RBP3 [SPOILERS] - Friendly Kittens (Ragnar of Maya)

[RefSteel]

While I'm thinking of it, we need to discuss our feelings about how we intend to handle diplomacy once we start making contacts.

I prefer friendly, basically totally-above-board diplomacy - treat everyone as allies or potential allies so long as they deserve to be treated that way (i.e. they don't demonstrate that they're likely to betray us). I'd prefer to never, ever break a NAP. But. If you're never going to break a NAP, what that really means is never SIGNING a NAP you'll need to break. A standard no-conditions NAP is just asking for a Pink Dot or a proxy war. Even MoO AIs can figure that out; they take advantage of NAPs to colonize stars right under your blockades. I also think a "20 turn NAP" is ridiculous, though we might have to accept one in some cases to get a NAP at all. My preferred template for a NAP would be:

Indefinite NAP while the following conditions apply:
- e.g. Settling location consultation
- e.g. No gifting units to potential enemies
- e.g. No open borders to massive stacks of incoming units
- If additional conditions are required by one side, that side can formally request renegotiation. We then have X turns to renegotiate the terms of the agreement before its current provisions expire.
- Violation of any of the terms constitute violation of the whole.

I wouldn't put it in this kind of semi-legalistic language, at least until the final "let's make sure we know what we're agreeing to" stage, but that's the kind of idea I'd be aiming for. Note that it's the same thing as a NAP with conditions and an X turn "cool-down period" except that "renegotiation" hopefully plants the idea from the start that there's a peaceful solution to whatever causes one side to want the NAP to end. Maybe I'm dreaming though.

Also, we've never set an "agression level" I'm assuming that we're not going to want to war with anyone for a long while unless 1) They start it or 2) We're completely certian of victory.

Depending on how you define "They start it." I wouldn't necessarily start a war even if I WERE completely certain of victory, depending on the level of friendship and cooperation or duplicity witnessed from the rival civ. But I'd start a war even without certainty of victory if my rival was duplicitous and had just done something that (perhaps barring a war) had rendered peace a path to certain defeat. (You can maybe think of an example from another game.)

[Cull]

The NAP sounds fine. The gifting units should be seen like at the end of the email, more of an idea rather than a condition, because if someone did that to me I would be slightly mad, like who does the person think he is. Then again, I'm in high school.:neenernee. Settling rights to me a bit iffy. They have to consult with you to plant a city. Rather say something like no agressive settlements, such as one RBP2 team did.

[Cull]

War in Civ should be for either a, to gain stuff, or b, to assist an ally. If we aren't doing either, war is pretty pointless, with war weariness on Emperor, IMO.

[RefSteel]

Screwed up big time guys, I, every once in a while, go to each of our companions sub forums, and exit out. This stops the annoying bold letters. I offer the same offer I posted at the IT thread. If you want me to leave because it seems suspicious, I leave the game.
-Cull

1. Ack. I'd hate to lose you as a teammate, and I can tell (by your posts here and your e-mails) that you haven't actually read any spoiler info, but visiting others' threads, no matter how innocently, is definitely a very bad habit to be in (it's a bad idea to put yourself in a position to even do it accidentally, even once!) I'll play this turn myself while the matter is being resolved, in any case.

2. If you do stick around: As Ruff pointed out, there are a couple ways to accomplish what you want to without clicking on anyone's threads. One way is to subscribe to the thread, as Ruff described above, but the other is to just keep our thread and the IT one (and later the Public Players thread, when/if we get full contact) bookmarked. I sent an e-mail around to our team a couple weeks ago called "Bookmarks in lieu of a subforum" with links to all three of these places, plus the initial planning thread, for just this purpose, but it might have been lost in the shuffle. Either way, you never visit the RBP3 subforum itself at all. Yet another alternative was pointed out by Krill though: You can enter the subforum and only visit our threads, and when the bold text elsewhere gets on your nerves, just go to "Forum Tools" near the upper right corner of the list of threads, click on the little arrow next to it, and then choose "Mark This Forum Read."

3. I realize I never replied to your question upthread about taking over for DSP in RBP2, and it's kind of related. I was going to say that it sounded from one of your e-mails like you'd read at least some part of the non-public RBP2 forum threads, so you might be too spoilered for that game. I haven't read any of those threads myself in a few weeks, and after a few more months, the game is likely to have changed enough that if I don't read them in between, I might be eligible as a sub/replacement, but even there I'm not sure unless they can't find anyone else. Spoilers are a pretty big deal, and should be strenuously avoided.

4. I'll repost items 1 & 2 in the IT thread, to let folks know where we're at.

[Cull]

Thanks, I have stopped, and will be unable to play the game until the matter is resolved.

[RefSteel]

Turn 10 played and finished. Moved NE, revealing that the fogged plains forest that might have had a bear on it did not have a bear on it, nor a resource. There still might be a panther in one of two fogged spaces from which it could theoretically move onto just the right tile to see us and still attack, with non-zero odds (better than 50% in our favor, but I think worse than 75%) but that seems unlikely at worst. No picture since nothing important has changed, except: Let's play a new version of "What's Wrong With This Picture?" - a version where I don't know the answer myself!



So, I've circled the Soldier Points line. We have 4,000. Rival Worst is 4,000. We're ranked 15th of 17 players. Um? I thought this screen always put you at the bottom of the list in a tie. Is that not true in all cases, or not true at all? Or what?

(This was the case last turn as well; the turn before, Rival Worst was 3,000, and we were ranked 14th...)

[Cull]

I think the game puts you last in single player, but I think its different in MP. Do any of our few lurkers know?
Also where do you think we should move next?

[RefSteel]

Next move is SE onto the jungle, assuming there's not an animal standing there (or contact with another player) when the turn rolls. I guess we could move E onto the forest instead, but the reasons to do so are mostly paranoid ones, and we appear to not be a paranoid team on the whole. I'm planning to run some tests on the way the demoscreen actually works for this purpose if I get the chance, by the way, just so we know. I also wonder if initial barb appearance is tied to something like a world population benchmark - in other words, if Emperor barbs show up so soon in SP mainly because of Emperor AI advantages. I'm kind of surprised we haven't seen so much as a wolf in our cultural borders' line of sight yet.

Also, Cull: If you're going to wait for more of a consensus before continuing to play, it would be best to refrain from posting any kind of advice (or even opinions about what course we should take - including E or SE) that could be affected by spoiler knowledge - even though you don't actually HAVE any spoiler knowledge - for the time being. I know that stinks, but in the end it doesn't matter who's hitting Numpad-3 in-game; if you had actually read other people's threads, you'd have to revert to Lurking Everywhere status, and be as careful as Sullla or T-Hawk about what you post here. So if you're going to wait for more players to weigh in before playing on with us (or becoming a lurker) then it's best to behave in our thread as though you WERE spoilered in the meantime.

That said ... the truth is, you DIDN'T see anything, and precedent (e.g. something from the IT thread in RBP1) seems to indicate that people understand that kind of mistake, so unless Maniac thinks I'm crazy or someone posts a furious rant in the IT thread or something, I think it's really your call. It does seem like a good idea to wait at least a little while for others to get a chance to weigh in though.

[RefSteel]

And, for lurkers in general: Probably you already know all this. Still: We voted against a "Lurker code of conduct" basically because it didn't seem right for a group of non-lurkers to impose our own rules on those who want to enjoy the game. I (without consulting my teammates, but I'll bet they agree) more or less agree with what Ruff posted in his lurker/spoiler rules thread in the man Civ forum. The thing is, this is RBCiv. "NO SPOILERS!" is practically embedded in our genetic code. We don't drop hints about our Epic results before reporting day, and as lurkers, we don't make comments that could hint about what other teams are doing in MP games. The latter takes a little more care and effort when posting anything at all, but it can be done - and I don't see any problem with correcting pure errors (for instance, my "Option 4" had - I think still has as posted here - City2 growing to size 2 on turn 49, when it wouldn't have actually happened until turn 50) or providing information about pure game mechanics or the like. That data is available and not spoiler-based, and teaching each other is part of the fun of this community. I recognize that there's a line between "No, whips provide 30 hammers, not 50," and "Here's a better plan that gets you to seven cities with a healthy economy and ready to prosecute a war by turn 15." I also trust the folks lurking here to recognize that line and stay away.

[RefSteel]

Test results are in:

- It's not the AI bonuses. Barb animals seen to turn up ~T6 on Emperor difficulty. We just had good/bad luck not to see any yet.

- Equivalent* numbers on the demoscreen appear to be ranked in an arbitrary order - possibly even re-ranked every turn in Pitboss as the "turn order" changes; I'd have to try and test that further, and don't really have the time or inclination. (I suspect it's arbitrary but consistent, but suspicion isn't certainty.)

Also: No one wants to have to consult about where they can settle cities, but no one wants cities settled aggressively toward them. You can't say "No agg cities" in a NAP agreement because one side will settle aggressively and say, "THAT'S not aggressive," or one side will settle conservatively, and the other side will say, "AGGRESSIVE!!! NAP BREACH! WAAAAAAARRRRRRRR!!!" - particularly if they were planning on war from the start and just wanted an excuse (and the NAP to lower their neighbors' guard). Unclear language will either allow others to take advantage of you, cause others to suspect you're taking advantage of them, or both. So here's what I mean by settling location consultation - and unit gifting and all that other assorted stuff:

1. "e.g." stands for exempli gratia, and means basically "for example." (Okay, you probably knew that already, but I like being pedantic sometimes.) Each of the items I listed is a possible thing to look for in a NAP. There will be times when just anything will do, and we can ignore the examples. There may be times when we make actual demands (none of the examples are meant to be demands). There also might be stuff I didn't think of that we or our negotiating partners will want to include. There may be situational stuff ("We also agree to this future tech exchange") that needs to be worked in as well. The items I included are just ideas.

2. It's mutual. We're not saying, "If you want a NAP, you must not settle anything (nor go down to the end of the town) without consulting me!" We're saying, "As part of our NAP, let's let each other know where we're planning to settle, and each warn the other if we find those plans so unacceptable that we'd be willing to cancel the NAP over them. In short, let's agree to hash out our settling disagreements BEFORE the cities are planted instead of afterward."

3. It doesn't have to be so broad or open-ended. The consultation can happen when the NAP is made, and can be very simple: "We each agree not to found a city whose BFC would come within 3 tiles of the other party's capital BFC." (Note: This is another e.g.)

4. Most importantly, as Maniac said, we should adapt to the situation. This may be redundant with point 1 above, but it bears repeating. What I prefer in general is not the same as what is best for our civ at any moment.

And on war: If someone attacks you (or plants a city so aggressively as to constitute a de-facto attack) you most likely have to fight even with nothing to gain, and you have to hope an ally will be assisting you. Otherwise though, I agree. I should actually make that much clearer, so thanks for pointing it out:

My silly Psilon-esque "title" in the forums isn't ENTIRELY a joke. I'll happily slaughter AIs in strategy games, but when it comes to other humans - even just human-controlled civs - I have fairly pronounced pacifistic tendencies. As I mentioned above, I won't necessarily attack even if I know I can win and have something to gain. I certainly won't attack with nothing to gain, least of all against a civ that isn't hurting - and doesn't appear likely to hurt - mine. And being better at Civ than I am (and/or building a stronger empire than I do) does not constitute hurting my civ, unless it's being built on the ruins of my cities or in land aggressively stolen from me while the aggressor's proper core lies empty (or the like). That said though, these are MY tendencies, singular. I'm part of a team (and in theory just an advisor/sub, though I seem to have tripped over something and fallen into some kind of leading role for the first week or so of the game - I do expect that to change) and what the team does is by no means just up to me.

*- There's no point to this footnote. I'm just observing that I periodically go through phases of forgetting how to spell equivalent. Then I remember electrons, and I'm fine again until I forget.