he said the opportunity cost was too great
take down 150 units or however many in a couple of strikes is worth breaking it

So either Twinkletoes has completely played me (in which case, brilliant move but I feel ); or Munro has just decided that if he wasn't part of the agreement, he isn't held to anything, which... well, which again is a smart move but is hardly what I'd call classy from the guy who held the upper hand anyway.

Either way, I've blown my only advantage because I didn't even consider the prospect of the promise not being kept . This is entirely my mistake and, if I'm honest, that's why it really hurts.

[alexrdavies]

As I was losing my stack in the East, my cities were being nuked in the West. I am currently unable to take screenshots (you'll find out why in a moment), but I do have this one on file from a few turns ago:



Four or five cities were nuked altogether, and many of my workers were also killed. I have replenished their numbers and scrubbed much of the fallout now, but the improvements and population will take an age to replace - besides which, I'm still at war! I need bomb shelters and reinforcements and nukes of my own.

That, or I need peace. I originally arranged an alliance against Broker/Munro/Lin because I felt that they were too powerful, and that if they weren't opposed while Rego was still alive, then they would run away with the game. Sadly I was right - except that they were already too powerful. After early success, Elkad has been beaten back and is now in dire straits, while Rego has received even more nukes than me and feels making gains from this war is an impossibilty. We do have Fission this turn (well, he does and he's offered it), but with fewer cities with nuked improvements and reduced population, we're always going to lose in a straight slugging match.

So I warned Rego (and through him sunrise), and tried to warn Elkad but couldn't reach him, that I was going to talk to the enemy about terms, and then - well, I did that. I sent an e-mail to the enemy team saying that I would accept surrender under the right circumstances, principally

Note that this is not a formal offer of surrender, and you will not receive one if I feel I cannot make peace without betraying my allies (for example, making peace with you only for your armies to march across my own railroads and attack Elkad).

Following this Broker appeared online for a chat. Unfortunately, this meant I was subjected to a charm offensive - and yes, I do believe 'subjected' is the right word here. It seems he feels the way to butter someone up is to convince them that their allies have abandoned them and they're all alone. The thing is, mine hadn't - they were both suffering - and Broker didn't seem to take the hint that his continued attempts to make me badmouth them was making me really rather uncomfortable. So I ended it and asked that further correspondence was directed through Munro. That was much more productive:

[COLOR="DarkOrchid"]Hi Alex,

Yes, we could agree to that (on all counts). Only conditions would be that you agree not to build any nuclear weapons, and to remain neutral in any future conflict.

Since you haven't yet accepted Fission from Rego, we'll hold off on any further pre-emptive strikes while you have some time to consider. Please can you also hold off from accepting Fission from Rego in the meantime until we have the details worked out, so as not to force the issue in the meantime? If the negotiations don't work out you can obviously always accept it later.

Anyway, let us know if interested.

Cheers,
Munro[/COLOR]

I now have three options, and I need to decide right away. I can accept Fission from Rego, and arm for war (which I lose but I might learn something). I can decline Fission, and sign peace (which I also lose but it lets the warmongers 'do their thing'). Or:



Hmm. Just a handful of turns ago, on joining the game, I rejected an offer from Regoarrarr to vote whoever won a weighted coinflip (based on Hindu voting power) into victory. I said it was too cheesy, and I hadn't entered this game 'just to end it.' Now I'm considering simply voting him the win. So what's changed?

- Well, I've definitely lost now so if I 'play to win' then at least this way I'm on the winning faction. i.e. if I play to win I accept.
- As far as 'cheese' goes, nukes are every bit as unbalanced as an AP victory.
- Having had a chance to get to know the players, I can say that Regoarrarr has been the most supportive and welcoming even when I've been delivering bad news. On the other hand I think I've established that I'm not <3ing Broker and Munro right now... nor even Twinkletoes.

I still have two big reservations.

1. This is a little unfair on Elkad, who 'lives for modern warfare.' On the other hand I believe he no longer has an army, so he probably won't get it anyway.
2. It's unglamorous. I can definitely imagine a lot of communities where this is 'not the done thing.'

&this is where you come in again. I want to know, in Realms Beyond, do you expect people to take every chance to win (or at least have an ally win), even when we're talking about an AP victory? Is this considered gamey, or cunning? I've shown over the last week or so that I deeply misjudged where the lines are drawn on OOG muscling or the value of diplomatic promises, so this time I will simply listen to you.

My answer to Rego, who proposed this about half an hour ago, was that I would try to raise Elkad, and I would also put it to the lurkers - and if no-one objected, he would have my vote. If someone does object, I am inclined to reject the peace offer and go down fighting (boom!) - let them have their fun.

Speak now or [STRIKE]hold your peace[/STRIKE] moan later.

EDIT: Elkad's auto-reply tells me that he is away on vacation, so I doubt I'll be hearing from him. So it's down to you. The AP is a legitimate advantage that Rego, sunrise and shadyforce worked hard to attain over thousands of (civ) years. It also requires, in this case, three of us working together to win. On the other hand, it presents its rewards all at once wrapped in a single 'auto-win' button.

EDIT EDIT: seems TT really was bummed out about the game - see his post in the public thread. Well, that decides it. Vote submitted. Thanks for reading.

[Krill]

AP = cheese. That is my personal opinion, nothing more.