[NO PLAYERS] The Kibitzer Klub: PB13 Map & Lurkers

[novice]

I think the main strike against AW is it makes turn splits harder to manage in a pitboss. I love it in PBEMs.

I like the dynamics of Sometimes War.

[Krill]

OB is integral to the tech rate from about T70 to T120. It's just this huge chunk of free commerce that doesn't exist in AW, even worse on maps like PB13. Map trades? They feed into that situation (which has been discussed a dozen times in this forum WRT the map trading at Writing change) and are one of hte many reasons that AW needs to be renamed Always Peace.

And oh god the turn splits as Seven said. Have we ever played AW in a PB? I think it was used in PB7?

[Krill]

I think the main strike against AW is it makes turn splits harder to manage in a pitboss. I love it in PBEMs.

I like the dynamics of Sometimes War.

That's a QotM. Or would be if William wasn't on a roll right now.

[spacetyrantxenu]

I think the main strike against AW is it makes turn splits harder to manage in a pitboss. I love it in PBEMs.

I like the dynamics of Sometimes War.

That's a QotM. Or would be if William wasn't on a roll right now.

Have to stop his momentum somehow or no one else will ever get to see their name in lights again.

[spacetyrantxenu]

And oh god the turn splits as Seven said. Have we ever played AW in a PB? I think it was used in PB7?

And now that I reflect on it, have we used AW in a pitboss game? PB7 didn't happen so that's out. What about PB6, the epic CV teamer game, was that one AW among the four teams? That's all I can come up with.

[Krill]

That was sequential so that doesn't count either.

[Ceiliazul]

an always war pitboss *must* be sequential to avoid swapping turn splits around as people meet. It might seem like the turn order would auto-sort toward sequential as people meet, but that doesnt work:

example:
A meets B, A takes first half
C meets D, C takes first half
B meets C, B takes first half
A meets D, and either has to split his turn in 2 chunks or flop the turn order of others.

So you're better off starting sequential in the first place. regardless of starting sequential or just arriving there by brute force of tech thread spam, this game gets would approach glacier speed as the number of players grows.

34 player AW anyone?

[Cheater Hater]

I was reading William's thread (which I should have been doing for a while now, based on the quality I saw), and this statement intrigued me:

Some people hate coded messages and timers in AI diplo, but up to me it's just fun, and we keep it until someone uses it to break the game. (I suspect one way this could happen is if enough people actually adopted a convention that duplicate food for duplicate food means "NAP", and started treating it with the same sanctity that they do in full diplo games.)

It actually reminded me about betting in bridge for some reason (even though I don't really play), and specifically bridge conventions, where different bids can have different meanings outside the actual contracts (and since there's relatively few possible bids, there are many possible conventions). In actual competitive play, they somehow manage to regulate the conventions, and if you're using them, it has to be revealed to all the other players. Does anyone know about Bridge, and how they actually can regulate this?

If we're getting to the point where "fish for fish" becomes friendship or NAP, for example, would we have to try to implement similar measures? Granted, there's a lot of differences between Bridge betting and Civ4 diplo (the multitude of options, as well as all diplo being private), but it's an interesting way to look at things.

[Dhalphir]

fish for fish as friendship is fine with me - it puts no specific limitation on how long the friendship will last. All it really means is "hey, I'm not planning to attack you right this second"

but it doesn't mean you can leave cities undefended or workers unprotected because that can change fast for all you know

[Bobchillingworth]

The best way to get people to stop trusting in symbology crypto diplo is to break it. Propose a 20 gold for 20 gold trade and then attack them 14 turns later. Use resources to signal a dogpile and then join your erstwhile foe in murdering your neighbors. Leave the unspoken conventions of "AI Diplomacy" a tattered, muddy shambles. Nobody can legitimately complain, because you never promised anyone anything. Those Iron-for-Iron trades could have meant anything! Implausible deniability or not, without written agreements nobody should have to fear for their "rep" (to the extent that anyone has ever cared about those anyway).