Ruleset Discussion

[slaze]

What if someone declares war and you want to change your tech before your turn ends?

I think the way it was written, with the admin determining that you are delibrately hiding your research, is fine. As written, the above situation wouldn't apply.

The only opportunity a team would have to really use it is if, say in war, they were the last team to go. All other opportunities would need multiple log ins, otherwise you don't end your turn in your desired tech rate. And all that is needed are the graphs vs the demo numbers (which tend to get recorded) to figure it out.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Is there going to be a rule against using Espionage to change a rival's civics?

Just asking...

 

[Lord Parkin]

Personally I think there should be. It's a well known exploit (I can search for some threads and link people if they so desire)... basically the mission is often absurdly cheap because it DOES NOT scale with empire/economy/production size. Thus in the mid to late game, a large empire can be kept in near-constant Anarchy for a turn's worth of espionage for a small empire. It's completely abusive because of the incorrect scaling of that mission's cost.

 

[Earthling]

I'd be just as happy with Espionage off, except I think it does something stupid turning the points into culture, iirc. That rule sounds reasonable, maybe it's something teams could further vote on though.

 

[Lord Parkin]

Except I do like the passive effects of espionage, so I don't think we should turn it off altogether.

 

[Earthling]

Well we can't turn it off because of broken culture stuff, so I agree it's gotta be on. I'll just say I'm for any rules preventing ridiculousness/exploits, espionage has enough problems already.

 

[Irgy]

Personally I think there should be. It's a well known exploit (I can search for some threads and link people if they so desire)

That would be nice if you have the time. I much prefer to stick with the defaults with these things (when it's entirely in-game like this rather than rather than metagaming as in the espionage research-hiding example). So it would be good to know whether it's broken or just overpowered. Numbers would probably help more than threads full of whining mind you, although I plan to try and look at those myself anyway.

Whether it's worth your effort for just my one probably not balance-holding vote (as well as my curiosity) is up to you though.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I have heard it said that its an exploit, however...
I have actually heard it suggested that the game designers intended it to be that way, as a check against empires that ignore espionage spending and buildings.

The Espy system was always intended to be a sort of hybrid between spying and terrorism. A way for a smaller more primitive nation to terrorize and wreak havoc on a larger one with relatively cheap means... just like in real life.

The reason players find themselves at the mercy of the civic changing mission (and other espy missions for that matter) is because players routinely place a low priority on espionage spending, counter espy missions, security bureaus, great spies and spies in general. We would rather just spent the money on staying at 100% tech or on binary research and we don't want to pay any price for it (i.e. low defenses against espy missions). That is what the whole 'tech-switching-to-hide-reserch-goals' is all about... not wanting to spend money on espy so that you can tech faster.

Plus, the AI is especially inept at espy (poisoned water anyone?) so most people dont have much practice dealing with well done espionage spending.

The result? We just ignore espy pretty much and we are poorly equipped to defend against it. So when it gets used on us it is pretty devastating.

 

[Lord Parkin]

Actually even with all the buildings, more espionage spending than anyone else, and running counter-espionage, it's still very very cheap for a small nation to employ against a large nation, and waaay overpowered. Consider that it can effectively cause 2-3 turns of Anarchy every 5 turns (loss of ~50% production and research), as well as drastically reducing production/research during the other turns (due to crappy civics). Essentially it just makes it so that a small nation that would otherwise be insignificant to the game can team up with one large nation against another, and effectively completely destroy the other large nation's chances in the game. That's completely out of proportion. If your civ is near-decimated, you should not still have a colossal influence on the outcome of the game.

 

[Sommerswerd]

it's still very very cheap for a small nation to employ against a large nation, ...

That's not out of proportion, that is reality. That is the whole point of terrorism. A small nation can bring a large one to its knees with one act that is dirt cheap to pull off. The 9-11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center come to mind for example... Five guys with boxcutters shut down the United States economy, ground all air travel and drew the country into 2 wars...

And that's the point. Catastrophic effects on a much larger more powerful nation, by spending what I imagine in civ terms would be a very small amount of expy points... the result was the US had to substantially boost its espy spending to guard against it...

You just have to build those Courthouses instead of libraries and forges, use the espy slider instead of techmongering, and put defensive spies in your most vunerable cities until you get those security bureaus built. You have to get a great spy now and again instead of spamming Great Scientists like we all love to do. You will have to enter into Anti espionage agreements with other countries, etc.

I understand that to most players, focusing on espy is basically foreign territory, but that will add some of that "spice" to the game that you were claiming you wanted. We shouldn't just declare something overpowered because we don't want to be bothered with it. Civic-changing might be overpowered against the AI but these are humans we are talking about... humans will be able to defend against it. I mean even the 'choke' manuver is overpowered against the AI .

I mean honestly, many, many people think Praetorians are overpowered, but we don't just ban them... ALOT of people think Capac is overpowered, but we still play with him... Frankly, I have heard MANY times that the "Financial" trait is overpowered but I am guessing that at least half of the teams in this game will be using a financial leader...right? The point is, that we ban the "overpowered" stuff we don't like, and use the overpowered stuff we like. I guess you could say "I don't want civic-changing missions in the game because I'm not used to it, and I don't feel like dealing with it."

OK now, to avoid another 10 page argument, I officially declare my intent to hold my peace and give you the last word. (To quote ash88, I reserve my right not to give you the last word and argue endlessly about this)

 

[Lord Parkin]

It's worse with humans, because they understand how to exploit it properly and constantly, unlike the AI. And as I've already said, no amount of Courthouses/Jails/Security Bureaus/Intelligence Agencies/Great Spies can defend against this. The fact is that the mission is just far too cheap, and doesn't scale with the size of the economy/production of the civ like it should. The proof is in the fact that the mission is only slightly more expensive than the "city revolt" mission, which puts one lone city in revolt for one turn. The civics mission, only slightly more expensive, effectively puts all cities into revolt for several turns. You're telling me that was intended? If so, why isn't the city revolt mission 5-10 times cheaper?

The cost of the civics switching mission needs to be 5-10 times more in the late game (scaling with the size of the civ). It's just ridiculous otherwise. I played a game once where my civics were changed every single turn after a certain point, at vitually no cost to the nations doing it. It's just stupid.

 

[DaveShack]

Did you eventually win anyway? If you had known about it and taken countermeasures, could it have been prevented?

 

[Lord Parkin]

By that stage I was going to win anyway, but if they'd realised to start earlier it would have destroyed me. (We were all new to BTS at this time, so didn't think to check it out earlier.) Either way, it couldn't have been prevented by me, only made slightly less likely to succeed (but still pretty likely).

 

[SilentConfusion]

The proof is in the fact that the mission is only slightly more expensive than the "city revolt" mission, which puts one lone city in revolt for one turn. The civics mission, only slightly more expensive, effectively puts all cities into revolt for several turns. You're telling me that was intended? If so, why isn't the city revolt mission 5-10 times cheaper?

The cost of the civics switching mission needs to be 5-10 times more in the late game (scaling with the size of the civ). It's just ridiculous otherwise. I played a game once where my civics were changed every single turn after a certain point, at vitually no cost to the nations doing it. It's just stupid.

Are you sure that forcing a civic change causes that civ to go into anarchy?

Also a civ can't keep switching your civics, unless he keeps changing his own, since he can only change your civics to match his, right?

 

[Lord Parkin]

Are you sure that forcing a civic change causes that civ to go into anarchy?

It doesn't, but you'll be forced into Anarchy to change back, unless you stick with the crap civics indefinitely.

Also a civ can't keep switching your civics, unless he keeps changing his own, since he can only change your civics to match his, right?

Right, but if it's a small civ with only a few cities, they're not really going to care much about that. They can afford to adopt the crap civics and help an ally of theirs to win by continuously changing the civics of the other player. It's even worse if the civ abusing the exploit is Spiritual, of course. Although it's not much better if the victim is Spiritual, because they still have the minimum 5 turn wait between civic changes, so the smaller civ can just change their civics every 5 turns and keep them in the crap ones indefinitely.

 

[Snaaty]

...
Right, but if it's a small civ with only a few cities, they're not really going to care much about that. They can afford to adopt the crap civics and help an ally of theirs to win by continuously changing the civics of the other player. It's even worse if the civ abusing the exploit is Spiritual, of course. Although it's not much better if the victim is Spiritual, because they still have the minimum 5 turn wait between civic changes, so the smaller civ can just change their civics every 5 turns and keep them in the crap ones indefinitely.

lord parkin, you mention some valid points, but i cant agree with you, cause all the civic switches stuff you want to ban can be easily countered (by humans vrs humans)

just take the exemple you mentioned above (avoid 1 turn of anarchy for civic switches):

1. find a friend/ally (shouldnt be that hard in humans vrs humans)
2. ask that alley to switch your civics back after 5 turns (done right, costs drop to next to nothing)
3. run a countermission on your enemy
4. repeat 2 times
5

result will be that your enemy burned heaps of spypoints on you (you didnt have anarchy) and should give you therefore an edge in spypoints on your enemy... ...now its YOU that can threaten to swich HIS civics (simply use above mentioned way to switch your civic without anarchy if not spiritual if thats your problem)... ...where´s the problem with that?

thats strategy and counter strategy thats all

 

[Lord Parkin]

Not exactly easy to find an ally willing to invest heaps of spy points just for the sake of converting your civics back. And what happens if the ally's civics are switched? Not to mention the fact that espionage spent on an ally is espionage not spent on an enemy.

 

[Indiansmoke]

The change civic mission is broken as the espionage points required are ridiculously low for the effect. As a result in late game whoever gets the Christo Redentor can seriously hamper his opponents.

 

[pindicator]

i thought i heard somewhere that spies were routinely banned in MP games, not only for the cheap espionage missions but because they serve as cheap and effective scouts, being able to see troup movements w/o needing open borders or being evicted (save on a dice roll).

 

[SilentConfusion]

Not exactly easy to find an ally willing to invest heaps of spy points just for the sake of converting your civics back. And what happens if the ally's civics are switched? Not to mention the fact that espionage spent on an ally is espionage not spent on an enemy.

So you're saying it costs heaps of spy points for an ally to change your civics back? If it really costs "heaps" then your opponent is not able to change your civics for "cheap" as you say. If it is indeed cheap to change civics, then it won't cost your ally much. As Snaaty says, civic changes go both ways. If you change their civics to yours for cheap they won't be able to change yours without anarchy themselves. I really don't see this as a problem that can't be countered. For example taking their cities would seem to be a good counter against this.

i thought i heard somewhere that spies were routinely banned in MP games, not only for the cheap espionage missions but because they serve as cheap and effective scouts, being able to see troup movements w/o needing open borders or being evicted (save on a dice roll).

Are we really going to ban a type of unit because it is effective?