Corona Virus multiplayer challenge

[Prof. Garfield]

Civ2units expressed surprise at the extent of the revolution. So was I when I finished my turn, so I asked Prof. Garfield to repeat the turn, in case there were any questions. I can report that he did considerably better than I did. He may wish to add some comments of his own.

Yes, I can confirm that going in with basically no knowledge of the situation, most of the white civ can be captured in one turn with spies, since they have the paradrop feature. Though I did have the advantage of knowing that it was possible to do before I started, and that I'd be finding spies in some captured cities. The defence to this sort of thing is to have courthouses and a large treasury, so it is expensive to bribe cities. However, cities are still relatively cheap to bribe. I believe that you can modify the diplomacy menu so that city bribes are impossible. There may be TOT rules that help as well; there are for units, but I don't know about cities.

Lua doesn't seem to offer any direct way to intervene when a city is bribed (there is a trigger for unit bribes). If you wanted, you could check when a city is captured, and try to infer whether it was bribed or not, but it wouldn't be completely straightforward. Maybe the revolt would have a chance to fail, and the city would revert back to the original owner. Supposedly, the macro events have an option to do an event only when a city is captured via bribe, but my event engine didn't implement it, and had a note saying a small amount of testing suggests that it doesn't work properly in the macro events.

 

[JPetroski]

I was kind of thinking of making spies "k" units that press the button next to a target rather than moving onto it. Then you can simply search for what is around and have any functionality that you want, including modifying the base cost of theft, or even, I suppose, probably using a counter system to make converting a city a multiple turn ordeal.

 

[techumseh]

There are simpler ways to reduce this outcome. First, don't give spies the the paratroop flag. Second, don't allow spies at all, just diplomats. Third, make them very expensive, if building them is even allowed. A few at the start and spawning from specific events is an alternative. And fourth, make spy units immobile counter-intelligence units. They can counter the activities of diplomats.

 

[techumseh]

Your victory is completely legitimate, but it us yet another example of the issue with Civ2 multiplayer games, as nearly all of them end in similar fashion. You play for 50 turns, build up an empire, and its all done in 1 to 2 turns. Countless games over the years follow this pattern. This ending, in my opinion, is one of the more rediculous examples.

Basically, in this game, about 30 cities that were mostly happy, and had almost never been in disorder, completely defected in one turn to a hostile empire. You executed a strategy flawlessly, but, it's still a stupid way for the game to end, and something I need to address for Cold War.

I mean, when you think about it, we've both long had enough spies to do this. I'd be pretty interested to see just how early one civ could take out another with this system.

And this isn't a knock against you, Tech. You played by the rules and won, I just think it's rediculous that this is possible, which I trust you can understand.

And you could have done the same to me much earlier, if you had figured it out. In the early turns, you blasted past me in technologies based on your superior knowledge of the trade rules. I spent the entire game building transportation infrastructure and trade units in an attempt to catch up. If you knew how weak I was in the first half of the game, you'd kick yourself. I used bribery extensively to build my empire, gaining units as I went. No need to add garrisons or rebuild improvements then. I observed that others tended to use conventional attacks, which are inefficient.

I don't think that a multiplayer game has to end in a sudden, overwhelming victory. The problem is money. (Isn't it always?) Huge trade payoffs are one problem, most recently used by Prof. Garfield to create an overwhelming military superiority in Imperialism. The other is bribery, which I used in this game. Sale of overly expensive assets is an other aspect. Control those factors, and you are on the way to a more stable game. .../2

 

[techumseh]

The main issue, IMHO, is the psychology of human players. Most do not play to win, they play to have a fun social interaction. It makes me sick! I wrote a paper about this years ago, "Diplomacy in Multiplayer Games". We saw that several time in this game, where it was suggested that parts of the map should be left to weaker civs in order to be more 'fair' and 'balanced'. Others expected 'gifts' while offering nothing in return. (take a bow Indian Alliance) Everyone wants to fight the AI civs, very few want to take on their fellow players. So it just builds up until someone makes a move. To be honest, I have found multiplayer games to be very frustrating for years. There, I got that off my chest. Thanks for listening.

 

[JPetroski]

The main issue, IMHO, is the psychology of human players. Most do not play to win, they play to have a fun social interaction. It makes me sick! I wrote a paper about this years ago, "Diplomacy in Multiplayer Games". We saw that several time in this game, where it was suggested that parts of the map should be left to weaker civs in order to be more 'fair' and 'balanced'. Others expected 'gifts' while offering nothing in return. (take a bow Indian Alliance) Everyone wants to fight the AI civs, very few want to take on their fellow players. So it just builds up until someone makes a move. To be honest, I have found multiplayer games to be very frustrating for years. There, I got that off my chest. Thanks for listening.

I think this also plays a large part in it, yes. There were three playing for fun, and one playing to win. You weren't privy to it, but a few charitable decisions were made by the 3 so as to not upset you. For example, we decided not to go completely crazy with city exchanges. Now that I know this kind of behavior frustrates you, I'll keep that in mind for next time

Anyway, Bitterfrost, anyone?

 

[techumseh]

I just think that rules should be agreed in advance, and not constantly changed during the course of the game. Trying to reflect a realistic state of affairs should be the goal. For example, how often do nations trade cities in the real world? Not very often. You can do almost anything with the cheat menu. That doesn't mean that it makes sense to do so.

 

[CurtSibling]

@JPetroski could have used his nuke and apache to blast/capture Chicago early on. It's what I do any time I play as the Empire. Only one faction can survive! As for this coup, yeah - It was well played. But that is the probelm with turn based MP games, perhaps a house rule should have been in place for how many cities are allowed to be subverted per turn. As for realism, that is not what we aim for in MP games, we aim for fun. Of course we have social interactions. We are human, and it's a game. We are not out to prove how ruthless we are. We are nerds, not actual Mongol warlords. For the remake of this scenario, I will make a MP version that addresses the spy-spam, and any other features you guys wish to suggest. I am building the new tech tree, so now is the time to let me know. And good game, guys. Even if it ended with George Clooney being a rotter!

 

[JPetroski]

But that is the probelm with turn based MP games, perhaps a house rule should have been in place for how many cities are allowed to be subverted per turn

I'd caution you against making too many house rules. The more house rules you put in the more chance there is that someone will accidentally break them. Also, it's much easier just to play the game with what is available than to have to consult a manual about what you can and can't do.

The problem with spies is the paradrop function coupled with the high cost of improvements and low cost of spies. I'd nix the paradrop function for spies, increase their cost, and call it a day. If you don't, anyone who wishes to go for this strategy can do so, and there's not much point not to do so in the future, as it is exceptionally effective. It reduces your scenario to one tactic, which you probably don't want.

I will make a MP version that addresses the spy-spam, and any other features you guys wish to suggest.

All in all this is a great scenario. Here are a few changes I would consider if it was mine. I'd consider these for SP as well. Only #1 is truly "MP specific," if you want to have an underdog experience in SP.

1. Strengthen the weaker civs with some useful unique units from the start like the other civs have. Consider using the extra unit slots to accomplish this if necessary.
2. Consider if it makes sense to somehow connect both sides of the map. You probably don't want to start over with placing everything but if you did it wouldn't be the worst idea to extend this the map to Panama. It would also be pretty interesting to have more territory to fight over/colonize. At least dredge southern Mexico as is often done in games.
3. See if you can do some research on how navigable the rivers are in the U.S. @techumseh was quite correct that it's totally unrealistic for an aircraft carrier to sail all the way to Minneapolis (I think they have a draft around 40 feet and the river is only dredged to 9 at that point), but there still might be some merit to opening up the interior at least a bit for gameplay (as you said, fun over realism).
4. No one played them, but I think the weakest civ geographically in the current game (and almost certainly if you did open up the waterways a bit) would be the Pentecostal Union. Consider balancing that somehow. Maybe they're the "steppe civ" and get a little extra MP in their units.
5. You may wish to slightly tweak the effectiveness of the Raptor especially, but air units in general. We didn't have a war in this scenario but in my SP scenarios, there wasn't much point to building anything else once I had it. I think I see you added some AA guns so you might already be all over this.

@JPetroski could have used his nuke and apache to blast/capture Chicago early on. It's what I do any time I play as the Empire.

You might want to consider randomly placing each nuke in one of the cities via events on turn 1. This wouldn't stop someone from firing them first turn, but it would prevent the player who has played SP from specifically targeting the city he knows the nuke is in, which would remove the advantage from the first player to move (had I done that in a MP game, I'd argue that would be very cheesy for me to do). You might wish to do this in the SP game outright, to enhance replayability and difficulty.

I just think that rules should be agreed in advance, and not constantly changed during the course of the game. Trying to reflect a realistic state of affairs should be the goal. For example, how often do nations trade cities in the real world? Not very often. You can do almost anything with the cheat menu. That doesn't mean that it makes sense to do so.

All we did in this is if someone proposed a rule change everyone had to agree and if even one person didn't, it didn't happen, which seems to be a fine way to handle games with friends. While a few changes were proposed, I don't think we actually made any rule changes at all, unless I forgot something? Also, territory exchange has a long history in the real world and in MP games. Usually in history it was one sided and for money, but I'm sure someone like Patine could figure out some obscure time there was an actual city swap and request a unit for it Anyway, one of my proposals was "the world is round" and you said "no it isn't," so I don't think you get to opine about how "realistic the state of affairs" was with the city swap

 

[CurtSibling]

@JPetroski ,
Great post, and your words have merit. All these suggestions have been taken on board, and some of your concerns here are already met and dealt with.
I hope to make version 2 a more rounded experience in SP, and more balanced and fun for all in MP...Especially regarding the diplo units. I'll keep everyone posted.
Once again, I want people to have fun, not don a fedora and get hung up on "realism"...It's CIV2 we are playing after all.

 

[civ2units]

Tech played a very good game and used the mechanics of the spies very effective. Something I never thought about to use them like this way. Congratulation on your victory, Tech.
For my two scenarios I will try to find a way to avoid bribing cities. I don´t wan´t to disable the Diplomats/Spies in the game though.

The scenario is very good and it was a pleasure for me to play with you guys.

 

[CurtSibling]

Looking at editing the cost of bribing cities would be a good TOTPP or Lua project...

 

[JPetroski]

Looking at editing the cost of bribing cities would be a good TOTPP or Lua project...

You can do pretty much whatever you want for MP in lua but the challenge is coming up with solutions that the AI can use. That is very difficult (as it is in the base game).

For MP, my idea would be to "remove" "spy" abilities from the "spy" and make it a unit that needs to approach a target and get within a "range." You press a button which populates a menu with all the "targets" within that range. You can then select the target and the action. The action could be the same ones as in the generic game but this approach would allow you to assign different values. For example, you might increase the cost of a city based on what improvements or units are in it. You also might "teleport" the units within (or some/most/all/none depending how you want it) outside of the city and rehome them to "none" so the spy takes the city but the army doesn't defect. That would solve the problem where advanced units cost thousands to bribe in the field yet you can get them for next to nothing in a city. Unfortunately the AI would never use this.

I suppose you could use "onActivate" for the AI unit to trigger some probabilities of it taking action depending on different factors like diplomatic stance, different techs, comparative strength... Basically anything you want. But, at that point I shudder to think what the code would look like. Theoretically most things are possible. Probably a bear to playtest, however, so it might be best just to have the AI use spies as normal. They aren't good enough to pull off what Techumseh did anyway.

It's something I'll try to explore more in Cold War because espionage should be front and center but I want to keep things "plausible." I agree with you that we want fun over "realism" and try to design with that in mind (I think I even put a disclaimer in most readmes for the purists out there ) but I do think "plausibility" needs to be there.

Anyway, I'll admit I was a bit annoyed that the game ended like it did yesterday, but having slept on it I have to smirk at what Tech pulled off. This is a game and coup for the ages. "Remember that time Techumseh bribed Petroski's entire civ in one turn?" Well done Techumseh

 

[Prof. Garfield]

You can just remove the option to bribe cities from the diplomat/spy menu. Problem solved, unless you really need some cities to be bribed. I think the AI could still bribe, but that isn't likely to be a serious problem.

For MP, my idea would be to "remove" "spy" abilities from the "spy" and make it a unit that needs to approach a target and get within a "range." You press a button which populates a menu with all the "targets" within that range. You can then select the target and the action. The action could be the same ones as in the generic game but this approach would allow you to assign different values. For example, you might increase the cost of a city based on what improvements or units are in it. You also might "teleport" the units within (or some/most/all/none depending how you want it) outside of the city and rehome them to "none" so the spy takes the city but the army doesn't defect. That would solve the problem where advanced units cost thousands to bribe in the field yet you can get them for next to nothing in a city. Unfortunately the AI would never use this.

I don't know of any reason why this wouldn't work for the human player. For the AI, I wouldn't even bother forcing it to move a spy into position. Just use events to make it take certain diplomatic actions each turn.

 

[CurtSibling]

I think @Prof. Garfield just solved the spy issue for MP games. I do however would like to explore what Lua can do for the scenario too. Like buying merc weapons.

 

[JPetroski]

If you're interested, I'd be happy to PM you a copy of "The Cold War" (such as it is) so you can see how the events are structured @Prof. Garfield made a modular system that (I at least feel) makes the entry level considerably less to get started in lua, and I've used it from the start rather than trying to hodge podge this and that in (like I did with Midway), so I think it's one of the easier events to follow (so far). If you wanted to simply port over the events you have and then add a couple of things that have already been done (like mercenaries in Caesar or Napoleon) then it probably wouldn't be impossible for you to get there with a little nudging and help. I'd agree that mercenaries would be very fitting for this game.

Prof. Garfield made a converter for the macro events that I think works well enough but it hasn't been tested very thoroughly and he'd have to comment on. I don't think it would be the worst idea to try your hand at "long form" writing the events yourself. I think you would find it very rewarding and probably easier to learn this way as well.

I'm pretty sure Prof. Garfield cringes each time I try to explain a lua concept but I could at least go through Cold War with you and show you where things are set up and where to find stuff/put things. I still can't make brand new events of any substance but I'm getting halfway decent at getting basic stuff to work.

 

[CurtSibling]

Oh, yes! I would be delighted to get any hints and scenarios using Lua. I would like a situation where there can be areas on the map near each faction HQ city, where they can buy a range of merc units. This would help the smaller factions gain some hardcore weapons to challenge the two big boy empires. I am still throwing the tech stream together, and the ideas are still forming in my mind, but I would love to use Lua in this scenario (finally) and seeing if it can be implemented without too much fuss...So feel free to contact me when I create a new thread for American Kingdoms II. Thanks!

 

[techumseh]

@JPetroski could have used his nuke and apache to blast/capture Chicago early on. It's what I do any time I play as the Empire. Only one faction can survive! As for this coup, yeah - It was well played. But that is the probelm with turn based MP games, perhaps a house rule should have been in place for how many cities are allowed to be subverted per turn. As for realism, that is not what we aim for in MP games, we aim for fun. Of course we have social interactions. We are human, and it's a game. We are not out to prove how ruthless we are. We are nerds, not actual Mongol warlords. For the remake of this scenario, I will make a MP version that addresses the spy-spam, and any other features you guys wish to suggest. I am building the new tech tree, so now is the time to let me know. And good game, guys. Even if it ended with George Clooney being a rotter!

And I got the girl!

 

[CurtSibling]

And the colostomy bag!

 

[JPetroski]

Can you explain what on earth is going on with the Clooney references? It has flown over my head moreso than your spy network!