[SPOILERS] swance bitten, twice shy

[williams482]

There's a lot of things they could be talking about there, but caution is absolutely warranted. The odds of an unprotected settler or city getting sniped have just gone up considerably, which of course changes the risk taking calculus. I would be in favor if getting the city three turns later if it guarantees safety against a wandering warrior, especially if the later city gets a smaller delay before it's first improved tile.

To be clear, I stand by endorsing a relatively risky approach prior to this point; we're a very spiky civ/leader combo and high variance strategies are good.

[aetryn]

What could possibly prompt such a flurry of discussion and 6+ hour turn hold just from contacting a neighbor? Especially since, from the scout's positioning, they HAVE to have been able to see our borders in the fog last turn? Maybe they mistook our yellow for that of Gavagai's Egypt, with the trees in the way of the only tile of border they could have seen if they came from the SE, and are now switching a bunch of spear builds to axes? Or were they planning to attack their neighbor in the fog, and are reconsidering it having seen that it's spiky TokuZulu? I am tempted to switch our EP from Dreylin (about 1/3 of the way to graphs) to these guys, this does not seem suggestive of trust and good intentions.... I am also realizing that instead of taking a Polytheism flyer before Pottery.... maybe we'd better just get archery then instead, if we really feel we can wait another 5 turns for cottages and granaries... we can have it by around t51 if we do so, which should be in time to beat back chariots from ginger that leave now unless they're already on the way

Either way, definitely not safe to have cities with no defenders around now, so let's fix that post-haste.

yeah. i can only hope they don't have a warrior about to appear on our doorstep. i assume it's not worth delaying the third city founding to wait 3ish turns for an escort, right? at least contacting us from the south is at least suggestive that they don't ALSO have another scouting unit wasting time by trying to scout towards the same opponent from the north

One thing to note is that Ginger has turned out to be the mysterious civ in the fog with a size 5 capital already, so there's a good chance they're the food leader as well. That is not suggestive of a bunch of whipped axes of course, but it could be suggestive of a bunch of several slow-built chariots or something. then again if their capital has THAT much food i'd like to at least hope they are lacking for production?

As I said, we don't know the two things are connected. They could be picking their next tech and debating a bit. They could be exchanging dot maps - maybe they have to make a settling choice in the next turn or two and are discussing locations. Yeah, it's possible they're very interested in us, but let's not get paranoid either.

Ginger being 5 size makes sense given that his combo likes building big cities (those obviously Hammans are not online yet). 

At this point I would probably wait and escort the settler (and plan to escort all further ones except interior fillers).

[ljubljana]

ok, what about this: instead of moving our scout in a normal, productive direction towards the copper, we instead move them NW-NW onto the forest west of the intended city site to check for warriors from that direction. if we see none, we found the city, and if in doing so we reveal a wandering warrior in the east or north, our 3 workers in range can do this



and chop a warrior on the next turn, which i believe will pop between turns and so be able to defend the city

however, while i believe this would work in SP, i am not sure how it respects pitboss turn splits. production happens when the turn rolls, yes? in that case, i think we would need the second half of the turn timer in a war to build the warrior before ginger's warrior can walk into the city, right? so does that mean that, in order for this plan to constitute a defense, we must gamily wait to play after ginger and GT next turn just in case we reveal their warrior upon founding the city? if so, we'd also have to wait for them on subsequent turns right, for as long as our reaction to a warrior appearing remains "move 3 workers onto a forest and prepare to chop"?

or we could declare war on both of them now for no reason and officially claim the second half of the turn, i guess or warpeace them which is better if they take the peace, but conveys weakness if not

in theory i suppose this is where peacetime turn splits might get used, but while i've heard of them in settler races, one being asked for to allow a certain hypothetical defensive scheme to work does not really constitute that. and even to ask for one at this point gives away that there is SOME kind of tense situation going on and that they should be looking for openings... also, when a peacetime turn split is instituted, who decides which player gets which half - the one who asks for the split? if so, it seems optimal to ask quickly whenever there is any sufficient reason to do so..... optimal, and annoying and rude

oof, to be honest, if we declare war or ask for a split and found a city on the same turn, which they will be able to see, there's a good chance they ask themselves whether those two facts are connected. if so it is not too far of a logical leap to get to "do they have an undefended city somewhere...?"

[aetryn]

ok, what about this: instead of moving our scout in a normal, productive direction towards the copper, we instead move them NW-NW onto the forest west of the intended city site to check for warriors from that direction. if we see none, we found the city, and if in doing so we reveal a wandering warrior in the east or north, our 3 workers in range can do this



and chop a warrior on the next turn, which i believe will pop between turns and so be able to defend the city

however, while i believe this would work in SP, i am not sure how it respects pitboss turn splits. production happens when the turn rolls, yes? in that case, i think we would need the second half of the turn timer in a war to build the warrior before ginger's warrior can walk into the city, right? so does that mean that, in order for this plan to constitute a defense, we must gamily wait to play after ginger and GT next turn just in case we reveal their warrior upon founding the city? if so, we'd also have to wait for them on subsequent turns right, for as long as our reaction to a warrior appearing remains "move 3 workers onto a forest and prepare to chop"?

or we could declare war on both of them now for no reason and officially claim the second half of the turn, i guess or warpeace them which is better if they take the peace, but conveys weakness if not

in theory i suppose this is where peacetime turn splits might get used, but while i've heard of them in settler races, one being asked for to allow a certain hypothetical defensive scheme to work does not really constitute that. and even to ask for one at this point gives away that there is SOME kind of tense situation going on and that they should be looking for openings... also, when a peacetime turn split is instituted, who decides which player gets which half - the one who asks for the split? if so, it seems optimal to ask quickly whenever there is any sufficient reason to do so..... optimal, and annoying and rude

oof, to be honest, if we declare war or ask for a split and found a city on the same turn, which they will be able to see, there's a good chance they ask themselves whether those two facts are connected. if so it is not too far of a logical leap to get to "do they have an undefended city somewhere...?"

Defender double-moving is generally okay just to keep turn pace moving, but of course if you need to react to his move and have a production turn in between our move and his next move, yes, you have to go last. I wouldn't ask for a formal split, I'd just casually play after him. Odds are if he has a scout out this way he probably doesn't have a warrior close to it, so I probably wouldn't war-peace pre-emptively. Up to you on moving the scout but we really do want to find if Ginger or Dreylin is our eastern neighbor and where their capital is. Equally we don't want to lose a newly founded city. Kind of tough choice, which is why I was pushing for warriors a few turns ago

[MJW (ya that one)]

Your is danger of getting double-moved? Go last, it's the principal that counts! I've also read people fighting to go last in turn order. I don't know why though.

[aetryn]

Your is danger of getting double-moved? Go last, it's the principal that counts! I've also read people fighting to go last in turn order. I don't know why though.

It has to do with where the unit production cycle is in PB games. If you go last, you whip (or produce units normally) and they appear before the other player moves again. This is handy when you're defending, as you can whip in response to the other player's moves. It's less important if you had a decent force to start with, as other kinds of positional elements become more important than squeezing in one whip cycle. Going first in the turn split has one advantage - you can select the promotions of any units before committing them to combat. The second player either has to turn on autopromote and accept whatever the game picks for them, or have unused promotions for their half of the turn.

Generally, absent a REALLY compelling argument either way, you should just prefer to take the turn split that lines up better with your play windows, or, if the other party is already in a war, avoids 3-way turn splits as much as possible. So if Ginger was fighting Greenline and was playing first, and you wanted to attack Greenline, just take the first half and let Greenline have the second rather than dividing the turns up into three.

Some smaller games will switch to sequential to avoid any turn shenanigans after a while, but 10 is too big for that generally.

[Tarkeel]

in theory i suppose this is where peacetime turn splits might get used, but while i've heard of them in settler races, one being asked for to allow a certain hypothetical defensive scheme to work does not really constitute that. and even to ask for one at this point gives away that there is SOME kind of tense situation going on and that they should be looking for openings... also, when a peacetime turn split is instituted, who decides which player gets which half - the one who asks for the split? if so, it seems optimal to ask quickly whenever there is any sufficient reason to do so..... optimal, and annoying and rude

If there is an imminent threat of hostilities and/or settling, it can make sense to request a peacetime turnsplit (we did with Alhazard in PB66, and unofficial split with AT in PB58) but it should be avoided if possible.

[ljubljana]

Defender double-moving is generally okay just to keep turn pace moving, but of course if you need to react to his move and have a production turn in between our move and his next move, yes, you have to go last. I wouldn't ask for a formal split, I'd just casually play after him. Odds are if he has a scout out this way he probably doesn't have a warrior close to it, so I probably wouldn't war-peace pre-emptively. Up to you on moving the scout but we really do want to find if Ginger or Dreylin is our eastern neighbor and where their capital is. Equally we don't want to lose a newly founded city. Kind of tough choice, which is why I was pushing for warriors a few turns ago

wait, so is the standard practice in situations like these really just to intentionally play after them to gain the ability to chop or whip units if necessary? doesn't that constitute playing clock games? it wouldn't just be Ginger either, there could just as easily be a GT or Dreylin warrior here instead, in which case the need to play after them is just as urgent. and it would be for multiple turns, at least until we have a warrior within range here.... and even then, a single warrior can still lose to a warrior on defense, so the strategic imperative to wait would still be there, just with a lower magnitude (i mean, except for the 20% of the time in which we lose the roll, when it would turn out to have the same magnitude!). this whole mechanical area kind of leaves a bad taste in my mouth, and i don't really relish the thought of trying to rationalize to Ginger after the game why we thought this specific thing was a special, justified case of the "using the clock to gain a strategic advantage" category of actions that is frowned upon in general... i can only imagine how frequently this kind of thing must come up, if 40 turns into the game we've already encountered a situation where getting the second half of the turn or not would be the deciding factor in whether or not we suffer a game-ending third city raze...

[pindicator]

You just pointed out all the problems with the current system.

I think the difference between first and second is closer than people give it, especially for protracted wars. And it only has to do with city production - going second is prized for quick attacks because you're denying one more production round before your opponent can react. Going first you allow for production from cities or any other beginning-of-turn effects (like a new technology) to come straight to the battlefield first.

[aetryn]

You just pointed out all the problems with the current system.

I think the difference between first and second is closer than people give it, especially for protracted wars.  And it only has to do with city production - going second is prized for quick attacks because you're denying one more production round before your opponent can react.  Going first you allow for production from cities or any other beginning-of-turn effects (like a new technology) to come straight to the battlefield first.

Yeah, it's all just compromises trying to deal with the asymmetry that PB presents with production at one time and simultaneous turns at another time. This is a compromise we have found usually works. This is the reason that small games have started to prefer sequential, as it avoids all of this nonsense (though it suffers from the problem of being much harder to just skip someone's turn that isn't bothering to actually play it).

To be clear, I wouldn't advocate waiting until the last second, or asking for an extension. But if you have a long play window that's all within the specified turn timer, choosing to play later in that window on a particular day isn't really a problem. I think as long as you avoid chicken with the end of the turn (I won't play until Ginger plays, Ginger won't play until I play) you aren't out of line. Where is the point where you just bite the bullet and play (or request a formal split?) - harder to say, but I wouldn't let it run right up to the end of turn time.

More pragmatically, get yourself out of the position where playing second is necessary to survive calamity and don't let yourself get back into it