Planning cIV BTS MTDG III

Sommerswerd said:

@LP -I guess LP is ignoring me ... OK, that's fair I guess

Click to expand...

No, not ignoring you, just thinking. Then other posts distracted me into responding to them first.

Sommerswerd said:

On that note, more specifically, I want to go ahead and shamelessly beg and plead like a whimpering puppy... Please LP, please play for CFC and not RB!

...

Play with us man. Play for CFC... Seriously

...

LP please play for CFC (that's the last time I will say that...probably)

Click to expand...

While it's nice to be wanted, in reality I'm not going to have a whole lot of time to devote to this game in the near future. I think it would be doing a disservice to join as a prominent member of a team without having the time to commit to it. Besides, I did already sign up for RB, so it's a bit late to be switching sides.

I'm sure we'll play together in a future game, though. Would be interesting to see the plans brew from the other side of the fence.

Sommerswerd said:

LP, all joking aside, its kind of like Richie McCaw or Colin Meads went to play for the Springboks or the Wallabies or *gasp*... Australia!!

Click to expand...

I'm actually one of the few New Zealanders who doesn't really follow the rugby at all.

(Also, random funny thing: the spell-checker wants to replace "Zealanders" with either "Salamanders" or "Slanderers"... hmm.)

Tatan said:

Join the dark side, LP. We have cookies.

Click to expand...

These cookies you speak of... do they perchance contain chocolate?

darrelljs said:

I'd almost be willing to give him to you gave him full voting power for team CFC . But no, seriously, he's ours now .

Darrell

Click to expand...

It almost feels like I'm the popular kid that everyone's fighting to have on their team... kind of the opposite to school days as a nerd. Seriously though, I really don't think I'm that valuable a player, especially compared to the wealth of talent around. But it's nice to feel slightly popular all the same.

nabaxo said:

Look mate, stop creating strawmen. Argue why you want espionage instead of creating false analogies.

... by putting you into a religion that you only have in one city while being in Organised Religion, you will lose hundreds of hammers for five turns empire wide; Or another exampled would be that you'll lose happiness and science if you were switched out of Free Religion and so on. <- Argue these points instead of creating strawmen. We are all adults, we can debate this without resorting to logical fallacies.

Click to expand...

OK next I will respond to my old teamate "Benedict" nabaxo, just because I see he's currently online...

What strawman did I create? Seven was the one who literally came up with a 'strawman' hypothetical-superunit. All I did was cite actual game mechanics. So the analogies are not false. I defy you to explain how my analogies are false. And I have already given reasons I want CSM allowed, which you must not have read but here are some more...

1. Because I LIKE IT and intend to use it if there is a good opportunity to do so
2. Because we just spent the last 2 years running an EE and I learned alot of skills that I want to bring to bear
3. Because playing with ALL the settings that RB wants and is used to playing with gives them an advantage. We are already likely giving up nukes. I want to keep Espy a least. Everyone should be a little out of their comfort zone on some things and in their comfort zone on other things.

I have more, but that's enough, to make my point...

Now to address your other points

nabaxo said:

... by putting you into a religion that you only have in one city while being in Organised Religion, you will lose hundreds of hammers for five turns empire wide;

Click to expand...

If you don't take the time to spread religions around your cities then you are playing poorly. We should not ban CSM to subsidize poor play. Spread the religions around, and you wont have this problem. Plus if you have allies and you are properly prepared, they can switch you right back.

nabaxo said:

Or another exampled would be that you'll lose happiness and science if you were switched out of Free Religion and so on.

Click to expand...

Same thing, have your ally switch you back. But the larger point seems to be that you don't like the CSM because it causes harm... "I'll lose hapiness and Science if this gets used on me" is what you said. So what? I don't get it I cant do anything to you that will cause you to lose hapiness and science?

Or is your point back to the argument that it does so too cheaply? Well if that is your point, then I say ... If its cheap for me to CSM you, then its equally cheap for you ally to switch you back, and no hardship is worked on you.

Suggesting that RB is demanding that they have it their way on everything is not a fair or accurate statement to make. Already darrel volunteered on behalf of RB earlier that leaving espionage on is probably not a problem.

How about going with DNK's proposal and doing some straw polls to find out where there is common grounds among teams and where there is major disagreement? This discussion is not doing much to get the game underway IMO.

Catwalk said:

What definition of OP do you use in your argument Sommerswerd? It seems we might see the term differently.

Click to expand...

I embrace the idea cited already by some, that if a tactic yields such high rewards for such low cost, that it is the ONLY sensible tactic to use, then its Overpowered (OP), because the game will just devolve into nothing but using that tactic. However, as I have proven, CSM does NOT fall into this category. I understand that many on RB think that it does, because you have been told it is so, but I disagre from experience.

Catwalk said:

Suggesting that RB is demanding that they have it their way on everything is not a fair or accurate statement to make. Already darrel volunteered on behalf of RB earlier that leaving espionage on is probably not a problem.

How about going with DNK's proposal and doing some straw polls to find out where there is common grounds among teams and where there is major disagreement? This discussion is not doing much to get the game underway IMO.

Click to expand...

Again I disagree. I have read RB forums where some are saying the decision on this one issue will determine whether they play or not. So we need to settle it before forming teams. I strongly dislike the idea of voting on it, because people who have no experience with CSM are ill suited to vote on whether it should be banned. The experienced RB players should agree with me on this point at least. This decision should be reached through a consensus of the players with ACTUAL FIRSTHAND EXPERIENCE using and/or defending against CSM. I have heard this principle invoked, of experience trumping democracy in setting up games many times on RB.

Also I need to research the track record of these individuals threatening not to play with CSM to determine whether they are the type who will be major players and stick around to the end. If not, I am less inclined to give up CSM which I enjoy, to please some guys who will be gone in 3 months.

Also, darrel did not as I understand it agree to full espy. darrel wants CSM off. That is what this debate is about. I think darrel has presented the BEST case for banning CSM BTW...

Of course RB wants to just vote now, [begin hyperbole] because the anti-CSM Kool-Aid is all that anyone has had to drink. I want everyone to have some of my pure refreshing pro-CSM truth before we vote[/end hyperbole]. That is why this discussion is vital to me.

If after I have debunked all these false arguments people still want to just give RB their way then fine, but it will be with the understanding that we are doing just that... giving RB their way. Some people are trying to suggest that CSM is broken and OP and so it should be a given that its banned. But given my research and experience this seems a dubious claim. What is more likely is that RB is worried that they are unprepared to dominate in a game with CSM allowed, so they just want it banned to advantage themselves.

Hi!

In mame of the spanish community , ours prefs

- nukes OFF
- spies or the civ-wide esp missions (no spies, nix the two missions, or all is still ok) nix two missions if needed of all is still ok
- huts/events (on/off) ON
- corporations (on/off) OFF
- known tech bonus (vanilla 30% or higher, like 100%) DONT CARE
- BUG mod (included/not or included without # cities) ON we prefered our webmode, but play with any.
- double-move mod (on/off) ON, but play with any if dont want it.
- always war (on/off) OFF
- tech trading (on/off) OFF

- engineered starts (yes/no) NO
- wrap (none, 1-axis, 2-axis) none
- mirrored starts (yes/no) NO
- type of script (donut/pangaea/continents/archipelago/etc) dont care, prefert not archi
- map makers ?

- restricted leaders (on/off) OFF, really do not care
- can have many instances of a leader (leaders exclusive to one team, or not) EXCLUISVE
- method of assignment (....) RANDOM

SevenSpirits said:

I want to mention what *I* think is the most potentially broken thing about spies - the counterespionage mission mechanics.

Click to expand...

This is a really good point. I think your idea to have a 1 turn "safe" zone (when no espy mission, except refreshing the counterespy) between counterespy missions might be the simplest way to handle it.

Another possibly even simpler way to handle it would be to chalk that up to 1st player advantage (like attacking wounded with healed/upgraded units), while we chalk up perpetual resource denial to 2nd player advantage.

Team Apolyton is still having our internal vote on settings, so this vote is just a preliminary straw poll, these answers very well may change in the next few days, but so far this is where we stand:

- nukes OFF
- spies or the civ-wide esp missions (no spies, nix the two missions, or all is still ok) Overall in favor of keeping espionage, but would be ok with banning the controversial missions.
- huts/events (on/off) OFF
- corporations (on/off) ON
- known tech bonus (vanilla 30% or higher, like 100%) Haven't discussed yet.
- BUG mod (included/not or included without # cities) We haven't discussed this separately, just in conjunction with the double move mod
- double-move mod (on/off) OFF
- always war (on/off) OFF
- tech trading (on/off) OFF (we haven't discussed this yet, but I'm fairly certain everyone wants it off)

- engineered starts (yes/no) haven't discussed
- wrap (none, 1-axis, 2-axis) haven't discussed
- mirrored starts (yes/no) haven't discussed (probably no)
- type of script (donut/pangaea/continents/archipelago/etc) haven't discussed
- map makers ?

- restricted leaders (on/off) haven't discussed
- can have many instances of a leader (leaders exclusive to one team, or not) haven't discussed
- method of assignment (....) haven't discussed

Thanks Ozzy and Magno. I PMed your poll reults to 2metra to keep track of everything so they dont get lost as this thread fills up

Sommerswerd, straw poll lets us find out where there are common grounds. It seems there is no risk of reaching common grounds about espionage easily, so your comments about RB calling for votes on tactical grounds is uncalled for. You said you don't want to let RB have their way on everything, and when darrel suggests everything but CSM is probably okay you jump on the last % instead of accepting an outstretched hand. It's poor form IMO and won't help get the game underway, only leads to more trench digging.

darrelljs said:

Let's assume you are right and its not broken, or at least not as broken as we think. Is it really worth arguing about? Its something we've had a very bad experience with that we would like to avoid repeating. We are reluctantly okay with the rest of the espionage system being enabled despite the fact we consider it an un-balanced, un-fun mechanic that is never used in our games. That, to me, is us going 99% of the way to meeting you...please, give us this last 1% .

Click to expand...

Now you're talking This is by far the most persuasive case I have heard for banning CSM by far, because its so frank and honest. "Look there's nothing wrong with it really, we just don't like it because it pwned us last time it was used, so give us a break and take it out."

Now I disagree that you are going "99% of the way." CSM is still a powerful mission and banning it is a substantial nerf on Espy, certainly more than 1% of the value of espy. Also every site so far is fine with espionage fully enabled except RB so really we would all just be accomodating you guys.

But that is besides the point. The question I guess is really, what are you offering for the accomodation? All Wonders enabled? Accepting the Spanish Mod? All Corporations? This a genuine offer of comprimise, please don't take offense and slap the outstretched hand away. Lets negotiate and reach some sort of comprimise.

darrelljs said:

I'd almost be willing to give him to you gave him full voting power for team CFC .

Click to expand...

Accepted

EDIT: @ Catwalk - Much of my passion for this comes from the knowledge that 1 year from now most of you guys screaming to ban CSM will be long gone, moved on to other things, while I will be left here sitting on this egg. LP has already said he wont be around when the game gets going. How many others I wonder will that be true for? I will be playing under these settings when many of you are long gone, so if I'm gonna be laboring under a setting I don't like, I want to make sure I recieve something I do want in return. I have already comprimised in accepting that Nukes will probably off. In return I want full Espy. What is wrong with that?

Not the official spokesperson for RB or anything, but I'm pretty sure the majority are keen on:

- nukes OFF
- spies OFF or at least ban civic/religion swap missions
- huts/events (on/off) OFF
- corporations (on/off) OFF
- tech trading (on/off) OFF (not sure why we're voting on this, as I thought it was already stated as a prerequisite for the game)

The other stuff I'm not completely sure about yet. I suspect many would prefer to play without any mods (whether known tech bonus, BUG, or Spanish mod) as it opens the game up to a wider audience, but can't confirm. Many also probably don't mind about the map specifications so much as the map maker - I would hazard a guess that most feel the details of what the map looks like are less important than ensuring that everyone has a fair shot at winning.

I also suspect that some at RB will support using unrestricted leaders with a "snake pick" - this is where the team order is randomized, then the order of choice goes:

Team A - 1st pick leader OR civ
Team B - 2nd pick leader OR civ
Team C - 3rd pick leader OR civ
[...]
Team C - 3rd to last pick leader OR civ
Team B - 2nd to last pick leader OR civ
Team A - last pick leader OR civ

Again, bear in mind this is all based on the general vibe I've got from the RB thread to date, I'm not the official spokesperson or anything. Just trying to move this along a little by putting out what I believe are the general sentiments of the team.

Sommerswerd said:

Now you're talking This is by far the most persuasive case I have heard for banning CSM by far, because its so frank and honest. "Look there's nothing wrong with it really, we just don't like it because it pwned us last time it was used, so give us a break and take it out."

Now I disagree that you are going "99% of the way." CSM is still a powerful mission and banning it is a substantial nerf on Espy, certainly more than 1% of the value of espy. Also every site so far is fine with espionage fully enabled except RB so really we would all just be accomodating you guys.

But that is besides the point. The question I guess is really, what are you offering for the accomodation? All Wonders enabled? Accepting the Spanish Mod? All Corporations? This a genuine offer of comprimise, please don't take offense and slap the outstretched hand away. Lets negotiate and reach some sort of comprimise.Accepted

Click to expand...

darrelljs said:

Is it really worth arguing about?

Click to expand...

It may be worth pointing out that Sommer is, I believe, a real-life lawyer. Arguing is his business.

Sommerswerd said:

...

Click to expand...

Wow man, I try to explain something that someone else said to you and you attack me like there's no tomorrow. Never mind then.

Sommerswerd said:

Now you're talking This is by far the most persuasive case I have heard for banning CSM by far, because its so frank and honest. "Look there's nothing wrong with it really, we just don't like it because it pwned us last time it was used, so give us a break and take it out."

Click to expand...

The issue isn't "we don't like it because it pwned us last time." We're being asked to commit to a game that will take over a year and many countless hours to play; we shouldn't have to be attacked for trying to find settings that are actually enjoyable to play and which don't make the game boil down to one right choice.

Anyhow, at this point I think just going through with the straw poll is probably the best way to go about this, rather than just sparking more animosity between sides. Also important will be finding more players for CFC though so that they can actually field a team...

Sommers, you have no knowledge of what happens a year from now, and saying that RB players will drop off is a very lofty statement. Moreover, I believe (Spanish team and Apolyton, correct me if I'm wrong) that their stances are "prefer full espionage but can live with CSM banned". Whereas RB stance is "prefer espionage off but can live with CSM banned". Also, given that there seems to be strong support for banning nukes it's hardly reasonable to argue that you're graciously giving up nukes. I can't say I'm altogether surprised to hear you're a lawyer You've already stated previously that settings don't matter that much to you, so which one is it? If this is an academic discussion, np. Maybe issue a challenge directly to RB with full espionage enabled to illuminate the issue better?

I think LP has captured our sentiment. I personally want to play with the Spanish mod including the double move rule, since I think they have solutions to the three concerns brought up before. Double move rules have been a problem at RB for most pitboss games, and I'd like to try something that they seem to be very happy with.

Ditto LP's disclaimer, we don't have an RB consensus yet .

Darrell

Sommerswerd said:

what are you offering for the accomodation

Click to expand...

World peace!

Darrell

At Apolyton there are some accomplished map makers..

Furthermore I'd like to add that at Apolyton we like the depth of the Corporation aspect of the game.
It adds spice to the game.

And last but not least we will be adding our story making / diplo abilities as much as possible into the game..
So a story thread is appreciated.

Sommerswerd said:

OK next I will respond to my old teamate "Benedict" nabaxo, just because I see he's currently online...

What strawman did I create? Seven was the one who literally came up with a 'strawman' hypothetical-superunit. All I did was cite actual game mechanics. So the analogies are not false. I defy you to explain how my analogies are false. And I have already given reasons I want CSM allowed, which you must not have read but here are some more...

Click to expand...

He did it first? Really? You're going with "he did it first"? Good work!

Sommerswerd said:

Now to address your other points If you don't take the time to spread religions around your cities then you are playing poorly. We should not ban CSM to subsidize poor play. Spread the religions around, and you wont have this problem. Plus if you have allies and you are properly prepared, they can switch you right back. Same thing, have your ally switch you back. But the larger point seems to be that you don't like the CSM because it causes harm... "I'll lose hapiness and Science if this gets used on me" is what you said. So what? I don't get it I cant do anything to you that will cause you to lose hapiness and science?

Or is your point back to the argument that it does so too cheaply? Well if that is your point, then I say ... If its cheap for me to CSM you, then its equally cheap for you ally to switch you back, and no hardship is worked on you.

Click to expand...

Now you're doing proper argumentation. Good work!

However I don't think it's valid to say "have an ally switch you back!" since your ally may not even be in the right religion or civic. What's to stop you from switching me AND my ally to your religion for instance.

SevenSpirits said:

Wow man, I try to explain something that someone else said ...

Click to expand...

As I said before, this is all academic to me, I am already familiar with most of the Anti-CSM arguments. You really don't need to explain them to me as I already understand them. I was waiting/researching to see if there was anything new, but it seems there isn't. Same old stuff from 2+ years ago. I am absolutely not getting mad about any of this. See LP's above post So Please don't think that because I parsed out every statement that I was angry or intending to attack you. That's just how I respond to posts. And I fully understand that you are not speaking for yourself, but presenting the beliefs of RB players as dictated by the clergy over there Anyway I responded so thourougly because you raised some important points that deserved to be responded to. Don't feel attacked b/c I wrote a long post about what you said. A long post from me is a sign I respect you

Shoot the Moon said:

The issue isn't "we don't like it because it pwned us last time." We're being asked to commit to a game that will take over a year and many countless hours to play; we shouldn't have to be attacked for trying to find settings that are actually enjoyable to play and which don't make the game boil down to one right choice.

Click to expand...

With repect STM, that is the reason that people keep giving... worded differently, but that's what it boils down to. Please tell me what you find not enjoyable about CSM. Point me to the thread of the game where YOU played a game with CSM enabled that made you feel this way. Because I have been asking this for years and no one has been able to come up with an answer yet. Can you show me one thread describing a time CSM was used by a civ who was behind, against the civ who was winning to take down the leader and go on to win the game? One? In that one game you guys all refer to, the guy running the EE lost so I can't fathom why you decided EE was overpowered from that.

And the reason I am responding (what you are referring to as attacking I guess) is because of statements like this accusing me of empty rhetoric and not listening to the arguments/reasoning of others

SevenSpirits said:

This is a lot of rhetoric but I don't think you're actually trying to understand.

Click to expand...

and this one especially

SevenSpirits said:

I don't know for sure that it's true as I have never played with swap civic/religion allowed

Click to expand...

I suspect this is the case for many RB players that they have little or no experience with the mission and rail against it because they were told over and over that it was OP and UB and broken. That is what I am pointing out and keep getting proven right over and over.

Catwalk said:

Sommers, you have no knowledge of what happens a year from now...

Click to expand...

Well actually I do, based on my experience playing, organizing, recruiting and hosting, I can predict how some things will turn out and I can say confidently that most people who sign up will be gone halfway through the game.

darrelljs said:

World peace!

Click to expand...

Thanks for your good Humor