[SPOILERS] Margarita and the Lurkers

[Catwalk]

I agree we should keep playing and I like our chances too, but the rest just don't want to. It sucks for us, but I think you made a strong showing here. How do you like my suggestion in the tech thread?

[B4ndit]

Ok, It seems that's over. If it would be possible to change difficulty level for the AI then it would be interesting singleplayer game. Otherwise it's not worth it

Catwalk: thank you for your help and guidelines, especially thanks for talking me into focusing on peaceful expansion south and talking me out of trying to dogpile Bisons with DMOC. That were the right choices and they allowed for thinking about winning this game.

[suttree]

Hi B4ndit,

Thanks very much for playing. I enjoyed doing diplomacy with you - we also encouraged you to play for the win! Please remember that removing Maga/Asterix from the game meant a drastic shift in the diplomatic situation on our Western border - it would have been inconceivable for Maga to form an alliance as you did. But we were willing to adapt!

After reading a bit, I do want to express a great deal of disappointment that you would sign this treaty:

Bisons will produce X science per turn, while losing Y gold per turn.
I will produce X * 0.3 espionage points, while sending to Bisons Y gold per turn.
My remaining gold we split evenly.

Especially after our discussions about espionage mechanics. It was never in your interest to pay anyone to steal tech (including us) and you were essentially vassaling yourself to Bisons. My initial e-mails on the subject were in fact intended as a warning: despite our NAP, I would not have tolerated "aggressive" (ie NAP breaking) espionage and proposing an unlikely espionage agreement was a polite way of saying that. With DMOC on his western border, how could Bisons have prevented you from just stealing his tech?

It is certainly admirable to embrace open ended victory conditions - the ideal Civ4 player is one who is always willing to play his best (I need to learn this!) - but the expectation is that each player in an FFA plays for his own victory, not another's. I'm not sure I understand the difference between your arrangement with Bisons and two players who start the game as a team.

In any case, thank you very much for your commitment to the game!

[B4ndit]

Hi

Thanks. I have enjoyed this game and I was playing for win (at least I thought so). I was afraid in ending up as "junior party" in my alliance with Bisons because of him doing all the research, but there were couple of things that convinced me:

- I had plenty of room to expand peacefully and with out his or mine military expansion my sheer size would guarantee my economical superiority (I just couldn't agree on Bisons doing all the conquest which he proposed that indeed would mean giving up any victory chances)
- At the same time, his economy was in much much better shape then mine. When I took over all my cities looked week compared to Bisons and despite my technological advantage at that point, Bisons was catching up. With Bisons doing most of the job in research I could expand south without risk of falling back technologically.
- I on my own wouldn't be able to research latest techs at such pace as Bisosns did. In short term it was the best option for me. I have posted my situation/calculations somewhere before, when agreeing for espionage cooperation Bisons, from this agreement I was able to steel something like two times more science then I was able to produce on my own.
- Before this agreement, after Asterix has stolen his first technology, Bisons was following my technological path - thus stealing techs wasn't possible.
- I was heavily thinking about making an alliance with DMOC against Bisons, but IMO Bisons option was much better to me. Especially when you look how DT has ended up with such an alliance. And as a Pole I don't like long distance alliances when your enemy is between two allied parties (France and Poland alliance vs Germany II world war).

To sum up, I think my charts prove that this alliance was a good thing to me. I have secured my western and eastern border against strongest players, would allowed me to focus on conquering south in some future (t175? t180?), vastly boosted my research (inherited my weakest point, which I wasn't able to solve while still increasing maintenance costs)... I just can not see it as a wrong move for me.

[Catwalk]

We were both quite confused about the espionage deal Please be assured that we had absolutely no intentions of becoming Bison's vassal, merely to reach an agreement for our mutual benefit. I will admit that I could not tell for certain whether that deal was biased or not, I have no prior experience with espionage economies. There was also the long-term problem of how to get out of such an arrangement later. However, our intention was definitely to play for our own victory and to not help Bisons win.

I was under the impression we were stronger economically than Bisons at the end of the game, and we still had a lot of room for expansion. So I agree with your notions about how the game should be played, always for your own victory. Moreover, getting a lot of peace with both strong neighbours was critical to our economic recovery and poising us for southern expansion. Maybe we misread the situation, but those are my thoughts.

[suttree]

Thought Problem
If a long term tech/espionage agreement is likely to have equal value for both sides, why wouldn't it always be the default strategy in a FFA diplo game? After meeting your first neighbour, you flip a coin - heads is the feeder, tails is the techer - blast ahead in tech, anyone who doesn't follow suit loses! All FFA games, then, ought to evolve in to a 2-player teamer, where the final two players duke it out on a level playing field for the win. Heck, you could incorporate a third player (the fighter) and all FFA games, then, are in fact 3-player team games.

[Krill]

Go read PBEM13.

[B4ndit]

Thought Problem
If a long term tech/espionage agreement is likely to have equal value for both sides, why wouldn't it always be the default strategy in a FFA diplo game? After meeting your first neighbour, you flip a coin - heads is the feeder, tails is the techer - blast ahead in tech, anyone who doesn't follow suit loses! All FFA games, then, ought to evolve in to a 2-player teamer, where the final two players duke it out on a level playing field for the win. Heck, you could incorporate a third player (the fighter) and all FFA games, then, are in fact 3-player team games.

You are basically true. That's why I have chosen to ally with Bisons, because it was mathematically better solution for both of us.

I guess that's exactly the reason for banning tech trading. Isn't it? Co-op espionage is just the more subtle and a little bit more limited way of tech trading. But the principle strategy stays the same: team up or fall behind in science.

[Catwalk]

Thought Problem
If a long term tech/espionage agreement is likely to have equal value for both sides, why wouldn't it always be the default strategy in a FFA diplo game? After meeting your first neighbour, you flip a coin - heads is the feeder, tails is the techer - blast ahead in tech, anyone who doesn't follow suit loses! All FFA games, then, ought to evolve in to a 2-player teamer, where the final two players duke it out on a level playing field for the win. Heck, you could incorporate a third player (the fighter) and all FFA games, then, are in fact 3-player team games.

This would be true, except only one can win. If such a team becomes dominant, scheming will soon start in order to position yourself better for the inevitable showdown.

I would love to play another limited diplo game along the lines of PBEM37. It wasn't a big hit then and it probably wouldn't be now, but I think it had a lot of potential. As I see it, the two problems with diplo games are a) they take up way too much time b) there's way too much lying involved, and c) they turn into NAP fests in no time (like this one did, same as my first PBEM on here). I think the system from PBEM37 can deal with all of those problems if fine tuned a little.

Revised system:

Talking is not allowed, the proposals listed below are allowed in addition to all AI diplo. They have to be made through a fairly standard e-mail format. Turn qualifiers may be added to proposals as needed (eg. you can buy a worker to be delivered in 4 turns).

1) NAP: You may enter into a NAP agreement for up to 10 turns, automatic renewal with up to 3t cooldown is possible
2) Border agreement: You may agree on a division of land through a dotmap, it is only binding as long as you have a NAP
3) Units, resources and cities can be included as part of deals
4) MAP: You may enter into a mutual aggression pact against another player for up to 10 turns, both players committing to not signing a NAP or peace treaty with that player
5) Close borders: You may jointly close borders with another player for up to 10 turns
6) War coordination: You may inform a player that you intend to attack another player on a given turn. This only has signal/coordination value and you may lie your ass off if you feel so inclined.

I'm tempted to add tech brokering as well, I don't think it would be as devastating if you can't coordinate it much.

[suttree]

You are basically true. That's why I have chosen to ally with Bisons, because it was mathematically better solution for both of us.

I suppose you would have to ask Bisons if he thought yours was an equal partnership You two could have a debate about which team would have won after, as a unit, you dogpiled OxySut.

Again, full co-operation was a strategy available to all teams from the beginning of the game. Catwalk points to the instability of such an arrangment. I was surprised by your thread not because you allied with Bisons, but because I didn't get a sense at all that you were playing with that instability in mind. That is, I'm suggesting that either one of you or Bisons is mistaken about the likelihood of winning after the arrangement ended.

Either your plan was to be an NAP-breaker and back-stab Bisons (woooo I would have liked to see his reaction to that) or you had tied yourself completely to Bisons for a long time (infinite NAP?!). I could break up a dogpile by self-interested allies of convenience, but I'm not sure there's anything to be done if two players function as unit over a long period of time.

In any multi-player game, it's always an option for two friends to sign up and play as a team. We all know that's no fun. If I'm mistaken and even with completely self-interested players, a full espionage/tech agreement/alliance is actually a very stable arrangement in Civ4 then this game with these settings should never have been played. Or rather it should have been played as a 5v5 team game to start.