[no players] CiVI Lurking Part II: Sophomore Slump

[MJW (ya that one)]

DoW someone over 80 gold @turn 125? I think Archduke knows he cannot win so he's doing strange stuff but this is still too strange.

[ebbitten]

I totally agree with Oledavey on his rant, I think Alhambram not attacking there was a major misplay.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[shallow_thought]

I totally agree with Oledavey on his rant, I think Alhambram not attacking there was a major misplay.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That may be true, but if so it's probably easier to see if you're not  the one gambling your entire civ on the move. The flip side of Oledavey's difficulties in attacking Woden is his safety in the event that he tried and it went badly. Alhambram doesn't have that luxury. A damaged but still strong Woden, an even longer game, a bunch of hurt feelings - it would not be Oledavey paying the price. Alhambram's attempt to win through religion may be a long shot (although I'm glad to see it explored in an MP game), but it's still a chance.

While the binary declare/do not declare decision may be the easy thing to see, I think that the key point of the game was that Oledavey did not get serious about trying to shut down Woden earlier, immediately after he got knocked off the top spot himself. It would not have been trivial, but I think that there was a window to put pressure on him by organising a network of DoFs that excluded him, making him worry about military, starting a mass snipe at Woden's edges. Instead, Oledavy assumed that Alhambram and Archduke would see Woden as the threat while he attacked Seoul. I'd need to go back and check all the threads, but I think that the other players showed awareness that Woden was the new leader, and there was an opportunity there. But he removed Singaboy from the potential alliance by attacking, Archduke by offering him a distracted Singaboy as a target, and Alhambram by leaving him all alone against Woden... with a religious victory alternative to focus on.

Also, while I'm sure there is plenty of play to criticise (he's not named his religion for nothing), I do think that Alhambram's use of the threat of his knights to land the Mahabodi was a really nice tactical/operational move. Bloodless, but effective. No losses, no hard feelings. Spotting the potential problem turns ahead and planning the action ahead of time. Elegant. There's a lot of military action out there that's been a lot more questionable...

[Sullla]

We need to start a house rule for future games banning the Declaration of Friendships. This is almost as bad as the early days of Civ4 with unrestricted diplomacy and endless Non-Aggression Pacts between everyone. The nonstop friendship pacts between Woden and Alhamram have robbed this game of what could have been a fascinating conflict. Now Woden is virtually guaranteed to win because he's managed to friendship pact everyone who could have potentially attacked him. Kudos to him on reading the diplomacy and setting that up, but it's not really what we want in terms of gameplay.

PBEM1 was a lot more fun when there was constant uncertainty about whether your neighbors would attack on every turn.

[ebbitten]

@shallow_thought, I definitely agree the oledavey has made some mistakes in the diplomacy arena as well and could have done more to help Alhambram bring down Woden, but I think this was the last chance for Alhambram to make a serious move to get into competition for winning. I think a purely religious victory when you're not the absolute military leader is almost certainly doomed.

I actually have enjoyed reading through the DOFs, it seems to give a nice ebb and flow to the game, I just think it was a mistake for alhambram to keep signing them with Woden. We'll have to see what the players hunk of them after the game.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ebbitten]

@shallow_thought, I definitely agree the oledavey has made some mistakes in the diplomacy arena as well and could have done more to help Alhambram bring down Woden, but I think this was the last chance for Alhambram to make a serious move to get into competition for winning. I think a purely religious victory when you're not the absolute military leader is almost certainly doomed.

I actually have enjoyed reading through the DOFs, it seems to give a nice ebb and flow to the game, I just think it was a mistake for alhambram to keep signing them with Woden. We'll have to see what the players hunk of them after the game.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[srgtb]

I don't know that one game is enough to ban friendships. People in later games may be more careful with them. I think worst case it just creates a long builder game ending in a space or tourism race.

I'm waiting for someone to realize they can spam scouts to cheaply block religious units.

[ebbitten]

@shallow_thought, I definitely agree the oledavey has made some mistakes in the diplomacy arena as well and could have done more to help Alhambram bring down Woden, but I think this was the last chance for Alhambram to make a serious move to get into competition for winning. I think a purely religious victory when you're not the absolute military leader is almost certainly doomed.

I actually have enjoyed reading through the DOFs, it seems to give a nice ebb and flow to the game, I just think it was a mistake for alhambram to keep signing them with Woden. We'll have to see what the players hunk of them after the game.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rowain]

We need to start a house rule for future games banning the Declaration of Friendships. This is almost as bad as the early days of Civ4 with unrestricted diplomacy and endless Non-Aggression Pacts between everyone. The nonstop friendship pacts between Woden and Alhamram have robbed this game of what could have been a fascinating conflict. Now Woden is virtually guaranteed to win because he's managed to friendship pact everyone who could have potentially attacked him. Kudos to him on reading the diplomacy and setting that up, but it's not really what we want in terms of gameplay.

I disagree.
For one the DIplo in Civ4 early days was hidden and Out o game so nobody knew what deals were done which was main reason why it was bad. Here everyone knows what deals are running and can plan and act accordingly. That they did not so is not a problem of the rules.

For two In civ4 the talking behind the curtains has been replaced with all those fish for fish deals to plain simple signal good intentions and so forth and OI prefer a clear and honest deal (DoF or not) which is visible to all over such hidden messages buried in some obscure deals which you don't even see in Civ6.

Third Without a DoF nobody can risk attacking the leader as they would need to guard their backs constantly. Just look how extremely seldom in all our Civ4-games there has been a successful alliance to reign in a runaway.

[Rowain]

About oledavy.

He demands that Alhambram should have attacked Woden but his main problem arise out of luckless wars against singaboy and archduke.

He offered Alahambram a joint war while explicitly stating that he hopes that Alhambram declines. Offering such a joint war without any real units to support it is not really incentive to act accordingly.

He is unhappy about Alhambrams DoF with Woden while he signs an Alliance with exactly the very same Woden . Diplomacy-speaking this was the most dumb move Oledavy has done so far. He makes sure that Alhambram will not see him (oledavy) as a friend or trustworthy partner.

For me he played a very good game in development and used what he had to stay on par in tech/culture but his foreign policy is erratic at best.

-----------------

Alhambram has misplayed his power-advantage due to indecisiveness. Powering up to attack Archduke( to strengthen oledavy - good idea) then switching target to Woden (also good plan) and then settle for a Wonder and doing nothing .