[LURKERS] Sweet 16: Civ Party Fun Time and Philosophical Debate

[SevenSpirits]

I think almost any trait would be better for our starting position than aggressive, and about 5 would have been better than spiritual. Zulu was certainly a top tier civ. I can confidently laugh at the idea that aggressive was the best trait, that is a pretty funny suggestion.

You don't think free C1 was important for swaying any key die rolls in your early duel?

That is entirely the wrong question. Obviously I wouldn't try to eliminate someone ASAP with two impis if I were a different leader. I think you are vastly overestimating how useful doing so is, though. If you conquer someone later in the game, it costs more units but this is more than made up for by the fact that you get their own city growth curve added to your own. Look at Goreripper. He conquered Hashoosh with knights and was almost done securing the whole continent for himself as the game was ending. Gavagai did the same with bantams. Meanwhile, despite eliminating an opponent early, my own total economic output lagged behind the other leaders' for much of the game!

Suppose I'd played this game hiding my identity but playing fully to win, instead of the other way around. Then I'd have something like Huayna or Darius. Based on my past experiences, and my observations of how well people played in this game, I think I'd have the game in hand around the same time. The difference is that that would have been pretty certain, while the actual result relied a lot on luck. Even though I only started the impi rush after knowing that it was in very favorable circumstances, it still wasn't a sure thing to capture the city that quickly. If I ever took more damage on an impi, I'd have to either wait a few turns or take some serious risks. And even though this didn't happen there was probably a 50% chance one of the impis would have died there. Taking that risk and deciding to attack with impis there is only even justifiable because of the hole I'm in with AGG. If I'm not at such a huge disadvantage it's not even a good move. In fact, EVEN IF I GET TO KEEP AGG while gaining e.g. FIN I think it's a bad move to attack. I would much rather attack him later - something which is actually plausible in that case since I have a good trait to help reach that point (FIN).

It's not the free combat 1 that makes the attack good, it's the lack of any other advantage that does it.

If I'm putting odds on me winning in this game given the players, the map, and my neighbor's move away from copper, I'd put it around 30% with monty and 90% with an actual good leader.

[WilliamLP]

Suppose I'd played this game hiding my identity but playing fully to win, instead of the other way around. Then I'd have something like Huayna or Darius. Based on my past experiences, and my observations of how well people played in this game, I think I'd have the game in hand around the same time.

Say you were one of the other players playing against someone in your position. Would your larger fear be against a Zulu / Monte combo who got to expand completely unchecked, with more land available than anyone else, for 150 turns or against a Darius who got to co-exist with Retep on the same land and tech up?

Retep himself was a wildcard. I've heard rumors that he's not always a little lamb if he gets out of the cradle, unwilling to ever consider a negative-sum war. (I'm not talking about winning a duel but perhaps successfully dragging your game down.)

Meanwhile, despite eliminating an opponent early, my own total economic output lagged behind the other leaders' for much of the game!

Isn't that a little disingenuous, since you were investing entirely in future economic potential (through growth and land) rather than economy itself? Who cares if you were lagging in tech if you had no plausible threats. I think you could have slowed the horizontal expansion a bit and had your tech rate be much higher in the short term, without any requirement to build a military, correct? You also beat an extremely early Lib start to MoM and Taj so I think you're overstating your economic disadvantage.

If I'm putting odds on me winning in this game given the players, the map, and my neighbor's move away from copper, I'd put it around 30% with monty and 90% with an actual good leader.

It's interesting that you put your chances so low as 30%. I put them much, much higher. If I could fork your personality and had a time machine, I'd take 7:3 odds betting against you that you win the game any time!

But anyway, I'll take it on your word that you could have won more certainly with Darius.

[SevenSpirits]

Say you were one of the other players playing against someone in your position. Would your larger fear be against a Zulu / Monte combo who got to expand completely unchecked, with more land available than anyone else, for 150 turns or against a Darius who got to co-exist with Retep on the same land and tech up?

They are comparable. I think I'd fear Darius more but I'm not sure. But you may be forgetting that being Darius is a sure thing while "getting to expand completely unchecked" already has a significant amount of good luck factored in to it (at least a coinflip).

Isn't that a little disingenuous, since you were investing entirely in future economic potential (through growth and land) rather than economy itself? Who cares if you were lagging in tech if you had no plausible threats. I think you could have slowed the horizontal expansion a bit and had your tech rate be much higher in the short term, without any requirement to build a military, correct? You also beat an extremely early Lib start to MoM and Taj so I think you're overstating your economic disadvantage.

No. By economic output I am talking about food, hammers, and commerce all (and why not, gpp too) - not just commerce. For much of the game I was lagging overall in these behind 1-4 players.

[WilliamLP]

They are comparable. I think I'd fear Darius more but I'm not sure. But you may be forgetting that being Darius is a sure thing while "getting to expand completely unchecked" already has a significant amount of good luck factored in to it (at least a coinflip).

Does it really? I feel like even if you got somewhere in the lower quartile of how your rolls were expected to go with AGG, Retep's best case was being crippled getting to archery and then you'd choke away at him and he'd likely never be able to settle a second city until you eventually could eliminate him easily and cost effectively. I could easily be wrong, you studied the position a lot more than I did, obviously.

No. By economic output I am talking about food, hammers, and commerce all (and why not, gpp too) - not just commerce. For much of the game I was lagging overall in these behind 1-4 players.

That's a pretty superficial view of it, isn't it? Just taking the numbers on F9 ignores the unrealized potential of having a lot of cities with wide open land to grow into very soon.

If you had to play against a person equally skilled as yourself from "Mikehendi"'s position, from the moment Retep was eliminated, wouldn't your position as Zulu be far favored to win?

I'm not just being obtuse, I know you know a lot about this game I don't.

But I don't know man, if this is "lagging" I'd take it anytime:




The spike after 250BC isn't because you magically started playing better, it was written into the position long before.

[SevenSpirits]

Does it really? I feel like even if you got somewhere in the lower quartile of how your rolls were expected to go with AGG, Retep's best case was being crippled getting to archery and then you'd choke away at him and he'd likely never be able to settle a second city until you eventually could eliminate him easily and cost effectively. I could easily be wrong, you studied the position a lot more than I did, obviously.

I don't think this requires any kind of complex analysis. The simple fact is that if I lose just one impi, even if he doesn't get to archery in time, that is approximately a 5t delay overall on the entire empire. The capital has to spend 4t on an impi and the second city is delayed maybe 7t. 5t delay on the entire empire is a lot - it's like half the value of the FIN trait by my estimate. And that is on the very generous side as far as setbacks go. If he survives to archery I have to let him hold the city for a very long time: given what I put into it, that would be about as bad as losing the first 1.5 settlers to barbarians, and then later on having to tech construction and sacrifice about 3 cities' worth of production just to deal with retep. Not to mention the need to run higher military all the way up through that point. I think that would be absolutely catastrophic.

That's a pretty superficial view of it, isn't it? Just taking the numbers on F9 ignores the unrealized potential of having a lot of cities with wide open land to grow into very soon.

If you're evaluating a position solely by its economic output, I guess you'll be a bit off. I wasn't doing that though - I was merely pointing out that choosing AGG and eliminating retep worsened my economic output. It gave more land potential but lower output for a large part of the game.

If you had to play against a person equally skilled as yourself from "Mikehendi"'s position, from the moment Retep was eliminated, wouldn't your position as Zulu be far favored to win?

No, I think the Mikehendi position was better.

I'm not just being obtuse, I know you know a lot about this game I don't.

I understand, and it's harder to judge things without the hands-on experience of playing in a particular game for a bunch of turns.

But I don't know man, if this is "lagging" I'd take it anytime:




The spike after 250BC isn't because you magically started playing better, it was written into the position long before.

You're looking at just the crop yield graph where I was near the top (but still second place for 3/4 of the game, as is visible in the graph) and ignoring GNP where I was far behind the leaders during that timeframe. Overall, it's not terrible, but yes, I was lagging behind. My economic output was worse than that of the other contenders. Certainly, it was clearly worse than Mikehendi's.

[darrelljs]

The Mikehendi position might have been better, but it was also more at the mercy of forces beyond his control.

Darrell

[Commodore]

Seven, are you talking about this?

I didn't mean to piss you off or take away from your win, it was very well executed and I'm sure that some would have struggled even with that - or not tried it in the first place. My comment was more directed at reteps (in my opinion) suboptimal play.

OK, I see where you're coming from. Thanks for clarifying.

It's just really frustrating that pretty much every game I play, people in the lurker thread are saying I've already won when it started, and that I got lucky in manner or other. I can already predict I'll get it this game too, despite picking AGG in a large game. What's the point of reporting on actual decisions you make in the game if people think they don't matter and treat the conclusion as forgone?

Deciding to switch off the ideal plan onto BW (and even waste a few worker turns) when we met a nearby neighbor who was teching BW and therefore a dangerous threat with axes was an important decision. Deciding to scout out his whole capital BFC except for a known forest was an important decision. Deciding to whip off of two resource tiles to get the quickest possible impi with an ikhanda thrown in was an important decision. Deducing retep's likely/possible build and tech timings was critical to making this decision. Heck, it even turns out moving onto the correct forest to chop, based on possible copper locations, was important.

But the only thing that gets mentioned here is that retep made a mistake. I mean, I figured out pretty much his exact micro and it seemed perfectly fine to me from settling onward so I assume you're talking about the t0 move and maybe the civ/leader choice. Give the guy a break! You can't play civ without making some suboptimal moves - that is just how things are. Why not give retep some props for continuing to produce a warrior every single turn from the moment he knew he couldn't settle copper in time? Sure it was a simple situation, but most people would find a way to screw it up based on what I've seen.

FYI, I don't think your decisions were easy and I've actually told some people not to believe you weren't taking this seriously. Retep did make a mistake and you did capitalize. That you were a good enough player to capitalize is part of the reason people say its a foregone conclusion. The very argument you write here proves just how much you were considering the decisions and the skill level involved in making those decision and that is why people will say its a foregone conclusion. Count me among those who believe that. And trust me it's because I know you are ruthlessly relentless even while you think you are not.

Anyway, just know that I recognize the skill in the decision (I'm not sure I would have done the same).

Clearly not luck; but rather ruthless capitalization of what advantages you do have. Likewise, I doubt anyone here but you thinks that if you took Darius of China the conclusion would be any more forgone. Basically, 100% Lewwyn's comment.

[NobleHelium]

The Mikehendi position might have been better, but it was also more at the mercy of forces beyond his control.

Darrell

Every position is affected by forces beyond your control. It's what you do to mitigate those outside forces that counts. Although I do agree that yes, the larger continent players had more outside factors, which is why the map could not possibly be fair.

I think this is an appropriate thing to insert here.

SevenSpirits
question - were you planning to settle the fish east of your island city's wheat?
NobleHelium
we had given that up to you
SevenSpirits
I thought you weren't so I was going to put a city with it second ring
NobleHelium
when you expressed anger over watergate
SevenSpirits
in the next ~10 turns
ah
NobleHelium
even though we wanted to plant bargain 1S of the wheat
that's why it's called a corrupt bargain
SevenSpirits
I see
NobleHelium
but that was facing your city across the channel
and we weren't confident of how you would react to that
we would have claimed the crab south of the island eventually
there was too much land to settle after we spent forever not settling anything, so we weren't that concerned over a food resource here and there
SevenSpirits
right
well, I think we ended up with a good compromise dotmap
I'm alarmed that I sounded threatening though... oops
(maybe oops in a good way)
NobleHelium
yeah i think it worked out nicely for you
oh i should inform you that your reputation is that you are a ruthlessly efficient conqueror
perhaps you should smurf the next game to avoid that!
SevenSpirits
lol

[darrelljs]

Right...I did say more at the mercy...you of all people surely noticed that detail .

Darrell