Planning cIV BTS MTDG III

An easy solution would be to forbid resource sabotage during war time
Going back to the resource problem, the main issue is not pillaging, because that is easily countered, or the pre-Oil resources. The real focus here is on sustained bombing of a person's Oil. And the thought is that if you can keep the opponent from building any oil-ships or planes, he has no way to ever counter your bombers.

Now don't forget that SAM Infantry require no resource, and can shoot down planes, and Guided missles (also requires no resource) can reduce Oil -fleets to mush that Frigates or Ironclads can sink. But besides those two guys, the main two units you generally use to counter this tactic are fighters (for intercepting bombers) and destroyers/subs for sinking Carriers. So a solution could be to mod out the oil requirement for just these two units.

I am not even as concerned with sabotage per-se, because there are counters to that (like putting a spy on the resource, counter espy mission etc), not to mention that he has to spend espy points to keep doing it. But the fact remains that sustained focus on sabotage could theoretically keep a player from Oil indefinitely, which is not good. But if we allow subs (or destroyers) and fighters to be built sans-Oil, then the sabotage wont matter as much, because the builds for fighters and subs wont be disturbed. I think that is a solution that leaves the majority of play and strategy untouched, instead of sweeping bans or complex rules.

As long as there is an effective counter to sustained Oil denial, the 2nd player advantage becomes more of a tactical consideration than a game-winning turnorder mechanic.
 
I think 1st player has advantage in a lot of ways.

But..if its so important for you, you can forbid not only sabotage of oil, you can forbid bombing oil resources too, easy.
 
Reading RB forums, I just realized we never really started a signup list. I guess when adding your name to the list you can just copy-paste to keep it simple/low maintenance...

2metraninja
Sommerswerd

*hrmph*

Caledorn :p
 
*hrmph*

Caledorn :p
So sorry, I knew you were committed to hosting. I wasnt clear whether you were decided on playing and hosting. Obviously you can do both, we do it all the time.:)

I guess I should have gone all the way to start of the thread to try and gauge who is wanting to play, but its been a while since this thread was active, so hmmm... IDK

Anyway

2metraninja
Caledorn
Sommerswerd
 
I started typing a long message about this, but then I realized 'I'm talking too much':lol:... So I will keep it short for now...

The Civic-influence mission is not cheap. It is hundreds of EPs a pop, even against a 4 city civ (like Merlot in BTS MTDG II). It does not scale with empire size, it scales with all the normal factors for the individual city targeted (like ALL espy missions). And it is not restricted by the 5 turn wait mechanic like normal civic switches (IIRC).

So what this means, is that it is just as cheap and easy for your ally to instantly switch you back to the civic you were in previously, as it was for your enemy to switch you out of the Civic in the first place, no anarchy, no lost hammers, etc. Consequently, with intelligent planning, the Civic change mission is easily nullified.
 
I started typing a long message about this, but then I realized 'I'm talking too much':lol:... So I will keep it short for now...

The Civic-influence mission is not cheap. It is hundreds of EPs a pop, even against a 4 city civ (like Merlot in BTS MTDG II). It does not scale with empire size, it scales with all the normal factors for the individual city targeted (like ALL espy missions). And it is not restricted by the 5 turn wait mechanic like normal civic switches (IIRC).

So what this means, is that it is just as cheap and easy for your ally to instantly switch you back to the civic you were in previously, as it was for your enemy to switch you out of the Civic in the first place, no anarchy, no lost hammers, etc. Consequently, with intelligent planning, the Civic change mission is easily nullified.
You are incorrect. The Spy does not cause anarchy when switching civics. The player switching back DOES have to incur anarchy, unless they're Spiritual or have Cristo. And they DO get the 5 turn wait penalty. Up to 5 turns of collapsed economy and 1-3 turns of anarchy is not acceptable for such a cheap spy mission.

And cheap is relative. Later on when you can easily generate hundreds of EP per turn (if not thousands), and this mission remains about the same cost, it is insanely cheap.
 
That reminds me of this one game I played. I focused all my attention on building libraries, marketplaces, harbors, etc, while my neighbor spent all his time building up an army. He was quite good at leveraging the military system and abused it. Let me tell you, it was quite un-fun for those of us who fell victim to it. I mean, it was effective, but it made for a frustrating game for those on the receiving end of it.

I'm not just theorizing, I've actually seen this play out in practice. We should ban military units so the game is more balanced.

:rolleyes:

This is what it all boils down to, no? All the rest of what you said is captured in this statement. This is why I am not yet convinced and must read more on this issue. What you say sounds much like what I have heard in the past about espy... "AI dont do it, so I am not prepared for it, so I dont know how to deal with it, so it annoys me, and I dont feel like learning how to use it, so lets just ban it." One guy uses it well, one time, where everyone was not expecting it, and so were caught off guard... And so we MUST ban it?!? How about we prepare better next time?

There's a pretty big difference between a broken mechanic and human strategy. An AI doesn't chariot rush me when it sees me running a pure farmer's gambit. A human can and will. That's pretty vastly different from abusing a game mechanic that you can't really counter.

You are correct of course (even if a teensy bit condescending:p "not completely wrong?":confused::lol:).

Apologies if anything came out as condescending - not the intention. :)

Edit: Just saw LP's post above me. Agree 100% with what he said - he said it much better.
 
You are incorrect. The Spy does not cause anarchy when switching civics. .
I am not incorrect, I did not say that it did that. I of all people know that spies cant cause Anarchy directly (even though opponents of the Civic swap mission always try to imply/argue that they can.;))
The player switching back DOES have to incur anarchy, unless they're Spiritual or have Cristo. And they DO get the 5 turn wait penalty. Up to 5 turns of collapsed economy and 1-3 turns of anarchy is not acceptable for such a cheap spy mission.

And cheap is relative. Later on when you can easily generate hundreds of EP per turn (if not thousands), and this mission remains about the same cost, it is insanely cheap.
Forgive me if I somehow made you think I implied that the spy causes Anarchy. You might notice I have actually argued against people who insist that it does in the past. What I meant by Anarchy is during the switchback. We are on the same page on this.:)

When I say they don't get the penalty, what I am saying is if an ally uses the same spy mission to switch them back then there is no anarchy, and no 5 turn penalty. Im sorry if that wasnt clear:)

And you are right of course that cheap is relative, but by way of example, in BTS MTDG II, when we were in the endgame with Merlot, AMAZON was producing about 800-900 EPs per turn, and the Civic-switch mission was costing 400-500 EPs. Now that was running 100% Espy, with 3 Scotland Yards, settled Spies on each one, Courthouses in every city, Jails in all the Espy cities, and running lots of Spy specialists, with over 20 cities, all with over 10 population each, while Merlot had only 4 cities and no way to run counter espy on us (because of the Map design). It was an insane amount of espy, and frankly unsustainable. The only reason we got away with it was because of the ETTT. At most times we were making about 300 EPs per turn at sustainable levels. But obviously, with EPs like that we could probably keep them in Despotism indefinitely.

But NOT if they had an ally to put them back in HR as soon as we put them in Despotism. If they had that, and they had been able to run the Counter-espy mission on us it would have made the mission cost 1200-1500 EPs and it would have been impossible to sustain the tactic. Anyway since cheap is subjective, lets instead talk about whether the mission is truly overpowered/un-counterable.

Is your position that the low cost (because it doesnt scale with Empire size) is what makes it OP and that's all? Otherwise its OK?
 
There's a pretty big difference between a broken mechanic and human strategy. An AI doesn't chariot rush me when it sees me running a pure farmer's gambit. A human can and will. That's pretty vastly different from abusing a game mechanic that you can't really counter.
I'm sorry, this whole argument just went over my head:confused: Im on my way out of the office, so maybe when I read it again when I get home it will be clearer to me.

Looking at your statement below... Are you basically just saying you agree with LP? If so that's Kewl... I can just focus on what he is explaining. If there is some nuance in your points that differs from his please say so because this is important to me to get right and be well reasoned and clear.

We will talk more on theis when I get home:) Great debates guys:)
 
Ozzy, note that War Elephants are commonly banned because they're a superior choice and have adverse effects on gameplay. So your sarcastic analogy actually does have merit.

Sommerswerd, is it reasonable to ask players to rely on collusion in order to defend against overpowered tactics? Collusion in contrast to game mechanics tends to be frowned upon. I think the main question here is simply about the cost of those missions vs the effect. The fun factor is also relevant, but it's more difficult to agree on what constitutes fun.
 
On a more productive note, what teams are actually signed up? Is there going to be a limit on number of teams? One thing to keep in mind - it's vastly better to have 4 teams with a solid list of signups than 4 solid teams and 2 flaky teams that inevitably disappear halfway through the game. RB has close to 40 signups already, so we are pretty solidly confirmed. :)
 
Yes, we need more people to start CFC teams. Or people to start joining mine.

On a more urgent note, we badly need an admin. I'd be willing to step up, but I fully understand if some members are reserved about a "newer" player adminning.
 
Yes, we need more people to start CFC teams. Or people to start joining mine.
I think it would be advisable to go for a single CFC team, rather than multiples. If nothing else it's neater and fairer to have every site fielding 1 team. :)

On a more urgent note, we badly need an admin. I'd be willing to step up, but I fully understand if some members are reserved about a "newer" player adminning.
The thing about being an admin is that it's a far more involved task than it appears from the outside. It's not a simple matter of getting a fancy title and then coming up with brilliant solutions to occasional issues now and then. In reality, you often get called into situations when people have morphed into the most hot-headed, argumentative, unpleasant, and generally worst-natured versions of themselves. No solution you can offer will make everyone happy, and often your decisions - though grudgingly followed - will result in a lot of very nasty feedback from all parties involved.

Now this isn't to scare you off, but it can happen - I've witnessed it and experienced it for myself. To take on the job of admin, you have to have not just a wealth of experience and complete impartiality to the situation at hand, but a skin made of steel. Especially for a multi-site game. Just saying. ;)
 
Sommerswerd, is it reasonable to ask players to rely on collusion in order to defend against overpowered tactics?
It depends on two things. 1. As I already asked, why do you consider the mission overpowered? Is it because the cost does not scale with empire size but affects the whole empire? Is that the only reason? Because bulbing a tech does not scale with empire size, but getting a tech affects the whole empire. So is teching OP? Is bulbing OP? There are plenty of Wonders that give Empire-wide benefits, and yet their cost does not scale with empire size. Are they OP? Building 1 Oil well delivers oil to your ENTIRE empire no matter whether you have 3 cities or 30 cities. And the cost to build the Oil well is the same regardless. It does not scale with empire size. Is that OP? (Now for this we have evidence that the makers of Civ thought it was OP, because in Civ 5, strategic resources are nerfed to scale with use). So should we ban the use of strategic resources?

2. How many players are in the game. And what sort of game is it? If there are only 2 or 3 players or its a regular internet blazing speed MP game, then no, it is not reasonable to ask people to rely on "collusion" (BTW I'd call it Diplomacy, but hey, you wanna call it "collusion" to make it sound bad, whatevers;)). Anyway with 5 or more players, playing a slow-paced diplo heavy MTDG, sure I will expect players to rely on diplo (collusion) to defend themselves against all tactics... OP or otherwise.
On a more productive note, what teams are actually signed up? Is there going to be a limit on number of teams?
RB, CFC, Poly, WPC, CivPlayers. No limit, AFAIK, but I expect that non-viable teams will not be allowed to play.
I think it would be advisable to go for a single CFC team, rather than multiples.
I agree, and frankly I doubt CFC can field more than 1 viable team anyway what with all our best and brightest defecting to play for other sites, right;)

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

[tongue-in-cheek:mischief:] We NEED you! They don't!:nono: Honestly, who do you think considers you one of their higher ranked players? Who loves you more? Where is your REAL Home? You have over SIX THOUSAND posts over here and just over 1K there. Obviously you are more CFC then RB! You're the King over here. Over there you're just another guy!:( Don't waste your time trying to impress/ kiss up to those guys. You are already respected and admired over here![/tongue-in-cheek:mischief:]

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

Play with us man. Play for CFC... Seriously:yup:
 
By collusion, I'm comparing it with gifting your MoM city to another player and giving them a 50% bonus on their GAs. Or Gifting Pyramids to allow civic changes. Would you consider either of those practices acceptable? Has it been done in past games? And have "friendly" revolts been done in past games?
 
By collusion, I'm comparing it with gifting your MoM city to another player and giving them a 50% bonus on their GAs. Or Gifting Pyramids to allow civic changes. Would you consider either of those practices acceptable? Has it been done in past games? And have "friendly" revolts been done in past games?

In the most games I've been played gifting city was tied with a 50-turns no-return, other than that, you are free to gift your MoM/Pyr city to anyone you like.

Also, in many games a rule of not gifting a city when you are at war to other than a nation to which you are at war with the agreement of ALL other parties you are at war is forbidden.
 
Top Bottom