Announcing heihojin's 8th PBEM game!

[gstocki]

#1) By your own words above, deception, double-dealing and trickery are apparently your "style of play". That's fine, but to expect others to not deal warily with you because of it is naive.

#2) I would never take anyone's word against another as written gospel. However, it would make me judge that person more carefully. An honorable person/player would not attack someone for doing the exact same thing they themselves had done twice before. I, in fact, had issued you a warning to leave my territory on the second offense. You gave me no such courtesy on even my first incursion.

The two combined lead me to believe that Playboy's account of your previous behavior was indeed accurate. Why should I live in a box and pretend that you haven't lied and double-dealed? Why would I trust you blindly? Why should I give you any benefit of the doubt when you take every opportunity to show you will behave as a cutthroat and brigand? Quite honestly, I sent that warrior into your territory as a test to see if you would treat me like I treated you, or if you would lop him off to prevent any exploration - unlike my actions toward you. I guess we both know how you did on that one. And now so does the rest of the game since you chose to make my email to you public.

If you like to play that way, more power to you. I don't dislike you as a person for how you play a game. However, you lose a lot of respect in my book by complaining about how your prior behavior and reputation shouldn't "carry over". If you want a clean slate, the only way you'll get it from me is if I don't know you're the same guy who attacked me without warning for doing the same thing you did. If other people give you a clean slate every game, that's certainly their perogative.

But I'll remember it and behave appropriately. Doesn't mean I don't like you, it does mean I won't let you pull any trickery as a result of blind trust on my part and my dealings with you will always be with a skeptical eye.

Good luck in the game. May the best king win. I'll be doing my best to see it's me.

 

[Playboy]

On one hand, Wildfire, an argument can be made that actions from one game universe to another should not affect another, and over the years I have debated both sides of the issue, but that issue is not the point here.

In game 4 I replaced the original player. When you held me accountable for behavior of the prior ruler, who, I have never had any contact with, you violated, from my viewpoint, a sense of gamesmanship. When you abrogated our peace treaty with a sneak attack, you showed me that your 'in-game' word could not be trusted, and I responded in as close to game manner as possible.

Now, you exhibit a very similar pattern of treachery in another game. I agree with gstocki that you would be naive at best if you think that this group would not notice.

You seem to favor the Persians, which indicates that your strategy is to push wars early on in order to both speed your GA and utilize the significant early strength of the Immortals. I don't have a problem with this strategy. What I (and I think gstocki will agree) object to is the way in which you choose to implement that strategy. Breaking your word, and blaming others for exactly the same exploratory behavior you exhibit violates the "do unto others . . ." Judeo-Christian values that those crazy Alabamans are insisting our society was founded upon.

We in the Civ3 PBEM gaming community are a very small microcosm of the greater gaming community. Back when I was a Rated Ace in Star Fleet Battles, there was this one guy who always got pointed out by players because he had been caught cheating in a match. His reputation followed him throughout the years I was involved in that community. I am most emphatically NOT saying that you are in any way cheating. I am pointing out that player reputations follow them from game to game unless they play new opponents every time.

Beyond the game itself, we exist as a small community of gamers. From what I can tell, Heihojen's community across nine games is between 15-25 players. We are every bit as much a group as any that meets in the analog world. In fact, it these out of game postings that validate us as a gaming group. Many of us are here because we feel that Civ offers us the richest gaming experience to our tastes. While the "Immortal rush" strategy's validity demonstrates the flexibility of the game, a lot of players prefer long builder's games. I am in that camp. Therefore, when I see a 'mad dog' pattern from a player, I want to let everyone else know that I will do all I can to help remove that player from the game as quickly as possible.

Also, you should realize that when you act so rabidly, as you continue to do in game 4, you make me want to remove you from any other game that I am in.

You chose to make war upon me, after falsely offering peace. You have no moral ground upon which to stand for your claim that my support of gstocki is wrong. As long as you choose to pursue this dishonorable war, I will use every opportunity to defeat you on whatever battleground we meet.

 

[heihojin]

I have deliberately attempted to remain silent in these squabbles, although I think it's appropriate to clarify my position on a few points. The first of these is that there is no way to have a "clean slate" with every game; players have memories, and will remember how they have been treated from game to game. They will also acquire (even if only passively) information from outside sources about another player and the manner in which he treats others. There is no way to prevent this, and so I wouldn't try even if I wanted to. To paraphrase gstocki, players don't live in boxes.

The second is that as obvious as it appears, Civilization is a game with a goal of winning. Some players may enjoy the sheer pleasure of watching their civilization grow and develop so much that the act of playing supplants winning as the primary goal; however, these players must understand that not everyone shares their vision. As a player, I will do whatever it takes (within the rules) to win a game and I assume that other players will do the same. It is this assumption that allows me to separate in-game behavior from out-of-game behavior, and also allows me to compartmentalize a player's actions. In other words, if someone violates a peace treaty when it was to their apparent advantage to do so, I silently congratulate them on a good move and on catching me unaware (while outwardly cursing their name, of course ). Sure, I will file this information away for further use - but I recognize that there's nothing personal about the act, that it's just part of the game. He did what he did because he thought it was in his best interest to do so, and that's that. So if you're tempted to hold a grudge against someone who betrays you in gameplay - get over it!

The third point is that I am disturbed by the prospect of "griefing." Griefing is behavior that is deliberately intended to annoy, harass, or disturb another player beyond the scope of the game. There has recently been some behavior that I originally laughed off, but that in retrospect may have come close to the line between legitimate gameplay and griefing. Playboy's comment below alerted me to the need to address this:

Originally posted by Playboy
Therefore, when I see a 'mad dog' pattern from a player, I want to let everyone else know that I will do all I can to help remove that player from the game as quickly as possible. Also, you should realize that when you act so rabidly, as you continue to do in game 4, you make me want to remove you from any other game that I am in.

I recognize that I cannot force players to withhold grudges. If two players in a game are automatically going to go at each other's throats from 4000 BC onward, there is little I can do to stop them. I personally don't like the behavior, but there's not much I can do when a player is willing to sacrifice any chance of winning the game just to ensure that his nemesis does not. These players, like the visionary builders, are playing a different game altogether.

If, however, the behavior exhibited by these players begins to affect the gameplay experience of the other players - or if players indicate a willingness to break the rules of the game in order to further their grudge - I will implement sanctions against them. Admins (like players) do not live in boxes, and I will use my judgment in determining the scope (whether sanctions are applied individually or collectively) and severity of the sanctions. They may be as benign as barring them from playing together, or as severe as barring them from playing altogether.

I am paying attention to behavior that may affect the gameplay experience of others or that goes beyond the scope of the game, and will address these issues privately with the perpetrator(s) if it gets to that point. For now, consider this a cautionary note: if you are going to hold a grudge, use judgment in choosing how you act on it.


heihojin

 

[heihojin]

Originally posted by Playboy
You have no moral ground upon which to stand for your claim that my support of gstocki is wrong.

I presume you mean moral support - because if you haven't yet made contact with the Chinese, any other type of support would violate the rules of this game.


heihojin

 

[col]

Interesting - I had a long theoretical discussion with Matrix about exactly these issues . You can find the thread entitled reputation in pbems in this forum. It is clear that different game universes exist and that players who have come to Civ from different games have different expectations. I came from a Diplomacy perspective; Matrix came from A SimCity perspective. I believe in winning by any means within the rules. Matrix has a sense of how players 'should' behave which precludes treaty breaking.

I think successful players will not play the same from game to game and can use their reputation to their advantage. Because I launched an early jag rush one game does not mean that I wont play a Bab builder the next. Use previous behaviour as a guide at your peril.

I agree with HH that grudges from one game to the next have no part to play in pbems. It spoils the game and shows a basic immaturity. You lost. Get over it. Win next time.

 

[gstocki]

Originally posted by heihojin
I presume you mean moral support - because if you haven't yet made contact with the Chinese, any other type of support would violate the rules of this game.


heihojin

I've had no contact with Playboy in or out of game other than what you see here on this messageboard.

I'm a bit perturbed that this hornet's nest even got stirred up. I sent Wildfire a bit of 'in-character' message giving him a chance to keep our civs on peaceful footing instead of wasting early resources beating each other down. It was never intended for public consumption. I don't mind that he posted it - his perogative. I didn't specifically say it was private.

Anyway, as previously stated, I can certainly appreciate the strategy Wildfire is employing to go to war early. I have no problem with it. I suspected he might, which was why I sent in my 'test dummy' in the first place. I'm perfectly capable of making sure he pays a price for it, whether I end up beating him or not.

But since he chose to make this all public, I don't think he's got any right to complain when people make judgments of him based on his actions. That was the only point I was trying to make above (in a lot more words).

Anyway, I'm done with this topic. I don't harbor any ill-feelings toward anyone in this game. Like Heihojin, I play to win and I expect everyone else to do the same. Although I think you're all wasting your time.

<------------- Me

 

[gstocki]

And so the treacherous Persians were exterminated as promised. Such is the just end of all those who would speak words of peace and execute acts of war.

 

[WildFire]

Oops

 

[heihojin]

I am pleased to announce that with the successful construction and launch of the Space Ship, I attained a Space Race Victory for the glory of the Roman Empire in 1555 AD.

This was a challenging contest. Although I was the only original player left at the end of the game, each of the positions had been played by a skilled substitute for much of the game: EL_OSO replaced prettyvacant (who had replaced D.K. early in the game), GreyBeard replaced task48, and DogBoy replaced gstocki. Thank you, gentlemen, for being so committed to your positions and providing such an interesting challenge!

Here are the victory screen shots:




heihojin

 

[DogBoy]

This was a fun game and I was glad to be a part of it. I came in for the Chinese during the mid-middle ages. Rome was happily enjoying his own private island while Babylon, China, and the Iroquois were fighting a seemingly needless war. After reading the early part of this thread I can only conclude that the early wars just crippled Babylon, China, and Iroquois. When I took over my entire army consisted of one Rider (yes, you heard right, one Rider), about 10 pikemen, a few archers, and 10 workers. You can see the Chinese lands in one of the pictures and see that I had quite a bit of land. The boundaries between China, Babylon, and the Iroquois did not change once I joined the game. Those wars must have hurt Babylon and Iroqouis just as much if not more than China, because even during towards the last part of the game all their roads did not have railroads. I can only conclude that like me, they had almost no workers when they took over for their civs. Right after I joined we all three decided to put the fighting aside and freely trade techs to catch Rome just to have a shot at winning this game. We were so far behind that we never caught up. Rome maintained a tech lead and we never caught up. That just shows you how bad early wars can cripple a civ. At the end of the game somebody made a comment that we waited too long to invade Rome but I disagree. We never invaded Rome because we never had the ability. Even after pooling our resources we stayed behing Rome in technology. The only way I could even attempt to keep peace was to disband nearly my entire military, and it still took forever to research techs. All in all a fun game coordinating with other civs working together. Congratulations to Heihojin for destroying the civs on his land mass early(?) and pushing towards space.

 

[heihojin]

Congratulations to Heihojin for destroying the civs on his land mass early(?) and pushing towards space.

Thank you!

I started out sharing the continent with the Egyptians, played by Technoscaper. I had to wage war against him early to claim my continent.

Once I had my continent, I then had to play "catch-up" to the other three powers (Babylon, the Iroquois, and China). Babylon's Great Library had placed them in a superior position for the early game, and under task48 had gone to war against the Iroquois (initially played by prettyvacant). While the Iroquois had expanded quite quickly and had originally been a match for the Babylonians, they lacked the crucial resource of Saltpeter. When the Chinese (originally played by gstocki) decided to enter the fray against the Iroquois, things looked somewhat bleak for the Iroquois.

I knew that maintaining a balance of power among the other three players would be crucial to my long-term interests, so I quickly made trade arrangements with the Iroquois. I had spare supplies of Saltpeter on my continent, and I provided it practically for free to prettyvacant (and later EL_OSO). It would prove to be invaluable to their war efforts, allowing them to fight the Babylonians and the Chinese to a standstill.

I hustled my butt off for tech trades in this game through the Middle Ages. At some point circumstances became such that the Iroquois and I were able to swap several techs in a row, allowing us to overtake the Babylonians and Chinese. Our relationship continued up through the Babylonian-Chinese-Iroquois pact was formed in the early part of the Industrial Age; once you guys allied together, I ditched almost all efforts at diplomacy and made the final push alone.

It would have been incredibly difficult for you to successfully invade Rome. Cross-oceanic invasions are difficult enough to pull off - but factoring in my possession of Sun Tzu's Art of War, my possession of Magellan's Voyage, my Railroad network, my relative technological standing, and my unsurpassed productive capacity, it would have been nearly impossible to accomplish. It would have taken an extremely well-coordinated effort from all three of you to wage war effectively against me.

I was a little concerned that I might lack crucial Strategic Resources, and I almost had a scare with Rubber. Fortunately I was able to bully Babylon off a small nearby island possessing Rubber, and I was upgrading my Riflemen to Infantry within a few turns of discovering Replaceable Parts. I was preparing to go to war to acquire other Strategic Resources, but I didn't have to.

My war against Babylon was initiated partly to put some of my unused productive capacity to work, and partly to hamper your alliance. I had been monitoring which techs the three of you were researching from my Diplomacy Screen, and I had inferred that Babylon was researching Rocketry. The more that I could distract Babylon with warfare, the longer it would take your alliance to acquire Rocketry (and even more importantly, Space Flight). Furthermore, they were conveniently situated and only provided one luxury resource (Furs) to me - so they were a natural choice. I don't know how successful I was in delaying your acquisition of Rocketry and Space Flight as a result, but it was still fun nuking Babylon.

I am surprised that the three of you didn't go to war with me together. Without Espionage, I would not have been able to steal technology or spy on your cities. As it turns out, I was able to steal Nuclear Power from the Chinese and Synthetic Fibers from the Iroquois toward the end of the game. Maintaining a state of war, even if you had no intention of actually waging war, would have precluded me from undertaking Diplomatic Missions, and denied me several luxury resources upon which I had grown almost dependent.

Thanks again for a great game, guys. I'm looking forward to many more!


heihojin