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

[Serdoa]

Players should realize that he is eliminated (when it actually happens) and civstats will tell the story who did it. They should by then have enough information to judge themselves if it makes sense to play on.

But in general I agree with you Lewwyn, I probably wouldn't want to play that game out. The map-design is "balanced", so that others simply will have a big disadvantage at that point. On the other hand, I can't say for certain how much expansion it did cost them to take retep. In general I think the land-quality isn't that much worse than the capital-quality so that second capital has mostly the benefit of having another city. But I'm not sure if others can't have 3 cities by the time they get theirs. Depends also if retep does make any try to actually fight them. His attitude so far was rather disappointing imo - and I don't expect much when you are in a lost position, I know from own experience how hard it is to keep spirits up in that case.

[Bobchillingworth]

I think I've read only about a million posts on RB confidently stating that rushing is Always Bad and Aggressive is Worthless, so I'm sure the more economically-inclined teams will blow him away

[Oxyphenbutazone]

What did AGG do for Krill/7 here?

AGG is still generally suboptimal compared to other options. Having copper at your capital as Zulu while your neighbor is 10 tiles away and moved away from copper at their capital is very, very effective. As for rushing, it's generally defined as an attack composed of axes or chariots against another civ around turn 60(normal speed). If you can hit an opponent's capital with impis on turn 35 before they hook up copper, I think most people would agree that it is a good idea.

[Bobchillingworth]

AGG is giving them better odds for a kill, and a quicker barracks-thing (without one their Impi couldn't heal after attacking, or instead go for Shock / City Raider for almost-certain odds of a kill).


I disagree with any definition of rushing which reads like "attacking your opponent when the attack comes too late to be successful". Plus everyone having immediate access to copper isn't necessarily guaranteed.


But anyway, my point is that the collected wisdom of the RB echo-chamber is that all Seven / Krill have managed to do is free up land for retep's other neighbors and cripple themselves by investing in combat units instead or workers or settlers, so seeing arguments that the game is now "pretty much over" is amusing.

[Qgqqqqq]

But anyway, my point is that the collected wisdom of the RB echo-chamber is that all Seven / Krill have managed to do is free up land for retep's other neighbors and cripple themselves by investing in combat units instead or workers or settlers, so seeing arguments that the game is no "pretty much over" is amusing.

The trouble is these are very unique circumstances: in the early game at least retep has no other neighbors for the early game, and because of having a now empty island, they will now have very little need for garrisons and can expand uninhibited or opposed into his land. This is not a normal situation, and indeed if they were on a 4 player island it would have greatest benefit to the neighbors who hadn't taken part in a war.

[suttree]

But anyway, my point is that the collected wisdom of the RB echo-chamber is that all Seven / Krill have managed to do is free up land for retep's other neighbors and cripple themselves by investing in combat units instead or workers or settlers, so seeing arguments that the game is now "pretty much over" is amusing.

It would be more helpful if you shared why you think this game is evidence that the "echo chamber" is incorrect. In situations where players are isolated (there are no other teams to fight with Seven/Krill) AND by design or by player error the map is unven (only one player has BFC copper) AND the players are close enough (the power graph is less useful) AND one of the players is Zulu, the game state is such that an early rush might give a decisive advantage. And Agg is useful for rushing.

These conditions are rare and knowledge of these conditions is not available to players before the game has started. In some cases buying a Lotto ticket provides a large return, but a person winning the lottery is not evidence that buying a Lotto ticket is a good investment.

EDIT: As a relatively new player, I too get frustrated when others express opinions that seem to represent a "general wisdom" instead of an understanding or argument. It's preferable, however, to respond with an argument of your own.

[Bobchillingworth]

Is this an islands map? I have no idea what it looks like.


I thought my argument was fairly evident. The recent-ish consensus that discusses BTS in near-absolutes, where Aggressive is terrible and early war is zero-sum insanity is silly, as demonstrated by how two knowledgeable lurkers are already calling the game as a veritable lock for Seven / Krill, even though they are doing exactly what so many veterans have pontificated against (up to and including eliminating another player). If you're looking for some sort of comprehensive report on why Aggressive is statistically comparable to X-trait and analysis on the 70-turn dividends of hammers in Impi vis-a-vis Settlers, no.


You can argue that Aggressive & rushing only paid off because of a very specific set of circumstances. My counter is that it's disingenuous to argue that the factors which have seemingly aligned to make this attack a success are unique, while ignoring that the same holds for any combination of traits and strategies for any map. Financial blows if you're playing on a Boreal map. Industrious is bad if all of your neighbors have stone and marble. While several RB games have used carefully balanced maps, it's hardly a standard.


Maybe Seven and Krill really did doom themselves from turn 0 with their pick, and have sealed their fate attacking retep. I don't know. Like I said, I simply found the comments here amusing in light of recent discussions in certain other PB lurker and player threads.

[Qgqqqqq]

Is this an islands map? I have no idea what it looks like.

I only took a brief look, but IIRC there is one 4-player island surrounded by numerous 2-player islands, all very closely connected by coast (and with some other, smaller uninhabited islands as well).

As for your other points, of course there is variance based off settings, map and individual situations. That doesn't mean the general meta is not largely correct! If Sevenspirits had started with, say, expansive, they might well be ahead of their current situation, or even if they had to focus more resources to the same result, for the next 50 turns they'd be gaining from cheaper workers/granaries, with little fundamental difference in the initial rush and a much stronger game for the rest. I would argue that this is not even the best situation for AGG, as this early knockout blow (stopped in its track by archery) could easily become a choke or a grinding war where AGG would serve better and I wouldn't doubt that most economic traits would work out stronger in the end.

[suttree]

The recent-ish consensus that discusses BTS in near-absolutes, where Aggressive is terrible and early war is zero-sum insanity is silly

This conversation is interesting to me because it's fun for me to learn how a game works. I think we agree that it is bad when players over-generalize or apply a "rule of thumb" when it doesn't actually apply. And yet I believe that the Aggressive trait is terrible as an investment and early war is zero-sum against ideal opponents. I believe these things in the same way that I believe buying a rain umbrella in the desert is a bad deal or buying a lotto ticket to pay for my retirement isn't prudent. I'm not trying to be argumentative, but explaining why I disagree is a useful way for me to learn more about the game.

as demonstrated by how two knowledgeable lurkers are already calling the game as a veritable lock for Seven / Krill, even though they are doing exactly what so many veterans have pontificated against (up to and including eliminating another player).

I can't speak for the knowledgeable lurkers, but your conclusion doesn't seem to follow. Given the game state and the players' past choices, an early rush may result in a victory for Seven/Krill. It might rain in the desert or I might win the lottery. I know you consider this sort of argument to be disingenuous - I'll get to that - but if we're trying to establish that Agg is a good investment or that early war is likely to be profitable, a special case tells us nothing. Ichabod's argument seems to me to be convincing: "if they were on a 4 player island it would have greatest benefit to the neighbors who hadn't taken part in a war."

If you're looking for some sort of comprehensive report on why Aggressive is statistically comparable to X-trait and analysis on the 70-turn dividends of hammers in Impi vis-a-vis Settlers, no.

You're right - t's just a game - so this would probably be more work than it's worth. But it seems as if some players have done this work (it can be fun!) and use it to explain why Aggressive is a very poor investment. We could even wave our hands and say that Seven/Krill are paying 100h for a barracks and two impi that they could otherwise use on a settler. In the best case, after some fighting, they get one city. So it's not clear that Agg is actually adding any value outside of the special case where Seven/Krill and Retep are isolated.

Seven/Krill are playing the game as it's given to them. If I have only a dollar to my name, and nothing else to spend it on, my best strategy might be to buy a lottery ticket. And, as in most games, if an opponent makes a mistake (Retep moving blindly and so left without capital copper) the best strategy might be to capitalize on the opponent's error.

My counter is that it's disingenuous to argue that the factors which have seemingly aligned to make this attack a success are unique, while ignoring that the same holds for any combination of traits and strategies for any map. Financial blows if you're playing on a Boreal map. Industrious is bad if all of your neighbors have stone and marble. While several RB games have used carefully balanced maps, it's hardly a standard.

It is true that any strategy can be successful under the right circumstances. If it rains in the desert my umbrella purchase might turn out to be exceptionally insightful. It is not disingenuous, however, to point out that "the right circumstances" are unique or rare. Financial blows on a boreal map - but we don't play on Boreal maps. Industrious is worse if all of your neighbours have stone and marble - but even in that case it is still likely to be better than Agg.

If your argument is that people who assign a low value to Agg are incorrectly modeling the range of maps players use at RB, then suggest a different model. I think the model implied by Ichabod's comment is pretty good, though.

If you've identified a class of maps where Agg is a valuable trait, then one solution to the problem of Agg might be to play more games from that class of maps. Games where pairs are isolated and start relatively close, perhaps. As it stands, though, these sorts of maps are rare.

Like I said, I simply found the comments here amusing in light of recent discussions in certain other PB lurker and player threads.

I don't like the idea of players pooh-poohing Agg or early rushes just because everyone else agrees that it's bad. But it's perfectly consistent to predict that Krill/Seven have a good chance to win this game and at the same time maintain that Agg is a poor investment and early rushing is likely to be zero-sum. Aggressive really is terrible, and an early-rush is likely to lose you the game against competent opponents.

[suttree]

I'll add, however, that the fun of games is as much playing against a handicap as it is playing "optimally".
Crazy naval invasions in PB8 and Krill/Seven's choice of Zulu with first pick in this game might be examples of that.
If your point is that players should sometime focus on creative play in addition to optimal play, then we probably agree.