Epic Six - Sullla's Game

[Qwack]

But I think your main issue is with Prophets lightbulbing CS anyway, right?

And this goes back to the previous discussions about this issue where a couple of very good suggestions to fix this were posted. Moving slavery to masonry, or making masonry a GP tech are both good fixes, and it seems like something should be done about it if so many people have a problem with it.

Anyways, back to topic. Great game sulla, like always.

[Sirian]

It is clearly design intent that you can get Representation over two thousand years early, and the option to do so adds variety to the game; I imagine very few people would support banning Pyramids/Representation. I don't see how a few hundred years off Bureaucracy is overpowered.

"Years" are irrelevant. Let's speak in real terms.

There are only three ways to reach Civil Service. One is with a total research beeline, which comes with opportunity costs. Two is to get around to it in time, which is the core option. Three is to get there on the cheap, using a slingshot from one or another "free tech" mechanism, at an early phase in which the math of the extra Commerce and Production of Bureaucracy snowball out of control -- the same kind of snowball that was prevented by not having a Philosophical/Industrious trait combination in the game.

The direct oracle-CS slingshot is a huge resource investment, and if it misses you're stuck sitting on CoL which is a dead tech until you get more cities up.

You almost surely popped the religion with this beeline. That's hardly a dead tech. Any builder tech relies on having more cities to take full advantage. If you miss on the Oracle, you get your cash back and can then follow up with the "runner up" strat of using the first Prophet to lightbulb.

I think your main issue is with Prophets lightbulbing CS anyway, right?

Wrong.

You and sooooo have cited Pyramids/GreatLibrary as worse than early Bureaucracy, but I don't see it. Not even close! The Pyramids will add six Commerce to your Great Library output. Bureaucracy adds four Commerce to your Palace, and that's not counting shields or commerce from tiles. Throw in an Academy (if you can) and you're up to 2.25x commerce in the capital. Adding an Academy to the GreatLibrary/Pyramids will get you another 6 Commerce per turn, but you get that JUST from the Palace Commerce alone under Bureaucracy. Now factor in a size 8 to 12 city and it's no contest.

Making the thing a gambit is a false argument. So it's a dice roll? Grand! Roll the dice and blow away any builder who pursues a more conservative strategy, if you get lucky, or die by the wayside if you do not. With ten, fifteen players all rolling the dice, somebody's going to get lucky. This compels everybody interested in winning a tournament game to chase the gambit, since you are guaranteed to fall behind the lucky gamblers in a tournament setting if you play such a situation conservatively.

The risks attached to such a move are ENTIRELY devoid of meaning in a tournament setting, if the rewards for that lucky dice roll catapult you ahead of the competition. Set aside the idea that early conquest is an equal or greater factor, because that option depends on the map and is unavailable in many cases, while research and wonder options are always available. We'll deal with military imbalances separately.

No gambit should be so valuable as to force competitors to chase it if they want any shot at winning an event. I see this as no different than letting a 3200BC Warrior Rush rule an event. Who was it who took Delhi with a lucky strike in 3280BC? Kodii? If that move WINS YOU THE EVENT, everybody will try it, even though the odds are long. Results then boil down to who gets the luck from the PRNG, and that is not enough substance on which to build a tournament.


If the Bureaucracy effect were available earlier, then a variety of approaches could incorporate it in to their strategic pathways. It was pushed back to where it sits now to take it out of early circulation, but no. The Oracle and a beeline can get there on the cheap, and the rewards are almost without end. It's the perfect storm to mess up a tournament environment, since there is one narrow path to get there, and we see players by the bunches all gathering to chase the rainbow in every event where the Leprechaun is perceived to be catchable.

The Oracle half of the problem is the WORST of it, rather than being the part we can afford to ignore.


As for what the Pyramids were intended to do, I'm not at liberty to argue my side of that one. I actually know what the intentions were, however, since it was my idea! However, while not allowed to talk about that, I am allowed to draw upon my knowledge, history and insights in shaping the tournament rules. Whatever rules we end up with will apply to all equally. Whether that will be acceptable to you or not is up to you.

I don't mind being challenged on issues like this. If I don't have an answer to a challenge, that would be an indication of need to gather more data. However, the well of reserves available for expenditure on stuff like this is not unlimited, so please exercise restraint in your dissent. Thank you.


- Sirian

[mostly_harmless]

For me the RB events are about having as much fun as possible. That is of course also true for reading reports. If I see a certain player using the same tactic over and over again, always guaranteeing him the same victory, I don't think "booh exploit, exploit!" but rather loose interest in studying his next report describing the same tactic again. Since here at RB we are more interested in good reports and new variants and not so much into getting the highest maximum score, employing certain tactics over and over again will be "punished" by people loosing interest in reading the report.
Players which used a similar approach to Sullla for this game should compare how they fared in the later game, whereas players which did not use the "early harrassment" tactic but used for example the CS slingshot, should note the difference, compare what the impact that had on the later game and maybe compare more detailed to players doing the CS slingshot.

I would try to keep the official exploit list as short as possible. I believe tactics considered "exploitative" will never be used widely in a community such as RB, simply because they would take the fun out of it. Report readers will just move on to read and comment about more innovative tactics.


Just my opinion.

[Sirian]

For me the RB events are about having as much fun as possible. That is of course also true for reading reports. If I see a certain player using the same tactic over and over again, always guaranteeing him the same victory, I don't think "booh exploit, exploit!" but rather loose interest in studying his next report describing the same tactic again. Since here at RB we are more interested in good reports and new variants and not so much into getting the highest maximum score, employing certain tactics over and over again will be "punished" by people loosing interest in reading the report.
Players which used a similar approach to Sullla for this game should compare how they fared in the later game, whereas players which did not use the "early harrassment" tactic but used for example the CS slingshot, should note the difference, compare what the impact that had on the later game and maybe compare more detailed to players doing the CS slingshot.

I would try to keep the official exploit list as short as possible. I believe tactics considered "exploitative" will never be used widely in a community such as RB, simply because they would take the fun out of it. Report readers will just move on to read and comment about more innovative tactics.

I appreciate your sentiment. This view is almost the opposite of those who want the rules spelled out clearly and to be free to do anything not ruled out. Obvioiusly, I've been leaning your way in behavior if nothing else, since the Exploits List is currently as short as possible! Still, the "leave all the rules unwritten and let readers sort it out" approach has its drawbacks, too. We have players who are uncomfortable with trying to sort out unwritten rules and want things simplified.

Another thing that Griselda was lamenting, and I agree with her, is that discussion has become decentralized to various threads. That's where we led things, but here we are hashing over rules in Sulla's report thread. This is part of why Epic Eight has special reporting rules. We're trying something else for that one.

A third problem is that as participation rises, it becomes more difficult to make time to read all the reports, much less comment on each one or keep up with all the discussions going on. There are gameplay comments I want to make for several threads and reports but I don't even have my own report done yet, thanks to losing ten or twelve critical last-minute hours to computer troubles. If people get in the habit of reading certain players first/always, that leaves others competing over the margins. Half the fun of the tourney is playing the games, but the other half is sharing in the discussions, especially when you can relate better for having played the game yourself. I know it can be discouraging to some if they put themselves out there and don't seem to garner much attention because so much goes automatically to certain veterans. Sometimes I go out of my way to read newbie reports first, but I can't always do that.


Anyway, I know the limitations of rule sets, perhaps more than most. If I were 100% confident in a given rule, I'd simply add it. Every rule considered is a matter of trying to make things better, but there are always side effects. Even so, and even sometimes when they are strong medicine, it's better than letting an infection fester and spread.


- Sirian

[ThERat]

I agree with mostly harmless that RB games are about fun. While my report for epic6 wasn't that good, I hope epic7 is improved.

I knew about those 'exploitative' tactics, I knew spamming swords and axes would do the job, but I wanted to enjoy the game. Thus, I didn't bother about those tactics. That's why I like RB games so much more than the GOTM events where one is forced to be superfast to be able to boast about their success.

I enjoyed this game a lot and I think we should keep the exploit list empty. Let everyone play the way they feel is appropriate. I for one like to read reports which aren't rushes to domination etc.

[theGrimm]

I know it can be discouraging to some if they put themselves out there and don't seem to garner much attention because so much goes automatically to certain veterans. Sometimes I go out of my way to read newbie reports first, but I can't always do that.

- Sirian

Ah, at least it's acknowledged.

I've found that "I'm new and I lost this game in 3500BC because I didn't build a warrior" works better than "I'm new, and still managed to beat monarch with a competitive score".

I'm perfectly happy to play by whatever rules we decide on, though. I don't consider parking or Buearocracy rushes to be exploits worth banning, because I like to think that approach will only be interesting the first time for anyone at RB.

It seems RB often argues more about the semantics that the effect. Is parking an exploit? 10 say yes. 10 say no. But will anyone object to it being prohibited. Ha, they'll probably argue about the semantics of what qualifies as "parking" But once you've decided to ban it, they should be fine.

Sirian says that some objected violently to the rules in Civ 3. But I say, if someone REALLY can't live with what 99% of RB can live with, please leave quietly.

[Rowain]

The real problem I see is where to draw the line before there is only one way to play left because everything else is called an exploit?


Kylearan did get an early CS without using a prophet. So you have to explecitly forbid the use of the Oracle(or a prophet) for CS to avoid it. Kylearan's game is good example of the AI war-weakness. An allways-war-game and he can peacefully build Oracle,Pyramids and Great Lib ??? Early Pyramids in combination with Great Lib (the later is easy for the human to get as the AI does not like to research Alphabet) are tremedous powerfull too.

But sooooo's games(epic 5 & 6) prove that early war is far more powerfull than any oracle or pyramids slingshots. Epic 8 1000BC rule takes abit care of that but in reallity the AI can not handle an aggressive human at any age.

As a matter of fact the Human doesn't need cottages (Mutineers game at immortal shows that clearly) nor Unit-promotions(RB21 ) or civics (RB22) he only needs the allowance to fight.
Take war away and what do we have left?

Btw the definition (the AI can't handle it and it is the only right choice to do) makes the Sirian-Doctrine an exploit too .

[Atlas]

This is part of why Epic Eight has special reporting rules.

Have these rules been posted, or have I just commited some and not read them?

[pling]

Have these rules been posted, or have I just commited some and not read them?

They're at the bottom of the game info page ...

[Sirian]

Btw the definition (the AI can't handle it and it is the only right choice to do) makes the Sirian-Doctrine an exploit too .

The original intent of the Sirian Doctrine was to show the need for more robust naval AI. Well, it showed the need, so mission accomplished. (Technically speaking.) So why don't we -have- a more robust naval AI? For similar reasons to why we are still plagued with Pillage-n-Park, one might venture to guess.


The definition is a little more complex than you spelled out, though. Items that snuff an AI (or all the AIs) in its cradle snowballs throughout the game, compared to various modern age tactics that stump the AI, including use of stacks larger than twelve units, massive bombardment in any form especially bombers, and more. That would indeed be a slippery slope, if the narrow definition you offered were active.

Meanwhile, the CS Slingshot is not something the AI can't handle, yet is still unbalanced.

Sometimes taking away one option adds choice to the environment by enabling the next four or five options in line to be competitive.


- Sirian