Babes resignation

[ThERat]

Flaming aside, what I was trying to say was that I think you have too narrow a perspective. Why would sitting around until marines be the only way to play the game? We are not planning to invade anyone even after marines come, but that doesn't mean that we just sit around pressing enter.

I think team babe has quite a few warmongers in the team (myself included). If I would have been told that this game would be a space race, I would have not ever joined. For me C3C means warmongering (being from the grumpy AW groups that's not a surprise). It's ok to go for space, but to not fight for the main part of the game is dull and nothing I want to be involved in. For example, I would have never gone for the Iro's knowing this is such a map as the UU is totally useless in this case.

 

[Rik Meleet]

Moderator Action: Message to all:
Don't flame and discuss this in an adult way.

Although I am the mapmaker, this is a discussion on in-game elements and thus Ginger's and Regent's responsibility. Breaking forum-rules via -for example flaming or namecalling- is mine.

----

And now that this is made clear I'll give you my Point of View.
This map (like the previous one) still has some secrets, surprises and treats for you all. If sufficient teams dislike the turtling team(s) than it should not be difficult to get to marines soon enough. Besides that, there are so many coastal-tiles for each continent that to own sufficient blockaders will harm a Civ more than it will gain in protection. Especially if those blockaders need to be strong enough to withstand Marines. Turtling in isn't going to win a team the game. Aggressiveness and Cooperation (Diplomacy) is.

My specific task as mapmaker was to make a map that prevented a MTDG 1 scenario: fighting too early and in that way deciding the winner too early on. To accomplish that I gave all teams security till ships could travel seatiles safely. An incidental suicide-galley should work, but no mass invasions early. The risk of boredom via turtling is reduced in aspects of the map-design. Giving up because of fear of boredom is a sign of shortsightedness and a bit disrespectful to my qualities as mapmaker.

 

[Niklas]

I agree completely with every single word that our beloved map making deity said.

 

[killercane]

Boy how did I miss this for so long? It would be a shame for a team to retire and I would hate to see it as that takes a lot of the fun out for everyone else too.

 

[AutomatedTeller]

I have been trying to figure out a way to be anything but scathing of BABE, but I cannot.

The map isn't broken. You guys made a strategic decision to wait to invade until you have an overwhelming force (at least, I'm assuming that's what happened), as opposed to plopping a set of spears on a mountain somewhere to make sure you have a landing spot, or sending a few MW to attack 20 turns earlier or something.

Your strategy didn't work.

I, frankly, have been expecting to hear about war starting for about a month now and have not been able to figure out what the hell was taking you guys so long.

And now you guys are quitting, cause something went wrong?

I know a bunch of BABES and I like them. This screws up the game, big time.

 

[Robi D]

There are other ways to win besides attacking, aren't there?

This is quite funny. I totally understand BABE's point of view. They played poorly and now want out. TNT did the same thing last game (played poorly) and when I said I was through with the game I got blasted.

Firstly we haven't played poorly and are in no danger from losing like you were. Secondly you quit without notice to anyone including your teammates, were as we have not quit yet but have come out and told everyone of our current feelings about the progress of the game in the hope of getting some adult discussions going and maybe even finding a solution that makes everyone happy. Do you need me to go on donsig?

As for some of the posts i find it interesting that some of the people accusing us of being childish are acting in that same manner.

@ Rik no one is accusing the map of being boring, i think its fantastic. What is boring is there being a way of enforcing a status quo for a long period of time meaning that their is only one way to play the game. On top of that it doesn't encourage diplomacy too much.

@Wotan, you had no influence on my feelings for one, just happen to have similar one to you, and you know i've not been backwards in disagreeing with you in certain issues .

@Saber in general, i really do not see how this helps you. Given the large amount of troops you have produced tells me this would not have been a one side fight by any means. Sure by avoiding a fight insures you can't lose, but does it not insure you can't win either? Had you fought and won would it not leave you in a better position then this does. I'm sure you guys are smart enough to have worked out that a unseen landing could only happen at certain points of the island and that anywhere else gives you time to react and redeploy. We were not looking for a walkover but a good fight were the best team wins.

 

[peter grimes]

I'm shocked to see people behaving this way - on both sides of the issue, honestly

I don't have much to add, as Rik Meleet summarized my thoughts better than I could have.

BABE should not resign just because their strategy appears (in this brief snapshot of time) to not be working. Situations are dynamic, and just because things aren't going the way expected doesn't mean that things won't change for the better or worse. Giving up at the first sign of an obstacle isn't exactly adult behavior. That said, maybe they shouldn't be allowed to continue after all - what's going to happen when Gong beats them to Leonardo's?

Would BABE have thrown in the towel if FREE built the Great Lighthouse?

I really doubt that BABE would have left a few tiles open for invaders to land if they saw a Council flotilla heading their way - that's simply disingenuous. In which case, for them to now throw up their hands and exclaim "not fair, no fun" rings hollow.

Guys, please - look at your strategic position from further back, and you'll see that you definitely have strong advantages over the other teams right now, irrespective of being able to make landfall on Saber's continent or not. Let's get back into the game, and keep our workers working

 

[greekguy]

@Saber in general, i really do not see how this helps you. Given the large amount of troops you have produced tells me this would not have been a one side fight by any means. Sure by avoiding a fight insures you can't lose, but does it not insure you can't win either? Had you fought and won would it not leave you in a better position then this does. I'm sure you guys are smart enough to have worked out that a unseen landing could only happen at certain points of the island and that anywhere else gives you time to react and redeploy. We were not looking for a walkover but a good fight were the best team wins.

yeah, nice try, but everyone involved in this game knows there is more than one way to win at civ. Just cause we took away one option for you doesn't mean you should quit. You chose your strategy and we responded with what you see. Now you can either continue the game like men and try to find an alternative path to victory, or you can quit the game like cowards...And it appears you made your choice.

 

[Robi D]

Now you can either continue the game like men and try to find an alternative path to victory, or you can quit the game like cowards...And it appears you made your choice.

I could argue that your tactics are those of cowards.

 

[classical_hero]

What is team SABER going to do? Just allow you to land and make the game in your favour. No serious player would want that to happen for their team, so we choose the strategy that would mean that our survival would be as long as possible. That is what any team would do. Do you want us to lie down and allow you free entry to our lands?

 

[Robi D]

Would BABE have thrown in the towel if FREE built the Great Lighthouse?

Err.. no, thats a natural part of the game, this isn't

I really doubt that BABE would have left a few tiles open for invaders to land if they saw a Council flotilla heading their way - that's simply disingenuous. In which case, for them to now throw up their hands and exclaim "not fair, no fun" rings hollow.

Yes we would have, again its a natural part of the game. If we saw a anyones flotilla coming we would have tried to fight them off instead of finding a way to avoid the issue.

 

[BCLG100]

This is quite funny. I totally understand BABE's point of view. They played poorly and now want out. TNT did the same thing last game (played poorly) and when I said I was through with the game I got blasted. At least the TNTers played on. The really funny part is that some of the ones who want to quit now where the same ones that blasted me when I wanted to do it.

That whole statement proves how you don't understand our point of view as you draw similarities where there are none.

I'm not going to comment which way i voted but the petty name calling is really not helping the issue either way.

 

[greekguy]

I could argue that your tactics are those of cowards.

At least we're committed to finish what we started and signed up for- MTDG II. The same can't be said for BABE.

 

[Robi D]

What is team SABER going to do? Just allow you to land and make the game in your favour. No serious player would want that to happen for their team, so we choose the strategy that would mean that our survival would be as long as possible. That is what any team would do. Do you want us to lie down and allow you free entry to our lands?

I don't see how you came to that conclusion from my statement. My issue is that this is an exploit of a flaw in the game. So if we found an exploit that gave us 40gpt would it be ok for us to use?

 

[Robi D]

At least we're committed to finish what we started and signed up for- MTDG II. The same can't be said for BABE.

Had this issue been brought up before the game and accepted as an allowed strategy i wouldn't have signed up in the first place

 

[Chamnix]

@Saber in general, i really do not see how this helps you. Given the large amount of troops you have produced tells me this would not have been a one side fight by any means. Sure by avoiding a fight insures you can't lose, but does it not insure you can't win either? Had you fought and won would it not leave you in a better position then this does. I'm sure you guys are smart enough to have worked out that a unseen landing could only happen at certain points of the island and that anywhere else gives you time to react and redeploy. We were not looking for a walkover but a good fight were the best team wins.

Unfortunately, there is more than 1 design flaw in Civ 3. I'm at risk of posting spoilerish information here, and I hope my teammates won't condemn me for it, but...

Since your boats are so spread out, we could easily permit you to land just 4 units and slaughter them, and we have discussed that possibility. However, it is obvious that you know a landing party of 4 in a spot of our choosing would get slaughtered, so why spread your boats out so far?

It occurred to us that your plan might be to try to land 1 unit without declaring war which would leave us 2 poor choices. We could let that unit sit there while you then brought as many reinforcements as your boats could carry, or we could declare war on you giving you war happiness. In that case, you could then carry on your merry way and enjoy +25% happiness for the remainder of the game, while we would be powerless to stop that.

Call me paranoid if you will, but in the ruleset discussion you will find this quote:

Do we also want something about declaring war for purposes of giving war happiness, or is that simply another tradable good?

with a reminder here. Not a single person spoke in favor of forbidding any sort of exploitation of war happiness, so we have to assume that you would not be above using the lack of a rule in your favor.

In short, given all the circumstances, we made a decision of what we felt would give us the best chance of winning the game. You may disagree and think we made a poor decision, but we will play on and live with the consequences.

 

[gbno1fan]

I don't see how you came to that conclusion from my statement. My issue is that this is an exploit of a flaw in the game. So if we found an exploit that gave us 40gpt would it be ok for us to use?

I don't see how this is an exploit. In reality, if a civilization had enough troops to blockade their coast, that method of defense would work. Think about how hard it was for the Allies to land on Normandy - even with so many more troops. The defense via blockade is legit.

An exploit would be something like if placing a road on coastal tiles would prevent invasions. Strategic placement of troops is NOT an exploit.

 

[Robi D]

Unfortunately, there is more than 1 design flaw in Civ 3. I'm at risk of posting spoilerish activity here, and I hope my teammates won't condemn me for it, but...

Since your boats are so spread out, we could easily permit you to land just 4 units and slaughter them, and we have discussed that possibility. However, it is obvious that you know a landing party of 4 in a spot of our choosing would get slaughtered, so why spread your boats out so far?

It occurred to us that your plan might be to try to land 1 unit without declaring war which would leave us 2 poor choices. We could let that unit sit there while you then brought as many reinforcements as your boats could carry, or we could declare war on you giving you war happiness. In that case, you could then carry on your merry way and enjoy +25% happiness for the remainder of the game, while we would be powerless to stop that.

Call me paranoid if you will, but in the ruleset discussion you will find this quote:



with a reminder here. Not a single person spoke in favor of forbidding any sort of exploitation of war happiness, so we have to assume that you would not be above using the lack of a rule in your favor.

In short, given all the circumstances, we made a decision of what we felt would give us the best chance of winning the game. You may disagree and think we made a poor decision, but we will play on and live with the consequences.

Without being spolierish myself we spread them out to confirm you had actually covered the whole coast.

As for your concerns about us using possible expoilts thats fair enough and i see your point of view in that. Call me naive but i wouldn't consider doing that because it would be unfair and if my team would consider doing such a thing i would be the first to protest

 

[Robi D]

I don't see how this is an exploit. In reality, if a civilization had enough troops to blockade their coast, that method of defense would work. Think about how hard it was for the Allies to land on Normandy - even with so many more troops. The defense via blockade is legit.

An exploit would be something like if placing a road on coastal tiles would prevent invasions. Strategic placement of troops is NOT an exploit.

But according to civ3 they would even be able to attempt a landing even if the germans were only armed with clubs and sticks. I agree it should be easy but it shouldn't be impossible either

 

[classical_hero]

I don't see how you came to that conclusion from my statement. My issue is that this is an exploit of a flaw in the game. So if we found an exploit that gave us 40gpt would it be ok for us to use?

It is called tactics. If you know that you are going to be attacked. you do the best to defend yourself as best as you can.