1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Another MP game??

Discussion in 'Multiplayer and LP's' started by Koshling, Dec 28, 2012.

  1. Thunderbrd

    Thunderbrd C2C War Dog

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2010
    Messages:
    28,501
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    Let me ask you this... if the AI were programmed to, after losing 5% of their nation, sack their own cities as soon as you could take them and after another 5% of their cities were lost, give up and split their nation between all neighbors if they have any, would you find the game as enjoyable to play?

    Is that a strategy that I should consider including for the AI consideration?

    If that were to be done to you as you were invading an opponent, would you not carry on with that war?

    I was a lion starving for territory. I still don't have enough to survive. And I'm rapidly running out of strength relative to my neighbors. I've gotta do what I can. Peace cannot save me for it will only leave me further starving in relation to my neighbors.



    This is not dissimilar to what happened to Saddam I suppose. Prior to attacking Kuwait, he came to the US ambassador and asked if the US would intervene if he were to invade, given that he had no port for naval access and needed it to remain competitive with Iran. He had cause to believe we'd at least stay out of it since we'd helped him rise to power but apparently he didn't realize the greed we possess for the oil in his lands so when we assured him we would have nothing to do with a conflict in that region of the world and he acted on that reassurance, he stepped into the mistake that eventually led to his total downfall.
     
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2017
  2. MagnusIlluminus

    MagnusIlluminus Emperor

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2012
    Messages:
    1,997
    Location:
    In my own little world...
    That is the thing. We are not dealing with AI here, and you are treating it like you are. You are expecting a HUMAN player to act just as predictably as an AI and are throwing a tantrum when it does not happen. Grow up.

    To answer the actual question, no that would not be enjoyable and an AI should not do that. However, that is an AI. Forbidding actual Humans from playing how they want to is also just not right. Forcing JosEPh to just sit there and take it, as you are demanding, would be akin to forcing Whisper to continue playing Mexico when she was clearly not enjoying the experience. How about we roll back the game to before she retired, sit her down in front of a computer, and force her to play? This is what you are demanding of JosEPh.

    At this point, you are getting me really close to also hitting that retire button with you never ending spite and hatefullness. Oh, I'm "going to be punished for allowing JosEPh to do an unconventional thing". Really scary **** man. I'm ...

    I gotta walk away for a bit before I say anything worse. It's just a game... just a game...
     
  3. JosEPh_II

    JosEPh_II TBS WarLord

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2007
    Messages:
    16,380
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Western IL. cornfields
    Dang! Now you Know!

    JosEPh ;)



    From the April 20th 2013 T-brd post.
     
  4. Thunderbrd

    Thunderbrd C2C War Dog

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2010
    Messages:
    28,501
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    This is not a tantrum. This is a logical reaction from a player thwarted from that which he'd earned. And from that which he needs (not optional) to remain a viable player.

    Apparently this is, by player consensus, being received as a valid strategy and an effective one. So why shouldn't the AI do that? We can agree what makes a human player different from the AI is the intelligence level of the human player. If a human player displays a new and powerful strategy to stick it to the player that is attacking him, shouldn't the AI then be taught how to do that too?

    Or wait... alternatively we could define what's unfair about it and stop that from being made possible. For human or AI, matters not.

    1)Whisperr was not losing a war and suffering from demoralization.
    2)She simply retired her account for the AI to manage it rather than giving her nation to another player or sacking all her cities because in the end that was really the only somewhat fair way to handle it.

    Therefore, if Joseph had retired the game, you'd not have this reaction from me. Instead, you'd have an AI player taking over for his lands that would do its best to fight, probably fail, and his nation would rightfully have been conquered by those who entered the war to earn from him what they could take.
     
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2017
  5. JosEPh_II

    JosEPh_II TBS WarLord

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2007
    Messages:
    16,380
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Western IL. cornfields
    T-brd just stop it.

    Play and stop this blame game. The advantage has been yours all along. And still is. Both koshling and Magnus are fully aware of the real situation.

    JosEPh
     
  6. Thunderbrd

    Thunderbrd C2C War Dog

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2010
    Messages:
    28,501
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    That was true (sorta) until I threw Koshling the lifeline to catch up to my massive tech advantage. That he would betray that offer of alliance by aiding my enemies is... a trust I was reluctant to give because I figured it would mean my doom - as it has. But if I didn't... he would've just traded with you instead and then I'd have really been up a creek. My only hope in this game once sealed off at 8 cities was to hope he'd deal fairly with me, which he did not do.

    Man alive... If you look at the way the city counts panned out, you'd think this is the story of the evil Chihuahua that was picking on the poor Wolf.

    THAT is so very wrong. Now I have two players I'm fighting (to compete with, if not outright warfare), both with a huge tech advantage over me and a size advantage unlike anything I've ever seen. Koshling has twice the points I do and even Magnus has pulled ahead in points. If we went to peace now I'd be getting riflemen about the time nanoswarms start crossing the border and I will never again have access to iron. Not without playing the role of a subservient underlying anyhow.

    I will forever be relegated to about 1/4 the tech progress Koshling has, even if I switched civics, and Magnus has been gifted so much more than I earned in the war that even he would now be able to pull far ahead, and that's if he and Koshling DIDN'T tech trade. But why wouldn't they now that he'll be able to keep up with Koshling enough to aid him in climbing the tech ladder. I have nothing of further value to trade and am at the most complete disadvantage possible as catching up to where I can offer techs he won't have will never again happen unless I own all of Magnus's territory. I don't have a choice but to battle this out. I'm going down with the ship. Your move was a fantastically powerful suicide bomb bro. (A simple city count shows that to be fact.)

    I strongly wonder if I can even capture any cities as out-teched as I am now, but the only way I can get any tech rebalancing out of them now is to win it through city captures.



    Look... let me assure everyone in this game that nothing is TRULY personal. I see every round as a puzzle to solve how to best position myself to pull ahead at some point. The only real person I'm competing with here is myself. I don't mean to make anyone else feel like I disrespect them or don't feel like equals based on our positions in the game.

    My 'anger' is a natural response to losing control of a situation. It's a display of determination to do all I can to recover from the massive collapse of my strategies to date. It's not personal but I'd be very surprised if any other players here truly expected me to feel this was a fair negotiation that reflected my interests. My attack on Joe wasn't personal either. Just a means to an end to address that I had reached the limits of what 8 cities could achieve compared to over 20 now that those other players were beginning to have those cities get their building platforms developed. Without war I was doomed as it was and I had prepared for that. Now that my initial targeted opponent has found a way to put me even further behind the development curve despite the war being a success, I have no choice but to continue to invade. If the shoe was on the other foot, you'd do the same unless you think it best to fly under the radar and pray your rivals find a way to undo themselves.

    Anyhow, what I'm saying is I cannot be blamed any more than anyone else here can be blamed.
     
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2017
  7. Koshling

    Koshling Vorlon

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    Messages:
    9,254
    Sorry this took so long. I timed out this morning before I had to leave for work because it was such an involved turn (and it took me so long to read through all the bickering!).

    Joseph up (for the last time?)...
     
  8. Thunderbrd

    Thunderbrd C2C War Dog

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2010
    Messages:
    28,501
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    Been chewing on this comment all day to try and figure out what you meant exactly. I think I've finally figured out that this comment is in response to me saying I choose to go to war with you because you didn't confer with me first on taking Joe's offer.

    Let me clarify. And this is not to bicker... I say this in a much more calm mood.

    I'm not saying you had no right to take his offer. I'm saying that when I went to war it was not to prove anything to Joseph nor to victimize him (though I admit those are unfortunate consequences OF war.) It was to take territory. It was to make the amount of territory I had equivalent or more to my primary rival so that I could remain competitive. Without judgment or anger or frustration nor vendetta that this choice was made. It was a strategy. You might notice I don't try to spread like a weed because I feel it leaves you too open for invasion and it distracts your economy when you need to get ahead in technology. So when I encounter a neighbor who does exactly that, I prepare for war against them. It's pretty simple really.

    Not conferring with me was your right. I don't blame you. You saw an opportunity and you grabbed for it. Good for you.

    I just hope you understand that you got between the dog and his dinner on this. I'm pretty sure any animal who wants to feed off the corpse of the lion's kill knows he's risking the lion's claws as he'll fight for the meat on the bones of the beast he took down and rightfully so. I'm not going to just say... Oh... now that it's another player who owns those cities I no longer need them.

    Frankly, I'm surprised you would believe I should. I mean, let's be honest, Joe didn't deserve attack any more than I deserved to sit and suffer for not attacking. It's not about who deserves what. It's about the fact that I have actually lost territory by comparison to the chief rival and it is by comparison to the chief rival that I am measuring success here because it is the only way game success can really be measured.

    I would not attack my rival because I consider him an ally. I've been friendly with you so far but not to the same extent, and if you want to cry that somehow it's fowl that I make you my next target, I'm simply saying... you didn't HAVE to accept the role of defending those cities that were slated for eventual attack. So you are saying you don't feel I have a right to continue the assault unabated? I'm sorry but I've already been a fool once to have ended up in this boat... I'll not be talked into being one again. It's nothing personal... I'm just a bit defensive of being labeled dishonorable. If one feels that declaring war on a neighbor is dishonorable, then sure, I'm guilty of playing the game. I'd be pretty shocked if in all the times you've played you never declared war on a neighbor, and all the more shocked if you felt that wasn't supposed to happen because we're human players. RF seemed to think that the only time a war should be declared in a PVP game is when your opponent has the same power level and preparation for that war as you do. These kinds of thoughts are baffling to me.

    And if I'm frustrated with JOE for finding a way to make a move that I find jarringly dissociated with honest nation leadership, it's more because of the 'roleplaying' aspect of how I see the game. Strategically it was an interesting solution and I seriously AM thinking of programming some leaders in the game to have a personality type that would make such a choice. One of the big reasons for playing was to see what the AI SHOULD be doing based on the more clever behavior of human players. Does this not count?

    And you can also understand my emotional display as being an extension of that role playing as well. As the leader of a nation of people who has just had their entire game strategy largely thwarted by an unexpected act of self-destruction. Yes... thinking as the leader of my nation, I am enraged. And why shouldn't I be? I doubt Joseph would say that wasn't the point of his decision in the first place. I can also tell you that it was not very likely we'd have been at war until much much later in the game had he not made these decisions, so don't feel like he's done you any favors.

    One more thing... I didn't feel like because Koshling and I worked together that he was my vassal (nor did I mean to imply that about you either.) You have to understand that in HIS case, I made it very clear that if I was going to tech trade with him, my one and ONLY condition was that he not aid Joseph in any way. I can't say I don't see why he did... that's exactly why I asked for that one condition to be upheld as it was the weakness in tech trading with him that I could see ahead of time. I suppose you're trying to say you don't feel betrayed when you establish just one rule to an agreement to be willing to make that agreement and it is violated at the very time you'd predicted it would be a temptation to violate? Just a frustration. Doesn't mean I'm going to go invading him. We came to an arrangement as we discussed things out before he accepted Joseph's offer. He understood the need for diplomacy to precede such a decision and I'm sure you can understand that I appreciated that.

    Ok... I think I've been able to say what I really mean here without sounding like a total ass. I won't further harp on it.
     
    Last edited: Jan 25, 2017
  9. Toffer90

    Toffer90 C2C Modder

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2011
    Messages:
    7,418
    Location:
    Norway
    @TB: I rather liked your suggested conditions for when city trade should be possible.
    When at war: Cannot trade cities with nations one are at peace with.
    This makes sense for multiplayer gameplay, and it's IMO more realistic.
    I don't think the scenario in question that unfolded in your MP game has ever happened in RL history.
    The more realistic and quite similar version of your scenario would have been if Joe offered to become a vassal to Koshling/magnus, and in effect, dragging Koshling/magnus into the war as Joe's protector and liege.
     
    Last edited: Jan 25, 2017
  10. JosEPh_II

    JosEPh_II TBS WarLord

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2007
    Messages:
    16,380
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Western IL. cornfields
    That was turned down, so not an Option. Many possibilities were considered. And quite frankly if I had known that MP games Have to follow human history I would not have played at all. This game played out much like the Diplomacy Games I used to play with my friends while in the Army.

    And the cry for "need" more land/cities is rather distorted as T-brd has unused land still in his empire. And it has been me that has been labeled dishonorable because I put an obstacle in War Dog's path to conquest, his one true path in this whole time.

    Officially My last turn.

    Rf next

    JosEPh
     
    Last edited: Jan 25, 2017
  11. Thunderbrd

    Thunderbrd C2C War Dog

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2010
    Messages:
    28,501
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    Exactly, which is exactly why Vassalage is OFF! Because it's a Horse crap move to allow a player on the losing side of a war to go scrambling under protection of a more powerful civ like a cockroach scurrying for the cracks in the walls when the light is turned on. Jeez... die with honor man!

    At least with that option on, it would have been much more explicit to the player receiving the offer to capitulate that acceptance of that offer immediately means they are sucked into the war against the player at war with the one they take on as a vassal. This vassalage by proxy gets around that obvious conclusion.

    True, except if Diplomacy allowed you to gift off all your territory the game would lose all internal consistency. Which is why it doesn't.

    I'm sorry but I don't believe that a few that crowd the others just to make use of 2 or three plots are all that useful nor anywhere near balancing to what I'm facing here were I to try to pack them in to try to balance things out with my rivals. Not until much later when the primary cities have a chance to fully claim as much room as they have been planned to use (after the introduction of the use of the 3rd rung) anyhow. I can make room for 2 or three more with the current arrangement of cities but I need to be able to place them on peaks and swamps/mangroves (I think I can now remove the mangroves but that city gets one land space and the rest is ocean. Not much to work with and it crowds the crap out of the capital so it won't be founded until the capital can take it's 3rd rung in full, lest the city come to rely on land it will later be denied.)
     
    Last edited: Jan 25, 2017
  12. MagnusIlluminus

    MagnusIlluminus Emperor

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2012
    Messages:
    1,997
    Location:
    In my own little world...
    I was taking things way, way too personal there for a while, and said some things that I probably should not have said. That said, I can also see some elements of psychological warfare that you were playing on me in many of your points, and it was working for a while.

    Gotcha, I understand well where you are coming from. Nobody (well, there is probably someone, but not me) likes being in last place. Which is where I was for most of this game. Last on this continent anyway. Personally, I don't see my odds of success as quite as good as you seem to be portraying them, nor your odds of failure as quite as bad as you do. Of course, I don't know as much about your empire as you do, so I could be wrong. In other words, I don't see any significant chance of winning from where I am right at the moment, and less so if I lose any significant amount of territory. Thus the following unconventional tactic.


    Koshling, where Thunderbrd and I are at the moment, we are probably not serious threats to your eventual win. You probably know that. I want you to do a thing. When (not if) Thunderbrd attacks me I want you to also declare on me and take as much territory as you can. This is because if Thunderbrd takes most or even all of my territory, then he WILL be a threat to you winning. If you want to maintain your edge, you will have to do this. I think. Your opinion may vary.


    Just to reassure Thunderbrd, I will not be gifting Koshling any cities (after he declares on me anyway), razing any cities, or otherwise doing anything that I consider dishonorable. I don't care about what you consider dishonorable, just my view. Although, I could gift "Baa Baa Black" and that other northernmost city to Koshling to form a barrier between us. I imagine that would annoy you quite a lot as you have told Koshling that you would not attack him while other rivals remain. I could do that. I might even. Not sure yet. What concession will you give me to ensure I don't do that? Heck, just guarantee that you will not conquer more territory than was gifted from the Maya, and I will not do that.

    On the subject of honorable combat, if you want an honorable fight to take the previously Mayan cities, then you will have to give me a few turns (at least 6, possibly a dozen) to get them up to shape. Most do not have great defenses, and do not have several other essential buildings. Either he sabotaged these cities before he passed them to me, or something.
     
  13. JosEPh_II

    JosEPh_II TBS WarLord

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2007
    Messages:
    16,380
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Western IL. cornfields
    No it's Not in this game, koshling just refused my offer of to be his vassal because he did not want to go to war with you.


    And this whole Mantra of yours is growing quite stale. "Die with Honor, take it like a man", This is a Game. Not a fight to the death for hearth, family, and homeland. So stop this BS diatribe right now. I can't believe the stuff that you are pouring forth now. It's actually tearing down the respect I had for your gaming skills.

    That's your choice, and rationalize it however you wish, the fact is the land is still there to use.

    And one last thing, don't think for a minute that the other 2 Empires left in the South don't know what your goal is. But even so, your "Diplomacy walls of text" are very good propaganda machines even if they are full of fallacies.

    Can Magnus and koshling defeat you? They have a chance if they hold together. Separately they are doomed. Even with the influx of cities and units I gave them. And by the way I have the right to do what I did no matter how much you quack like a duck over it.

    But if you succeed in splitting them then they Are yours. If they would've DoW'd you when I 1st asked and the 3 of us combined forces we could've whittled that Monster SoD down to size and possibly ground your advance to a halt. Maybe even gotten one or 2 of the cities back. Then the other aspects of the game would've come into play against you. Further reducing you might from within.

    Your stance of attacking from a weaking position is sooo much blarney. You have more knowledge of this games systems than anyone else combined in this game. You attacked from a position of strength. I just threw a monkey wrench in your well oiled machine. And now you have to clear some debris before you March on War Dog.

    So why don't you just shut up and play what's left of the game before you make all the other players quit from disgust.

    If this had happened with magnus or koshling in my place and i was in one of theirs, after all this BS you have pumped out in the last 2 pages of this thread I would've quit after the post were you started your "dishonorable play" crap.

    I have to really shake my head in disbelief at your posturing the last 5 days. You will cause this game to implode. Is that your real desire? Maybe it is after all.

    koshling and Magnus, play how you want, not how War Dog is dictating to you.

    JosEPh
     
  14. Hydromancerx

    Hydromancerx C2C Modder

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2008
    Messages:
    16,281
    Location:
    California, USA
    Ok you guys have argued for awhile now. Please lets just drop it and continue the game. I am not taking either side here. Please just stop arguing.
     
  15. rightfuture

    rightfuture Emperor

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,649
    Since it appears to be my turn. I think I was waiting for nothing.
    taking it now

    Keeping an eye on the file from now on.
    Turn done, Magnus up.
     
    Last edited: Jan 25, 2017
  16. Thunderbrd

    Thunderbrd C2C War Dog

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2010
    Messages:
    28,501
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    I've calmed a bit myself (again) and apologize for being too aggressive with my speech. Psychological warfare? yeah... lol I'll admit that's largely true.

    That's the thing. It doesn't matter what one person thinks is dishonorable or not does it? Because when it comes down to it, we all work from a personal sense and point of view on that. So if someone thinks it is and voices that it doesn't make it an objective fact... just a statement of that person's feelings. And a person has every right to feel that way and so too does the accused have every right to feel it wasn't dishonorable as well.

    That we are playing with vassalage ON is telling... I thought it was voted down unanimously because those kinds of strategies are universally viewed as petty but I guess since it was voted in I should've been more wary about it.

    There... that's it right there. That's how we differ in thinking. I see it as a game too. A Role Playing game where you are the leader of a nation and you ARE fighting for hearth family and homeland. So there's where you validate this kind of move where I find it unthinkable.

    I get what you're saying... pull out all the stops. So do YOU feel that it would be a better game if the AI pulled your stunt now and then? I'm asking a serious question here because I'm seriously considering teaching some personalities to do just that since I was looking to see what human strategies have not been implemented in the AI structure.

    At the time I attacked, yes. Absolutely. But it was a position of failing strength in relationship to the primary rival/ally whom I was fearful would be able to gain too great an edge to even make for a fair final conflict in the end.

    I feel that was what you invited or hoping for perhaps. If the rest of us were to continue with this sort of kamakaze-to-win-lesser-objectives strategy, we may as well all just concede to Koshling now. You must not understand how far ahead he really is in tech now. You did a great job of stripping the game of its fun for a number of us at least. Now it all feels so manufactured and manipulated and requiring a tremendous amount of annoying diplomacy.

    However, I would like to retract that I feel it was a 'dishonorable move' or that it was in some way weak. I get what you were trying to do and it was effective. It violated my sense of 'suspension of disbelief' that we were leaders guiding our people, but it was a game strategy and one I didn't see coming. It caused the whole idea of winning a war to be a backfire entirely and I guess I was just damned if I did go to war and win and damned if I didn't. I don't blame you for seeing it otherwise because at this point all that must seem to be happening here is that you lost and the guy who beat you is whining about it. I can see how that would piss you off too. You have every right to decide what to do with what you've got. I apologize for the attacks on your character both openly and privately.

    On that note as well, I have been speaking with Koshling and we've found we don't have the original discussion when we forged, long before we could trade techs, a tech trading pact. I MAY have been wrong that I had insisted he not aid Joseph. Besides that, it was years ago if I said it at all. He cannot be blamed for not remembering if I cannot remember and as a result, he should not be held accountable for what may have been my own assumption that we had an agreement that he would be treated as an enemy by us both. So that would mean that I've said a lot I shouldn't have said about being doublecrossed where I should have instead been a lot more explicit in my negotiations.

    So to both Joseph and Koshling I apologize for slanderous comments.
     
  17. MagnusIlluminus

    MagnusIlluminus Emperor

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2012
    Messages:
    1,997
    Location:
    In my own little world...
    Sorry to delay the game, but I have a lot to consider for this next turn, so I think I'm going to sleep on it.

    Good points about Honor.

    Yeah, I'm done arguing about any of this. Sorry for the distraction. I am also aware of the irony of the person (me) who complained about all of the drama from another player, causing drama. *sigh*
     
  18. Toffer90

    Toffer90 C2C Modder

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2011
    Messages:
    7,418
    Location:
    Norway
    No!
    If AI is facing a loosing battle they should be taught to consider becoming a vassal of another player that they have good relations to who is close enough and strong enough to tip the scales in the war.
    City trade should be changed to:
    IF at war → trading a city with someone you are at peace with will automatically ask for "war against my enemies" in return (An opposite to the case where trading anything with the one you are at war with will automatically ask for cease fire/peace).
    The AI should be taught when it's smart, and at what price it's reasonable, to try to sell their cities in return for a war ally.
    Any AI would refuse such a trade if their combined strength is less than 50% of the enemy strength combined. Price would be affected by the strength/risk as well.
    The one that is about to join the war would compare its relation to the loosing side to the relation it has to the winning side, and modify the price they find acceptable for joining the war based on that comparison. This should have a big impact on the price.
     
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2017
  19. JosEPh_II

    JosEPh_II TBS WarLord

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2007
    Messages:
    16,380
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Western IL. cornfields
    <nvrmd>
     
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2017
  20. MagnusIlluminus

    MagnusIlluminus Emperor

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2012
    Messages:
    1,997
    Location:
    In my own little world...
    Apologies for the further delay. I just have not made up my mind as yet between two things that I really want to do, but for different reasons. Unfortunately, the two are mutually exclusive.

    The one choice is more in keeping with my preferred play-style, but the other would be more exciting and dangerous. Both have ups and downs.
     

Share This Page