[NO PLAYERS] The Kibitzer Klub: PB13 Map & Lurkers

[regoarrarr]

So I was reading mack's thread earlier today where he was bemoaning all the discounts that people get by "drafting" others to technologies, and I've seen others complain about it as well.

I haven't played much RBMod (or Civ at all, lately), but it seems that Commodore is really the only one that is truly (consciously) taking advantage of it. Maybe it's just one of those things that is more of a paradigm shift where all of a sudden it isn't necessarily good to be the "first" to techs any more?

[Gaspar]

So I was reading mack's thread earlier today where he was bemoaning all the discounts that people get by "drafting" others to technologies, and I've seen others complain about it as well.

I haven't played much RBMod (or Civ at all, lately), but it seems that Commodore is really the only one that is truly (consciously) taking advantage of it. Maybe it's just one of those things that is more of a paradigm shift where all of a sudden it isn't necessarily good to be the "first" to techs any more?

How can that possibly be a desirable change, though?

[Dhalphir]

So I was reading mack's thread earlier today where he was bemoaning all the discounts that people get by "drafting" others to technologies, and I've seen others complain about it as well.

I haven't played much RBMod (or Civ at all, lately), but it seems that Commodore is really the only one that is truly (consciously) taking advantage of it. Maybe it's just one of those things that is more of a paradigm shift where all of a sudden it isn't necessarily good to be the "first" to techs any more?

How can that possibly be a desirable change, though?

It's still good to be first to techs, but now it creates an interesting choice where sometimes the better choice is to allow your opponents to research a tech first. You trade off gaining a tech first + first to bonuses, vs a cheaper research cost.

This is good because it makes it very hard to breakaway and become a runaway leader by getting a small lead and leveraging it into all of the first-to bonuses. Games stay closer for longer, which makes them more interesting.

[Gaspar]

So I was reading mack's thread earlier today where he was bemoaning all the discounts that people get by "drafting" others to technologies, and I've seen others complain about it as well.

I haven't played much RBMod (or Civ at all, lately), but it seems that Commodore is really the only one that is truly (consciously) taking advantage of it. Maybe it's just one of those things that is more of a paradigm shift where all of a sudden it isn't necessarily good to be the "first" to techs any more?

How can that possibly be a desirable change, though?

It's still good to be first to techs, but now it creates an interesting choice where sometimes the better choice is to allow your opponents to research a tech first. You trade off gaining a tech first + first to bonuses, vs a cheaper research cost.

This is good because it makes it very hard to breakaway and become a runaway leader by getting a small lead and leveraging it into all of the first-to bonuses. Games stay closer for longer, which makes them more interesting.

Better for the lurkers, sure. I wouldn't want to play a game where I'm punished for being ahead, though.

[Krill]

The known tech bonus is higher in this game, but it's been changed now. Basically it caps out at 8% per player that has a tech that you don't in a game with 10 or more players, and that in the IND era. Scales up from 0% depending on the era the most advanced person you've met is in. It's frankly impossible to get an exact like to like comparison in a base BtS game because it varies so much due to number of players, but if you keep in mind that in a 5 player PBEM you get a 6% bonus for each player that has a tech you don't regardless of what era, then you see that the numbers aren't exactly unreasonable.

This game the numbers are just generally higher in every regard. The tech costs are higher, the KTB is higher, there are more people to kill, there are more turns to do stuff in...PB13 is basically the final test game for the mod, it's been tested in PBEMs, with and without tech trading, with various numbers of players and now it's being tested into the IND era. So with this extra experience it's easier to know what changes need toning down, and the KTB is one of them. Still works out at more than double the original value though.

[Hashoosh]

To say drafting's an advantage isn't really taking into account the fact that you can only draft up to the point where you've hit even with the leader, then you surge ahead of them, as you would in a real race.

Has anyone run the numbers on how many real beakers Commodore's saved by adopting this? At some point he's either going to have to turn off research or actually move ahead of the pack. I guess since he's gone for Kremlin he'll turn off research to get the most efficiency out of his gold/beaker rates while waiting for the others to tech a tech he wants.

Edit: is it really fair for Llewynn to offer his Holy City for peace with Azza, when Azza holds no advantage of him? I don't see that as following the spirit of city gifting rules, just because it clearly spites a Scooterian attack on it and giving it to Azza presents no benefit to Llewynn beyond the fact Scooter can't get it.

Or is Azza threatening to attack somehow?

[Bacchus]

To Scooter:

I am fine with agreeing not to spite-whip or to pillage your own land, or whatever else that makes the game more fun for everyone to play. Absent such a ruling, I think causing the most damage to your opponent whichever way possible is absolutely justified — if I had a better use for the ancient-era units than pillaging improvements, I would have put them to it. Ditto the population in Canticle. So if you think that I forwent some reasonable, benefit-producing actions to make spiteful ones you are wrong — I didn't and I wouldn't do that. Whatever I did with Canticle this turn, it did not matter one bit, I could not raise the costs of this attack for Plako, so I reduced the benefits of it. To me, the logic behind this is precisely the same as that of killing as many units of the attacker as possible, even if you cannot kill enough to stop the advance. Isn't resistance in the face of insurmountable odds itself pure spite? (EDIT: Besides, if I was in William's position, I would be pretty ticked at Plako getting 15-sized cities on my border — there is absolutely no reason why he should, and it gives him an unfair advantage of getting a free, nearly instant production powerhouse right on the theatre).

Finally, as can be easily seen through the screenshots, my pillaging was staged and delayed to the last possible moment — for as long as I had hope of researching Rifling and holding the core, I stayed off pillaging it. I was only conceding land as I was forced to, I tried to concede as little as possible, leaving fate a chance to play its hand until the very last moment: maybe someone would declare on plako, maybe someone will give me a huge cash gift — at all points I made sure that I am in as good a position as I can be to use such a chance, should it materialize. Within this attitude, I don't see a problem of using every means the game gives you to hurt your opponent without giving other players an unfair advantage. Now, pillaging everything and whipping everything to 1 as soon as a war starts, that would be pretty poor form — but I actually wouldn't mind playing with somebody who did that either, even if I wouldn't do it myself.

I do also think the line is much less clear than you purport it to be. Let's say I wait for a city to fall before pillaging the surrounding improvements, so they are no longer in my culture. Then I actually get gold for them. Does the presence of that notional benefit really make the act different? The questions razed by Gavagai are also on point, but I guess they will be answered in-thread.

[pindicator]

I think it was bad form. You were dead after that city ended, so the argument of whipping it to prevent benefit to plako doesn't really apply. I liked the idea to build forts in your land to try to minimize the impact of his cannons. That was novel and while it destroyed your own improvements it gave a tangible benefit. Saying that you're pillaging your own stuff so plako can't use it is a benefit to you... you knew you weren't surviving the war, so all you're doing is hurting plako for sake of hurting plako.

On the other hand, we have people who delete workers all the time when they might end up captured. So I'll agree that it isn't exactly and clear line to follow. Best thing I can think of is to ask if the roles were reversed and you were attacking to see your opponent do that how would you feel about it?

[Bacchus]

Your last question is a good one, I cross-posted an answer to it to scooter's thread, as it's totally non-spoilery. As an attacker I would be as pissed off at this, as I would be at the defender building units and generally being a nuisance. Of course I'd prefer him not to use the options the game gives him to make my life difficult! I do think that the multiple-whip-per-turn is an option that's only in the game due to oversight though, I don't think it's good game design.

I certainly don't see anything wrong with deleting workers and even units, where it's clear they would just serve as experience fodder. And deleting units in other situations is not so much a jerk play, as just a demonstrably bad one.

[SevenSpirits]

In my opinion, destroying your own stuff is totally fair game. We have good-faith rules about city gifting and no mention of stuff like deleting units and pillaging. I have no idea how someone can think that trying to hurt the person who attacked you, without affecting third parties, is in any way bad sportsmanship. That idea seems completely crazy to me.

Pillaging takes units though - units which could be used to defend - and I think that contributes to it not coming up nearly as often as worker deletion.