RB Pitboss #2 [SPOILERS] - Peter of Byzantium

[regoarrarr]

@Mwin

Yeah - I'm subscribed to this thread and when it sends out an email that someone replied it pastes the text into the email. But you're right, no real spoiler info in it. But it is for situations like these (though I know it was just an honest mistake) that have led me to keep some ultra-sensitive info out of my spoiler thread(s) just to be sure.

I really don't think I'm a rule bender. I have some opinions on that but they are probably best served in the PB1 thread as there are people that are in PB1 that could read this thread.

I do think that I'm at a disadvantage in some ways for having a PB1 thread that (most of) my PB2 opponents can read. Even though I'm only 1 of 3 players in this game (and the less skilled of the 3 IMO), because I'm doing the diplomacy I'm kind of the "face" of Byzantium. Maybe I should have had someone else do them or even just sent them out anonymously from a separate email account. I do think there is somewhat of an advantage in having a popular thread, in that your name gets recognized, and so you get "rockstar" points. I mean I'll never be a Rockstar Sullla but ya know

Also @Ruff

For the record, [SIZE="3"]I DO NOT HATE ATHLETE OR KALIN. [/SIZE]

Will I hold a grudge against them and automatically attack them if I'm in some future game with them? No
Will I be wary of their diplomacy? Yes
Would it be possible that this would make me choose to ally with someone else rather than them, all other things being equal? Yes
Do I think they broke or even bent the rules? No
Do I find their actions (I'm talking the forest roading and misclick) quite lame? Yes.
Do I like talking in questions and then answering them? Yes

Anyway, stay tuned for some more action in this game. I'll bring all you guys around to rooting for us yet! Who doesn't love the underdog!?!!?

[regoarrarr]

Email to Jowy

As you have probably already heard, the Ottomans have declared war on us and captured a city of ours. While I find some of the tactics that they used pretty lame, I do not cite them for breaking the rules, and we have decided to carry on.

Obviously it's a big setback for us, but oh well. Life goes on....

We hope that we can count on you to not "pile on" and to honor our existing agreements. I'm sure that we can, and we will remember this down the road, should we have a way to aid your cause

And to sulllla

As you have probably already heard, the Ottomans have captured a city of ours. While I find some of the tactics that they used pretty lame, I do not cite them for breaking the rules, and we have decided to carry on.

Obviously it's a big setback for us, but oh well. Life goes on....

Sunrise told me that he had talked with Speaker who had agreed to allow our retreating worker safe passage back to Athens, so that's nice. I'm sure that you both know how useful (or harmful, depending!) a civ that does not really feel like it can win can be to other teams, such as yourselves.

And to IKZ

I shall open this, the 5th message we have sent you without reply, by letting you know (if you have not already heard) that the Ottomans have declared war on us and captured a city of ours. While I find some of the tactics that they used pretty lame, I do not cite them for breaking the rules, and we have decided to carry on.

Obviously it's a big setback for us, but oh well. Life goes on....

I should also point out that there are some on our team that feel that your silence is due to some sort of Ottoman-Inca pact, and that the two of you have reached some sort of agreement to divide our lands. While we hope this is not the case, know that if it is, that you will eventually feel our steel.

Yes, it really is the 5th message we've sent them without reply. I don't know if it's due to some sort of ingame thing or just a lack of time (I know Zeviz said he was not really available and I also know Kodii is under time pressure). But if I was Mortius, I'd feel awful annoyed that I was eliminated by a team that didn't have the time commitment to be available to capitalize on it...

[darrelljs]

Did we double move? I don't recall that...

All the e-mails look fine. I'm vaguely surprised nothing back from the Ottomans yet. If I was them I'd march hard for Athens, see the Archer, and ask for peace. Of course we'll turn them down if they do .

Darrell

[regoarrarr]

No we haven't double moved. I think what some of the lurkers are referring to are my legal double move in the other game

[novice]

Regoarrar: Thinking about it, playing an RBP game is like participating in Big Brother - Civ Edition. Thanks for putting yourself through that

Good to see y'all playing on and not pulling an Imhotep on us. Now the lurkers crave a Cataphract Comeback!

[novice]

Well, there's always time travel and settling Paris one tile W, but thanks for the compliment . We're definitely in "annoy mode" for the duration.

Yeah, or you could request a reload from turn 45, citing a misclick in the founding of Paris.

Now, grabbing the Deer was not the percentage play to build that early chip stack; the risk/reward made it a bad gamble. The problem was (for me at least) not putting ourselves in their head until after the fact, and by then it was too late. Its pretty obvious they needed to attack. It still could have worked out; they could have lacked a strategic resource, or the will to use it. But against competent players the odds were decidely poor. Putting Paris 1W would have locked the Copper down almost immediately and we'd still have a front line Holy City and The Oracle. I really feel quite stupid .

You're spot on here - I was also surprised at their reaction but in hindsight it was obvious. I'm not so presumptious as to think that my opinion mattered, but I also suggested the current Paris location and feel quite stupid too.

[sunrise089]

Regarding my classification of you as "Rule-bender", my apologies. May be, I should not have used that word. It came worse than I wanted. Yes, I don’t have any MP experience and it might take me some more time to digest that double move sometimes is unavoidable. Also, the opinon I expressed is my personal only and there are lots of people who doesn’t mind it at all.

Ultimately I think this is the problem. Some people, including probably most of the very SP-centric RB crowd seem to view any occasion where one player gets to move twice as something unfair, unsporting, unbalancing, etc. The MP crowd does not view things this way. They (and I) take the attitude is that what is to be avoided is a situation where I can move twice and you cannot react at all even if you want to.

In real-time MP civ played via Gamespy, Firaxis uses an 8 second delay between moves. This always allows a defender who is paying attention to move his defenders into his city or attack out at a stack or what have you, but it does NOT allow him the opportunity to promote his units and attack one at a time, or deal with say 5 enemy stacks all moving in versus different cities simultaneously. Why would Firaxis penalize the defender in such a way in what is on the surface a MP simulation of the sequential SP game? Because it makes for better gameplay and keep the game moving. In exchange the defender gets a host of bonuses (strongest unit always defends, control-a, new units appear in cities ready to defend when the turn rolls over, drafted units appear immediately, auto-explore and auto-improve getting defending units to safety) that we can assume the developers of the game thought were balanced with the power of attacks only 8 seconds apart.

In single player of course the turn order always goes AI->human->AI->etc. BUT the AI gets other bonuses when attacking to make up for their inability to ever move twice in a row - specifically the human looses the advantages of auto-explore, auto-improve and control-a. The AI will always capture your workers and undefended cities or pillage your tiles before you have a chance to react. Presumably this was also considered balanced by Firaxis.

So....in my opinion by trying to create a SP-style game experience with MP-style game mechanics we're actually offsetting the proper balance of MP civ. The defender has powerful advantages, and by arbitrarily eliminating some and strengthening others to preserve the appearance of SP civ we are on very shaky game mechanics ground.

[sunrise089]

Yeah, or you could request a reload from turn 45, citing a misclick in the founding of Paris.


You're spot on here - I was also surprised at their reaction but in hindsight it was obvious. I'm not so presumptious as to think that my opinion mattered, but I also suggested the current Paris location and feel quite stupid too.

I still don't agree. Lets look at this probabilistically (sp?):

*Chance that they would choose aggression after we settled aggressively - I say no more than 50% based on Apolyton pitboss, RBPBEM1 and RBP1.

*Chance they would have horses hooked up basically by the turn we settled - No more than 33%.

*Chance they would attack in such a way that prevented us from being sure what turn their units moved - Call it 80%.

*Chance that we would then guess wrong - 66% based on them taking so long to move.

Total that is 9%. So a 9% likelihood of us getting smashed balanced against a strong 2nd city to make the aforementioned aggressive poker-play to have a chance at winning the tournament.

I think a lot of the lurker love for the Kalin team comes from looking at the aftermath of a anc [EDIT: Not UU but resource unit] rush on a city w/o a resource of our own. Think of how different this looks if our cap has copper in it and they don't have easy access to horses.

[regoarrarr]

I think a lot of the lurker love for the Kalin team comes from looking at the aftermath of a anc UU rush on a city w/o a resource of our own. Think of how different this looks if our cap has copper in it and they don't have easy access to horses.

Or really if we had gotten all 4 warriors into the city, like you talked about when we were chatting last night (sacrificing the worker). They still win 3/4 battles, but the city is saved, and now we have a (likely) promotable warrior, plus a full strength archer in a holy city on a hill vs. 3 wounded chariots and a warrior.

[sunrise089]

blah blah blah

One more thing - In the Apolyton game everyone viewed RB's dedication to the game (analysis of the espionage system, being constantly logged in, even my practice of making sure I was online for a half-dozen turn rollovers prior to the official war to preserve the right to move first) as an example of the best side of this community despite gaining an advantage over the other sides. Espionage in particular was gleaned way beyond what the game designers probably intended, but people didn't cry fowl. I don't think a "double move" because a team is lazy and only logs in every 16 hours rather than every 8 is any more unfair than a team that powergames passive espionage. Aren't they both just rewarding a team for being willing to spend more hours in-game?