[spoilers] Infinite Happiness, Commodore the Suryturk

[Boldly Going Nowhere]

Commodore:
Hot chicken is made of yum
Brick:
it is
Commodore:
Fax me some.

Who faxes chickens?

[TheHumanHydra]

How reasonable of you, Commodore. As for me, when that game came out, as a youngster I would sit in the Chapters and read the Prima's Official Strategy Guide for it, since we didn't possess a computer capable of running it. Someday I'll go back and try it out ...

@Boldly: I don't know, but I have been emailed a pizza roll before.

[Commodore]

Wrecked, the game:

[Mardoc]

Wrecked, the game:

So much for what I thought I knew. Turns out it is possible to conquer someone after Slavery and before Knights.

[Commodore]

Wrecked, the game:

So much for what I thought I knew. Turns out it is possible to conquer someone after Slavery and before Knights.

I'm not sad at all, this is infinitely preferable to a long, slow decline. When you have three or four times the power of your victim in *any* era, you can conquer them.

I'd be embarrassed about game balance but Krill is eating Wannabe, Gav ate Grimace, Mackoti is eating Donovan...it's fine. REM might be strong enough to face Mack down after eating Elkad and I, vs. Mack's Donovan and Cheater. Game this big and silly, no point in dueling beyond pride. When REM began his buildup, I had two options with three possible outcomes:
-Option 1. Match him in classical and ancient junk. Outcome: Eternal Mexican standoff, maybe broken expensively knight or galleon time. This was PB 23, at least there it was a globe and not a doughnut.
-Option 2. Keep even with Elkad. Outcome A: REM hits me, I die. Outcome B: REM hits Elkad, I can snipe northern crap off of Elkad and reach longbows (in Police State) to halt REM from turning north.
Option 2, outcome A was always going to be more likely than outcome B, but frankly either outcome is less painful than Option 1's. Option 1 would be my only honorable obligation in a smaller game, or next door to a better economist, but as it is here...hope REM enjoys owning the best-developed land in the game, good luck to him. I'm still whipping/chopping every pointy thing I can to burn his hammers, but with the empire split like this I can't consolidate worth a damn, his swords should end this for good in three turns.

[Mardoc]

I'm not sad at all, this is infinitely preferable to a long, slow decline.

Oh, I get that, definitely. My sympathy is more for the fact that you were close. IIRC you said you were within 10-20 turns of having enough tech lead to hold even with less investment, between culture and longbows/etc.

When you have three or four times the power of your victim in *any* era, you can conquer them.

And that's my lesson from this game, yeah. Main remaining question is just whether conquest can be profitable, and well, gotta wait and see on that.

-Option 2. Keep even with Elkad. Outcome A: REM hits me, I die. Outcome B: REM hits Elkad, I can snipe northern crap off of Elkad and reach longbows (in Police State) to halt REM from turning north.

What about 3: keep a noticable distance ahead of Elkad? Not quite random, still not trying to outrun the bear though .

[Commodore]

What about 3: keep a noticable distance ahead of Elkad? Not quite random, still not trying to outrun the bear though .

Well, there is definitely some granularity, trouble is spiking hard enough to be noticeably higher than Elkad would have cut the very tight timings longer, and the gigantic super-bears beyond the horizon (in a hypothetical spherical world where "horizon" meant something) still are galloping at their own absolute speeds.

[Mardoc]

Ah, I have trouble thinking in terms of deliberately seeking high variance strategies. Even in a 23 player game with non-neighbor foes who are as good as you are and might have better neighbor luck.

[Boldly Going Nowhere]

I don't intend this to be needlessly provoking as I know being shown the side door by an opponent is never a good feeling. That said:

Fact: You can't control what is happening over the horizon.
Fact: You can reasonably control your own actions, better to focus on those.

If a gigantic super-bear is eating all the low-hanging berries (you didn't specify what was being eaten) somewhere beyond your reach you can't do much about it, but you CAN make sure that the bear next door doesn't eat you. There is something to be said for not winning in style, what some might call "The Commodore Way", as well as for doing the very best for your given circumstances. We tend to see a lot of high-variant WIN OR DIE strategies being tried. I'm all for a good risk/reward strategy, but one that relies on a heaping dose of hope doesn't seem like a good strategic play, even if it is a calculated risk.

Just my $.02, and obviously hindsight/lurkerdom is close to 20/20.

[Commodore]

There is indeed a lot to be said for being a Good Loser, you have every reason to be miffed; you are missing out on a fine show and it's galling to see someone who needn't die to HA die to HA. But my initial attitude of nonchalant insouciance should have been an indicator, Commodore the Good Loser ain't got it in him for this game. Come back in four pitbeese.