Gavagai's spoiler thread

[Catwalk]

King Makers are inevitable. Anyone who doesn't have a reasonable shot at winning but possesses enough power to damage a leading contender holds the fate of the game in their hands. Sometimes players are happy to ignore the leaders and play in their sandbox if left alone, but you can't expect people to stop paying attention to the top dogs once their chance of winning is nonexistent. There's nothing "unethical" with Player C picking a fight with Player A, even if that leads to Player B winning- it's not C's responsibility to ensure an even contest between A & B.

I agree that king making is difficult to deal with, even if you try to. Even in theory, I wouldn't know how to word a simple codex on how to not be a king maker. Even so, do you think king making is never an issue? If time were not an issue (and it is), this is one reason I'd prefer playing with diplo on. If players play for ranking and not just victory, diplo can more or less deal with the king maker issue. Player C will side with whoever makes him the best offer. That also makes C much more important in spite of being weaker, I find that to be more of a good thing than a bad thing as it keeps people in the game in a meaningful way.

And I agree with Gavagai's last point. Given how long these games take, playing to gain a psychological advantage in future games is not an enjoyable environment for me. I won't pass judgement on players who feel differently, though. People's tastes differ, that's all.

[Bobchillingworth]

I think kingmaking is only an issue if a player does it at the expense of their own chance of winning. Say Player C is actually in a competitive position, and they throw it away to run after A- that ought to raise some eyebrows. But if it's just A & B in the running then C doesn't have a dog in the right and should feel free to attack whoever they want.

[WilliamLP]

I feel it's an ethical issue. I enjoy games the most when everybody tries to win the current game. Throwing away your game for revenge turns you into a king maker. I'd even go so far as playing for #2 or #3 even if I know I can't win, rather than treating everything but victory as failure.

That's the crux of it, what does "throwing your game" mean when you sincerely think (correctly or not) you have no chance to be number 1?

What to play for seems more a matter of taste to me than ethics. There certainly isn't a consensus, and probably couldn't be.

What does playing for #2 or #3 even mean? Is it according to Civ scoring metrics when the game is conceded? Playing for that might reward a style of play that isn't fun or might not be what makes someone think "that player was the second best in this game".

For some, revenge or playing more like a duel when you aren't going to win the whole thing isn't throwing away the game, it is the game. This, because it's something exciting, something that can be won (in the short term), and even something that's entertaining to report and read. See most Commodore games ever.

Personally, I don't know but it seems unclear. And you might not be able to infer an "is" from the "ought" you feel, so if you're playing to win even a single game, knowing players' past behaviors and reputations is still going to benefit you. And of course this is enough to create the situation you don't like in the first place.

So I can respect not playing against reputation because you don't want to play in the environment that creates. On the other hand, knowing someone doesn't play the metagame is also knowledge, and if two of me start next to each other, and two of you do in the same game, the two of me are each going to be at quite an advantage.

[Gavagai]

A post about an actual game for a change! Because I, actually, have a plan which can help me to catch up with the leaders a little.



This is a nice size 9 city which has a lot of developed cottages and only a handful of units defending. Also, it has a granary which is a lucky break: Susa to the north doesn't have it. It has a Monument to compensate. Really, Bantams somehow has chosen the absolutely worst possible buildorder for a cre/exp leader. Bantams' capital is about the same size, I saw it in top 5. He has three more cities. I assume that one of them is far in the west, another one is Susa you can see to the north and this is the third one:



Very good spot. Any units stationed there will be forever locked out of the main battle.

What do I have?



I have 13 HAs and a morale axe in Boron. Also two tiles west you can see a small stack which consists of 2 axes (one of them medic), 2 cats and a spear. I think I will be able to bruteforce Pasargadae and Susa but I will need these cats to take his capital.
On the same tile I have two workers. Next turn I'm going to move them 1W, build a road here and move all my units to this spot. A turn later I will road 1W yet again and move 2-movers stack to a tile 2E from Pasargadae.
Observe an immortal on a hill nearby which appeared after Bantams played. It makes the situation a little awkward. If he moves it 1NE, he will immediately see all my units. He will also see my staging tile, so I won't be really able to hide them (and the tile 1N wich could be an alternative staging tile is seen by his culture).
I think I will do the following. Bantams played after me this turn. This made me entitled to play first next turn, move my chariot towards his capital and then cancel open borders. It may alert him by itself but at least he wouldn't know my stack composition.
The question is whether it would be right for me to play after Bantams on the turn after next (when I'm going to actually DOW) and claim the second half of the turn? I think the answer is yes because I'm not actually double-moving him; on the contrary, I allow him to double-move me (he will play last on T117 and then first in T118 at the end of which I will DOW). Still would appreciate lurker's input on this issue.

[WilliamLP]

The question is whether it would be right for me to play after Bantams on the turn after next (when I'm going to actually DOW) and claim the second half of the turn? I think the answer is yes because I'm not actually double-moving him; on the contrary, I allow him to double-move me (he will play last on T117 and then first in T118 at the end of which I will DOW). Still would appreciate lurker's input on this issue.

I don't think anyone has a problem with that as long as you don't do anything before him in the turn and you're not playing "turn chicken" and waiting each other out on the clock.

It can be very frustrating to play before someone every turn, and then when conflict might arise they suddenly wake up and start logging in and out at the beginning of the turn to make a token move (with no intent to play the rest of the turn right then) to make sure you can't legally do anything.

[Gavagai]

Attacking Bantams seems easy but it involves two important risks.

First, Bantams has neighbors and these neighbors mean new nasty fronts I'm going to get. I don't know for sure who these neighbors are but I strongly suspect that Mikehendy, our current leader, is one of them. Observe his scout on one of the screenshots, so he knows pretty well what is going to happen. This is unpleasant but, I think, manageable. Mikehendy is playing for win and I can hardly believe he is going to risk his game trying to contest Bantams' land with me.

The second risk is, of course, Gaspar. One may think that he would appreciate the fact that I spared his city and that peace and love will be established between us forever. Well, you may put a lot of laughing faces here because, of course, Gaspar is still the same nutjob we have been seeing before. After I resettled Beryllium he immediately sent a chariot to pillage its second ring cottages. He even made a bizzare attempt to steal a third-ring forest from me (I sent a worker to chop it and he put his own worker under it, hoping to make the last chop). All of these can hardly be considered frienly signals. So, I will have to assume that he will attack me immediately after peace treaty expires. Let's look at the map then.



Well, he can attack Beryllium or Neon or Nitrogen. Berillium and Neon he would be able to raze, losing most of his 2-movers stack in process. He won't be able to take Nitrogen.
Beryllium and Neon are size 1 cities and I'm ready to sacrifice them if it is the only way I can take Bantams' core. So this risk is also manageable, though at great cost (I have to add a lot of units to be able to fight on 2 fronts).

[Gavagai]

The question is whether it would be right for me to play after Bantams on the turn after next (when I'm going to actually DOW) and claim the second half of the turn? I think the answer is yes because I'm not actually double-moving him; on the contrary, I allow him to double-move me (he will play last on T117 and then first in T118 at the end of which I will DOW). Still would appreciate lurker's input on this issue.

I don't think anyone has a problem with that as long as you don't do anything before him in the turn and you're not playing "turn chicken" and waiting each other out on the clock.

It can be very frustrating to play before someone every turn, and then when conflict might arise they suddenly wake up and start logging in and out at the beginning of the turn to make a token move (with no intent to play the rest of the turn right then) to make sure you can't legally do anything.

Well, I would, of course, go with the first half if it becomes clear that Bantams wants to play after me.

[Lewwyn]

And I still maintain that retribution is quite rational when repeating many games with some of the same people who are observing your actions.

I don't think I would like the environment in which newcomers have to protect their workers with spears and veterans need nothing but their reputation to protect them...

IMO, the best players protect their workers anyway. Technically in this game, NobleGas had an axe to protect because they didn't think you had chariots. They weren't relying on reputation, they just built the wrong unit.

[Gavagai]

Actually, a couple of sentry warriors would be enough to make a raid on workers impossible, whether by axemen or by chariots. What also would be enough is not settling a second city half-way between our capitals - then I wouldn't get an idea to sniff around with chariots in the first place. Really, if you want to pink dot your neighbor, you should expect some kind of pressure and be prepared for it. And if you don't feel you have enough to be prepared - don't pink dot (that's why I didn't; it was only my fourth city which I planted in their direction).
By the way, in this contex all their noble (ouch, pun unintented) rage because of a worker steal looks rather hypocritical. Do they really think that they are entitled to pink dot me and I'm not supposed to defend myself from aggressive settling? And can I expect that a guy who settles aggresively towards me somehow "hates early war"? If you hate early war, why ask for it?

[Lewwyn]

Actually, a couple of sentry warriors would be enough to make a raid on workers impossible, whether by axemen or by chariots. What also would be enough is not settling a second city half-way between our capitals - then I wouldn't get an idea to sniff around with chariots in the first place. Really, if you want to pink dot your neighbor, you should expect some kind of pressure and be prepared for it. And if you don't feel you have enough to be prepared - don't pink dot (that's why I didn't; it was only my fourth city which I planted in their direction).
By the way, in this contex all their noble (ouch, pun unintented) rage because of a worker steal looks rather hypocritical. Do they really think that they are entitled to pink dot me and I'm not supposed to defend myself from aggressive settling? And can I expect that a guy who settles aggresively towards me somehow "hates early war"? If you hate early war, why ask for it?

Their city was not a pink dot. They actually settled more conservatively then they could have. It is first ring to their capital and below the split between you two. Additionally it even shares tiles with their capital? Soooooo, you're wrong? I don't see it as in the least aggressive. In fact, I considered their plant to be conservative.