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

[Bobchillingworth]

To be frank, I don't understand what "aggressive player" means. Taking two workers for free is not aggressive, it is rational. I don't see how not taking them can be rational. It is like having four forests and never chopping them.
(Risk of retribution is a non-factor because it is rational to assume that you would be attacked anyway.)
What is aggressive in my book is building a stack of horse archers without any hope to make gains for yourself and with no other purpose but to make your neighbor suffer and also nuking your economy in process. But somehow it is me who is aggressive and Gaspar, apparently, "hates early war" (a statement for which this game is hardly a proof).

This is so disingenuous it hurts.

[Lewwyn]

To be frank, I don't understand what "aggressive player" means. Taking two workers for free is not aggressive, it is rational. I don't see how not taking them can be rational. It is like having four forests and never chopping them.
(Risk of retribution is a non-factor because it is rational to assume that you would be attacked anyway.)
What is aggressive in my book is building a stack of horse archers without any hope to make gains for yourself and with no other purpose but to make your neighbor suffer and also nuking your economy in process. But somehow it is me who is aggressive and Gaspar, apparently, "hates early war" (a statement for which this game is hardly a proof).

This is so disingenuous it hurts.

Gavagai's whole discourse on gaspar and the Plame plant that "messed up his dotmap" and was therefore "aggressive" is painfully disingenuous.

[Brian Shanahan]

I nominate this as post of the year.

Ichabod is probably the best person on this site. Just look at his posts, nary a bad word for anyone, and reminding us all of the better angels of our nature.

Ichabod, if ever you decide to run for president of the world you got my vote.

[Bacchus]

Gavagai's whole discourse on gaspar and the Plame plant that "messed up his dotmap" and was therefore "aggressive" is painfully disingenuous.

Sad thing is that it's authentic.

[Bobchillingworth]

Jesus Christ, Bantams.


Ichabod, you should probably just decree the turn be rolled back and then Bantams reverted to AI; I think Seven is exactly right when he says that an AI represents at most a slight improvement in Persia's play.

[WilliamLP]

Hmm Bantams appears to have some weird workflow where he logs in, ends turn immediately, and only then makes moves?

Pushing aside that this doesn't work, I think it can only be the case that Bantams was the one double moved, since he didn't log in at the end of the previous turn and has the first half of the timer.

If there's another side of the story it's that, and I'd be annoyed at Gavagai camping the turn roll and being logged in during Bantams' full war turn.

[Ichabod]

Jesus Christ, Bantams.


Ichabod, you should probably just decree the turn be rolled back and then Bantams reverted to AI; I think Seven is exactly right when he says that an AI represents at most a slight improvement in Persia's play.

That's my initial thoughts as well. Is there a way to reload the game to Gavagai's turn before Bantams illigal move? I think not, because Gavagai logged in before Bantams and he stayed logged in until Bantams finished his turn and than proceeded to play. So there's nowhere to reload to that has only Bantams' moves before the double move.

I think its unfair to Gavagai to place a player that will defend like mad (since it's the only thing he could do while replacing Bantams), when Bantams would not have done it (now I see this exact same thought is being vented in the Tech Thread). But retiring to AI is also not that good of a solution.

So, regarding reloads, it seems we only have an all or nothing situation: we can have a reload to before Bantams moves this turn or keep the game as it is after all the moves are done. When does the AI move in a PB game? At the start or the end of the turn? That can be meaningful in the discussion.

If we reload to before Bantams moves, we have problems. I also dislike the idea of deleting the offender units, like Gavagai wants (that'll imbalance the game to some extent). But keeping things as they are is unfair to Gavagai, because he'll suffer a double move.

I need to know about how the AI plays in a PB game before going further.

Any opinions from the lurkers?

[Bobchillingworth]

Unfortunately I haven't played a PB game in years, so I don't remember the mechanics very well. I *think* the AI moves at the end of the turn, as Barbs do, but I'm not certain.


I would just reload to before Bantam's moves, revert him to AI and then make no other changes. Every option unfortunately is going to cause headaches, but I don't think the AI is sophisticated enough to double-move Gavangi. Most likely the AI will peel off a couple random units to "counter attack" and then sit in its cities and whip endlessly until it dies, like a minimally invested human should do.

[Qgqqqqq]

AI definitely moves at end of turn.

[scooter]

Agree, retire to AI. I would feel for Gavagi if Bantams got replaced by a player who actually had half a clue what he was doing and tried, because Gavagi probably chose to invade early partially because he was banking on Bantams doing terribly.