Caveman 2 Cosmos (ideas/discussions thread)

[JosEPh_II]

were you breaking the established rule we had about not restarting a round so as to try to get the best random results possible?

What "established rule"? I've reread All the starting posts and did not find such a rule.

As a matter of fact I had not done so though until koshling told me he goes over the turn just played. So yeah the last week of turns I was taking 1 to 2 hours to try to see what I could do, what was possible and what was not, before playing and committing. As you saw it did not help just confirmed what I already knew. And the result.

@Toffer,

Not angry with you or accusing you, just been saying you were not presented with the whole truth and facts. So your assessment was/is off imho. But you can disagree all you want too too. You are entitled.

Some of us feel that 'to the VICTOR should go the spoils' and the promotion of anything else is an erosion of fair play. And some even feel that giving up, no matter how weighted the battle is against you, isn't something we want to support, because we'd like to think that the night is often darkest just before dawn and one should just never give up even if you have gamed out the scenario in your mind to be hopeless and you're fairly accurate, particularly in a game that is not Chess, where nothing is random and one can see when all ends lead to checkmate. You can never know what brief window of opportunity you may find to extend your game and maybe later find an opportunity to make a breakthrough. I'm past holding it against you and I respect your decision, all the moreso for how damaging it really was to me.

And I disagree and do not hold this position.

And you were never really damaged no matter how many time you say it. The Whole South is in your grasp all you have to do is to continue to squeeze. Koshling's tech lead is negated by his lack of diligence in Mil build up. Of course the longer you let him slide then you May have a problem. But at this point in time in the game you can do what ever you want to the other 2 left. Take whatever you want and as much as you want, they can not stop you. They could not rally support even in token amounts. If you had not declared war and I had not want to get to the Age of Discovery and go find the North, Magnus would be gone and I would own all he has till you would see that koshling is just as weak militarily. But once I started taking Magnus out you would've jumped me, cause your fear of koshling is misplaced. Magnus had cities more poorly defended than Rf has. And That says volumes, cause Rf stinks at playing Pbem. (Sorry Rf but you are a terrible player).

JosEPh

 

[Toffer90]

@Toffer,

Not angry with you or accusing you, just been saying you were not presented with the whole truth and facts. So your assessment was/is off imho. But you can disagree all you want too too. You are entitled.

What assessment?

 

[Thunderbrd]

What "established rule"? I've reread All the starting posts and did not find such a rule.

It was something I said we should establish before we even began. Mentioned in the original Massive MP game setup but probably never in the US game one. Suffice it to say I wasn't going to throw anything up about that given that I'd already seen strong evidence Hydro had been doing the same to get his bandits to break through Whisperr's lines of defense against intrusion. I figured nobody cared anymore about fair play anyhow. So why hold against you something I'd seen other players doing? I had to replay one round after an accidental HN unit attack I didn't intend but I think that was the only time I did. I know for damned sure I would've played that last city attack again after a number of times things didn't work out as I'd hoped if I hadn't been holding myself to that rule though. Oh well. No worries. I figured that was happening.

The Whole South is in your grasp all you have to do is to continue to squeeze.

Things are different now, but at the end of the war I was getting so badly out-teched by the conglomeration of all three of you that I was truly beginning to fear. You're still psychologically reacting to the overwhelming firepower of one assault force but defeating it would not have been THAT hard to arrange, particularly when I'm no longer sure it could've taken cities armed with Longbowmen, full-on Crossbowmen and Castles. They had yet to face that kind of defense and y'all's tech rate was about 5 techs to my one since you were combining efforts in that regard so within the time it took to capture the next few cities I might've started having to face gunpowder units. I was praying I could get as far as my primary goal, which was the city you had with iron.

As for now? My army stands as a solid promise of difficulty if I become attacked but I'm not feeling that 'upper hand' you seem to think I have. Quite the opposite. I've had to make some serious concessions that I cannot stand alone if I wish to survive. Thankfully, I won't have to because I'm not the only one in that boat.

Take whatever you want and as much as you want, they can not stop you.

Tech edge is a serious thing man. Not to be underestimated.

They could not rally support even in token amounts.

Have you considered that this is because their commitment to that support was measured against the fact that they did want you taken down... just not too fast?

till you would see that koshling is just as weak militarily.

Don't BS me too much here bro. I know he hasn't built up much but what he did have was a tech level ahead of me and he COULD have built up a military quickly and still can. He just wanted to enjoy his opportunity to, unhindered, pull ahead in tech and wonders without contest while you and I tore each other to pieces (though he imagined you'd do some tearing down of me in the process.)

But once I started taking Magnus out you would've jumped me, cause your fear of koshling is misplaced.

I didn't fear him from an invasion perspective... not quite yet. Not right now. I fear what I have every reason to fear, that his tech progress is now about 5-6 times mine (just before the war it was about 3 times mine. And I put him in the position to be that powerful so I REALLY had to catch up to him right away!)

Magnus had cities more poorly defended than Rf has.

Kinda smart considering that he wasn't investing in something that he needed to be too wary of yet. This is usually how I pull ahead but you certainly had me freaked out most of the game so I felt I had to show you a defensive front you did NOT want to mess with, and that created some real economic drag. But it was also good for war prep. Magnus was surprising me just before the war because he was finally beginning to match you and I in commerce so was beginning to show some signs of possible catchup.

And hell yeah I'd have jumped on you had you attacked him. I nearly had him convinced to do the same to you once I attacked you. lol. Again... it's tough being in the middle.

I'm curious so I just ask... what would you have said had you attacked Magnus and he decided to give me his cities after he figured out he couldn't beat you? Would you have not immediately continued the attack against me? Or perhaps been angry that to attack his poorly defended cities (now mine) would mean you'd need to go to war with me who had a strong and nearly ready invasion presence prepared to attack from the North? Would you feel you'd been cheated from your 'claimed' territory by a dirty move?

 

[tmv]

I don't know who said it but the principle to win a three-way-fight seems to be "Let's you and him fight."

 

[Noriad2]

Pff. Massive massive discussion. How about this solution: if somebody acts like a spoilsport, don't invite him for the next game?

 

[JosEPh_II]

I'm curious so I just ask... what would you have said had you attacked Magnus and he decided to give me his cities after he figured out he couldn't beat you? Would you have not immediately continued the attack against me? Or perhaps been angry that to attack his poorly defended cities (now mine) would mean you'd need to go to war with me who had a strong and nearly ready invasion presence prepared to attack from the North? Would you feel you'd been cheated from your 'claimed' territory by a dirty move?

No. Just the consequences of our actions taken.

You've accused me of being "emotional" but really who has been that? Was it not you in fact. Because I thwarted, temporarily, your getting the spoils you wanted. I would not have done so. Because I knew there would be other decisions to make. You were secure in your position of attack because you knew koshling and magnus had to come thru my territory and you were buffered from them as much as I was surrounded by you all. So when you were "challenged" from not getting your way and did not receive from me what you expected an AI to do.....well the rest is plain to see in the Another Game thread.

Look T-brd I've been playing tactics and strategy Board games since 1974. 2 Army Sgt's I was stationed with introduced me to it. When they taught me how to play they never held back when they saw an advantage. You had to weigh every decision. And I got rolled many many times in those early years. Later I taught my Bro-in law and then his 2 oldest boys how to play so I could have someone to play all my board games with. My own son's showed no interest much to my dismay.

So here we have pages of "discussions" with various outside parties making their comments and adding their 2 cents. And the gist has always been that I was the villain for how I lost. That in and of itself is really strange since I did lose. 3 against 1 is pretty lopsided odds though isn't it.

Don't BS me too much here bro. I know he hasn't built up much but what he did have was a tech level ahead of me and he COULD have built up a military quickly and still can. He just wanted to enjoy his opportunity to, unhindered, pull ahead in tech and wonders without contest while you and I tore each other to pieces (though he imagined you'd do some tearing down of me in the process.)

Not BS at all. And you overestimate him. Now that he has some of my cities yes he is a bit stronger but his lead is not insurmountable as you too quickly proclaim.

I would've loved to have had a decent discussion of the game, without the bitter name calling and such that came to be from my defeat (, but it's still in progress and as such I've already said and given out more info than I should've.

@Noriad2,
Please, Just keep your uninformed and out of place comments to your self, please. You have no idea what you are talking about. Just sayin' but butt out. And Noriad2 it wasn't me that was mad, slanderous, and name calling either. It was the one who defeated me.

JosEPh

 

[Noriad2]

I never mentioned anyone by name. But who fits the shoe wear it as the saying goes.

 

[Toffer90]

@Noriad2,
Please, Just keep your uninformed and out of place comments to your self, please. You have no idea what you are talking about. Just sayin' but butt out. And Noriad2 it wasn't me that was mad, slanderous, and name calling either. It was the one who defeated me.

In no way was his comment uninformed or out of place. He doesn't see a problem and says nothing needs to be changed, this is a perfectly valid opinion regarding the discussion that is transpiring here.

I on the other hand think that every multiplayer games should be regarded as a competitive sport, and like all competitive sports it needs rules to establish a framework for ensuring fair play.

These are both valid opinions regarding the future development planning of C2C and should not be dismissed as uninformed or out of place in the ideas and discussion thread..

 

[Thunderbrd]

You've accused me of being "emotional" but really who has been that?

Honestly? Both of us. Of course. We're both emotionally invested into the game. Couldn't not have been after that much time playing it right?

So when you were "challenged" from not getting your way and did not receive from me what you expected an AI to do.....well the rest is plain to see in the Another Game thread.

Look T-brd I've been playing tactics and strategy Board games since 1974. 2 Army Sgt's I was stationed with introduced me to it. When they taught me how to play they never held back when they saw an advantage. You had to weigh every decision. And I got rolled many many times in those early years. Later I taught my Bro-in law and then his 2 oldest boys how to play so I could have someone to play all my board games with. My own son's showed no interest much to my dismay.

What gets me is once you're out of the game it should be no further concern to you who wins, loses or draws, so why sour the whole thing by taking the spoils away from the victor?

So here we have pages of "discussions" with various outside parties making their comments and adding their 2 cents. And the gist has always been that I was the villain for how I lost. That in and of itself is really strange since I did lose. 3 against 1 is pretty lopsided odds though isn't it.

I'm not calling you a villain. I'm saying I don't think the game should allow what you did without some deterrents to it. And I've given logical, not emotional, reasons for that.

Saying I feel it is dishonorable is just my opinion. Opinion. I can't argue that it's true or untrue because there's no universal law I can point to on that. I just FEEL that (personal code here) if you have honor, you honor your foe who beat you fair and square. This means if you feel you have no path to victory and you cannot avoid loss and you cannot tolerate continuing to play once you believe you've determined this to be true, you surrender to your enemy what you have, not his rivals. THAT is being honorable. I'm not calling you a villain for not doing so, just a man who falls prey to his own spite and would prefer to leave the game bitterly than with grace. Since that's altogether HUMAN of you (aka totally normal in our detestable Western culture) then we should probably do something in the game rules to create a deterrent, lest someone a little less level headed than me encounter such a move and not just chuckle and think about how the game rules should probably prevent rage destruction of a good game in progress in the future.

It doesn't surprise me that you would think playing King Maker on the way out of the gate, to punish the one who took you down, is a good move. Nature does this sometimes too. I saw a video of an antelope killed by a python that in death ended up killing the python with its horns as the serpent tried to eat it. So honor is not the rule of law in the animal kingdom either. I don't call you a villain to say there was dishonor in your action. I see those things as different. Nothing 'evil' in dishonor. Nothing 'wrong' with it. But what it means is that now I know how well I can trust you. (In a game setting at least.)

Not BS at all. And you overestimate him. Now that he has some of my cities yes he is a bit stronger but his lead is not insurmountable as you too quickly proclaim.

I don't know man... it took me all of about 6-10 rounds of buildup to bring my massive army together so what do you think he could do? With a force that out-techs me? I'm not one to CHOOSE to fight on even footing if I can avoid it, and I believe you've come to label me dishonorable for that. I suppose I get where you're coming from but that's what I call the difference between dishonorable and stupid. AKA, not good enough odds for me to want to wage that war. I'm not a gambler. If I attack it's because I already know you've lost.

In no way was his comment uninformed or out of place. He doesn't see a problem and says nothing needs to be changed, this is a perfectly valid opinion regarding the discussion that is transpiring here.

I on the other hand think that every multiplayer games should be regarded as a competitive sport, and like all competitive sports it needs rules to establish a framework for ensuring fair play.

These are both valid opinions regarding the future development planning of C2C and should not be dismissed as uninformed or out of place in the ideas and discussion thread..

Well put. Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[tmv]

detestable Western culture

Do you really want to open that can of worms? The following discussion would certainly produce even longer "walls of text" and derail this thread's topic completely.

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

I on the other hand think that every multiplayer games should be regarded as a competitive sport, and like all competitive sports it needs rules to establish a framework for ensuring fair play.

And here is the difference of opinion I, and probably Joe, feel that what he did was fair play. It is a strategy of last resort but that does not make it unfair.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Do you really want to open that can of worms? The following discussion would certainly produce even longer "walls of text" and derail this thread's topic completely.

I forget how many cultures are here on this forum. I say this from the perspective of an American who really hates his own capitalistic environment. You're right, though. My ultimate point was that we're all going to see it differently and that's ok.

And here is the difference of opinion I, and probably Joe, feel that what he did was fair play. It is a strategy of last resort but that does not make it unfair.

Any strategy that cannot lead to your own victory is a strategy one should never have motive to use. Otherwise it's falsely motivated by factors that should never be valid in any consideration. There is no consolation prize in selecting the victor if that selection is not yourself. Anything else is just flat bitterness that one can only feel towards a human opponent. Bitterness is outside the bounds of gentlemanly sportsmanship. Therefore, should we really support that as game designers?

 

[Toffer90]

And here is the difference of opinion I, and probably Joe, feel that what he did was fair play. It is a strategy of last resort but that does not make it unfair.

So if you were the designer of a monopoly video game you would make it possible for one player to give away all ones assets to another player when retiring from the game, or would you think an "auction away all assets when retiring" rule would make for a fairer and more balanced MP game?
I ask this because I feel it's the same principles at work when a civ player is free to give away all ones assets in a MP game.

Edit: Anything that the game rules allow, is fair play imo, doesn't mean we can't change the rules.
Here's a hypothetical scenario: How do you think Hydro and Magnus would react, if TB gave away all his cities to koshling in some sort of strange tantrum. I might be wrong, but I think they would feel the entire game had been ruined and that it was pointless to continue playing it.
At the very least, such an event has the potential to ruin a good MP game.

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

Any strategy that cannot lead to your own victory is a strategy one should never have motive to use. Otherwise it's falsely motivated by factors that should never be valid in any consideration. There is no consolation prize in selecting the victor if that selection is not yourself. Anything else is just flat bitterness that one can only feel towards a human opponent. Bitterness is outside the bounds of gentlemanly sportsmanship. Therefore, should we really support that as game designers?

Incorrect.

Draw or stalemate are valid strategies in sport and games to deny a win when you can't win. These are possible in two player games or two player/team sports not so when there are more players/teams playing on the same field at the same time. This introduces things like a team/alliance victory which is not the same as a personal victory as the individual may need to sacrifice their part in the game to ensure the team win.

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

So if you were the designer of a monopoly video game you would make it possible for one player to give away all ones assets to another player when retiring from the game, or would you think an "auction away all assets when retiring" rule would make for a fairer and more balanced MP game?
I ask this because I feel it's the same principles at work when a civ player is free to give away all ones assets in a MP game.

The rules of Monopoly only allow selling to the Bank. Many people have house rules that differ from the basic rules of Monopoly. I try and stick to the original rules. Which is why we can get up to 4 games an hour when we play 2 person. With more than 2 it can take up to an hour or two to play a single game.

 

[Toffer90]

The rules of Monopoly only allow selling to the Bank. Many people have house rules that differ from the basic rules of Monopoly. I try and stick to the original rules. Which is why we can get up to 4 games an hour when we play 2 person. With more than 2 it can take up to an hour or two to play a single game.

Looks like you are avoiding my question.
Only being allowed to sell to the bank would, if translated to C2C, mean that one has to give away ones nation to the AI when retiring.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Incorrect.

Draw or stalemate are valid strategies in sport and games to deny a win when you can't win. These are possible in two player games or two player/team sports not so when there are more players/teams playing on the same field at the same time. This introduces things like a team/alliance victory which is not the same as a personal victory as the individual may need to sacrifice their part in the game to ensure the team win.

hmm... Would you consider yourself a sacrificable member of a team in a single player game?

 

[Toffer90]

hmm... Would you consider yourself a sacrificable member of a team in a single player game?

Probably not, but a MP game mode does not necessarily need to have the same rules, nor logic, as a SP game mode has applied.
Though, we probably can't differentiate that much between those game modes when modding, or?

Edit: made an edit in this post on the last page.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Probably not, but a MP game mode does not necessarily need to have the same rules, nor logic, as a SP game mode has applied.

Of course that's true. BUT we aren't talking about a game with defined teams. So a loss is a loss is a loss. What should it matter what happens to the one who loses what happens to what he built up after he is out of the game? I keep coming back to... the only thing - and I mean the ONLY thing - that makes it matter at all at this point, is resentment for the loss. And expressions of resentment on the way out of a game is the very definition of a lack of sportsmanship. So should we let the rules support that or should we curtail the potential to express resentment on the way out?

 

[Thunderbrd]

How do you think Hydro and Magnus would react, if TB gave away all his cities to koshling in some sort of strange tantrum. I might be wrong, but I think they would feel the entire game had been ruined and that it was pointless to continue playing it.

Had I not seen my way through the maze to a light of hope, I was threatening to do exactly that. If one player can accept their defeat in this manner, why not the whole domino effect of all of us who now see our balance of power being completely out of whack and see only hopelessness as a result? I found some hope but it is very tenuous.

The same question, presenting yet another angle, would be... what if Magnus, who'd been behind up to now, decided that he realized he had let himself get too far behind out of the gate and when he did the math realized nothing could really save him now so maybe just give up and toss his power behind the lead player to get the game to come to an early conclusion?

For a moment, I did in fact feel that the whole game had been ruined by one tantrum. Not because it meant defeat but because it meant a declared winner had been determined in one player's act. I'm now embracing that it just means a new and much tougher challenge but maybe not all hope lost for all players but one. However, had the gifting of cities gone all in on one end? Might as well admit we've all lost.