RB Pitboss #2 - Postgame Discussion Thread

[sunrise089]

Cross-post.

Re: India's diplo, I'm sure Speaker and Sullla will see the criticism in the lurker thread. I'd say after everything is over some of the lurker flak was directed at you guys because we knew what emails weren't totally genuine, which isn't a criticism of the effectiveness of diplo in-game as the other players wouldn't be omniscient like we were.

Byzantium wanted to befriend India very much, particularly after Jowy made his intentions towards us clear. Would India's writing style upset us? Probably not, because we wanted to have a close relationship, and most emails would have been received after we had one. But I think what is true is that civs can, if not decipher emails perfectly, at least tell where they're coming from. Sullla reminds us about India's "peaceful intentions" and "desire to avoid a costly early war," and that's true. But it's also true that India desired a war at the time of their choosing, and didn't want to attack anyone other than a direct neighbor when the time was right. It isn't crazy to believe someone couldn't pick up the sense that you guys were at least very conditional diplomatic doves.

[T-hawk]

How do you play things when everyone else reads your friendship messages as secretly hiding intentions to attack?

Don't be named Sullla. Remember you did orchestrate a certain legendary backstab in another well-documented Pitboss game...

[Nakor]

Thanks for these nice reads, Sullla! I wonder what you will have to give us for advice (probably something about wars).

I only had time to read Dantski's thread (was wondering what I would find there) but it turned out that there were huge gaps in there (as I suspected). Maybe I'll have time for other teams tomorrow.

DMOC and me didn't invest any time in tracking build and do a lot of demo-analysis since we didn't have the time and interest in that. We wanted to play an interesting game, and I think we did!

[WilliamLP]

- Yes, we were genuine in offering friendship to your team.

From your thread after first contact:

Overall, I think we're pretty lucky in landing this neighbor. No starting warrior to pressure our vulnerable capital, Jowy/Yaz probably not some of the power players. Let's try to establish peaceful relations for the early game, then we'll see if we can turn on them later...

So the main idea of asking for an information exchange is twofold:

1) Accumulate trust. We'll be militarily weak in the early game and don't want to be attacked.
2) Information itself. Frankly, I think we can do a lot more with an exchange than they can!

This might sound horribly cynical, but I also think it's entirely possible that Jowy/Yaz won't be a strong team, and we could do some horrible backstab in the medieval/Renaissance period that no one seems coming and catapults us into a winning position. Obvious, a lot depends on how the world shapes up... It's a thought bouncing around in the back of my mind, though. No one would expect it.

This is really your idea of genuine friendship?

[Adlain]

those are alot of Ifs and Coulds your quoting there William. Afterall, to win the game one would need to turn on them eventually, else the game would be a draw.

[MWIN]

As Regoarr once said, if you like somebody everthing they do makes sense. On other than hand, if you don't like somebody everything they do is non-sense.

Same can be said about the lurkers for this game, half them liked Spullla and his writings and the remaining half didn't.

Same thing applies to how Sullla sees Athlete. Sofar based on his comments, everything Althete does and writes is a either a backstab or a lie....

those are alot of Ifs and Coulds your quoting there William. Afterall, to win the game one would need to turn on them eventually, else the game would be a draw.

[scooter]

Sullla - I think the main fault in your diplomatic style comes from true intentions. I think VoiceofUnreason's advice was sound... I think if you put more of an emphasis on genuinely trying to be helpful, rather than attempting to portray an image of trying to be helpful, that might go a long ways to help you out. For the most part I think that flaw was somewhat minor, but a flaw like that can be greatly accentuated when you are running away with the game.

I think you put a big emphasis on trying to get more out of diplomacy than you gave, and I think that general principle was the biggest shortcoming. I guess maybe it's differing styles to an extent, but I find that when you willingly give more than you are asking for, other players DO notice that, and they tend to reciprocate.

One example that comes to mind off the top of my head... There was some correspondence between yourself and Dantski about your team wanting to trade for his Great Prophet so you could grab a shrine. If I'm getting the details right, you wanted to trade him a Great Artist straight up for the Prophet. Dantski rejected the deal, as it was definitely a bad deal for him (Artists suck for the most part). He basically said "no, make a better offer." The hangup was you guys weren't willing to give him a favorable deal... You would only offer a deal if you felt it was 100% even on both sides at worst, and favoring you at best. Two problems with this:

1. You guys seemed to assume that the only option was you guys giving up two great people for his one. I might have understood wrong so this might be pointless, but it seemed like you guys were saying "well we can't give up two great people so no way!" Could have easily packaged, say two fast workers with the Great Artists. I think he would have accepted that.

2. So what if Dantski gets the better of the deal? Letting someone get the better end of the deal tends to go a LONG ways at building good will. I think Dantski even said something in his thread along the lines of "these guys won't make a deal unless they get more out of it" (maybe it was slaze, can't remember). Maybe an artist + two fast workers (just a random choice, could be anything) would be a better haul for Dantski than you getting a Great Prophet, but would it really be a big deal? It's not like Dantski was going to beat you or anything. Take a VERY tiny loss in the short-term to get some good will in the longterm.


Hopefully you don't take the above as a harsh criticism - it's meant to be constructive. It's also worth nothing that it's literally the ONLY part of your entire game that I feel I could have handled better , because you guys played every other part of your game extremely well. I learned a lot from your thread, particularly about worker/city management, so thanks!

[Sullla]

No, the comments are very useful and helpful. I personally thought our diplomacy was terrible in this game, and am trying to get better at it.

William, I don't think it reflects too badly on us to say, "we might go to war with this team later, if conditions are right" during the first ~10 turns of the game. Find me one team in this game that DIDN'T post something like that about their neighbors!

[Whosit]

I'll need some time to make a more comprehensive summary, but just some initial thoughts.

First, I think that every criticism I have seen lain against me (well, with maybe one or two exceptions) has been fair. I have definitely learned a lot by playing (and losing) this game; it's just a shame I can't retroactively use those lessons!

My biggest mistake was, as many have said, joining the CotW and letting Korea off the hook. I really underestimated them, and I want to compliment plako and Broker (where they can see it) on their comeback. I really agree that landing the Great Lighthouse was one of the best moves in the game. I made a lot of mistakes leading up to that war, and I think it was partly due to nerves. This was my first MP game, remember, and LiPing had left, so I had no one to calm down my paranoia and remind me that my actions were kinda crazy (lurkers knew this, but couldn't say anything, of course).

I think that another big, more ongoing mistake was being a bad diplomat and poor judge of character. I have a low wisdom score and no ranks in sense motive, so based on what lurkers have said, I had the wool over my eyes for much of the game. I haven't thoroughly perused each player's thread yet, so I'll have to take their word for it.

I also want to compliment slaze. I complimented him in-game, but under the circumstances, I'm sure he brushed it off. I really didn't expect him to stand up in the war (because his power graph was so low), but he showed me how strong the whip can be in a pinch. He tactically outmaneuvered me, as well, although I understand that athlete blundered quite a bit, which probably didn't help me, either. Honestly, I'm not sure what I was thinking starting that two-way war. Total insanity.

I also know I needed a better economy. That's really what the Korean war was supposed to accomplish: Getting better cottage land. Once I got a better look at the world map, it seemed like my section of the world had the fewest rivers. I'd like a neutral observer to confirm or deny that. Anyway, I botched the war, didn't finish the job, and lost most of the profit anyway by shipping all my soldiers off. Oops.

Anyway, I enjoyed the game while I was in it. It's just a shame that it seems like the mood soured so much at the end.

[scooter]

First, I think that every criticism I have seen lain against me (well, with maybe one or two exceptions) has been fair.

Exceptions? What, you don't think the meth'd up hippo comment that was made in your thread was fair????

Yeah, me neither.