Game Settings Discussion Thread

Yes, you would think that for all RB's hand wringing about how game-breakingly powerful CSM is, they would have obviously chosen a spiritual leader. The fact that they didn't speaks volumes about how their experienced players really feel, because you know somebody over there was arguing that they needed a SPI leader with CSM on.

 

Makes one wonder what the real reason for their vehemence was... Perhaps just pride.. Heh.

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

 

Speaking of which, I have been meaning to post some discussion/analysis on the actual merits of CSM but havent had a chance (these 2000 word posts take time you know). I was planning to do this anyway, but I also told tobiasn I would do it when he asked. I am too busy at the moment to do a complete analysis, but here is just one brief point for thought/discussion/FYI whatever. I will use a point-counter point analysis for this, because I think it makes the argument easier to follow than outline format. For clarity I will give the "sides" names, Maximus and Simplicio (yes I know that's biased but its fun so gimme some leeway OK)

Simplicio -One of the main arguments against CSM that is constantly raised (in fact I believe that this is the cornerstone/foundation of Lord Parkin's argument against CSM in particular), is that CSM does not "scale with empire size" and is therefore imbalanced. In other words, in order to be balanced, the mission should cost more to use against a larger empire than it does against a small one.

Maximus -Now the most obvious response to this is that no spy mission scales with empire size. All spy mission costs are determined by the perticular modifiers for the city or tile that you are performing the spy mission in. It does not make sense that only one particular mission (CSM)would be governed by an entirely different set of variables than all the other spy missions.

Simplicio -Of course the response to this is that CSM is the one spy mission that affects the whole empire rather than just that particular city or tile. The reason it affects the whole empire is because when you change a country's Religion or Civics, you are changing them for the whole country, not just one city. Therefore since CSM affects all the cities instead of just one, the cost of CSM (in espy points) should "scale" to reflect this. In other words it should cost 500% more to use CSM on an empire with 10 cities than on an empire with 2 cities (assuming equal population in each city), because 10 is 500% as large as 2.

Maximus - Now there are many, many reasons that that is wrong. Here are just two. First, Tech does not scale with empire size. That is to say, that the number of beakers that it takes me to get a tech is constant, regardless of how many cities my empire has. A 10 city empire does not need to raise 500% more beakers to get Currency than a 2 city empire. However, teching Currency has an immediate effect on the entire Empire, not just one city. I get +1 trade routes in every city when I get Currency, no matter whether I have 2 cities or 10. So for generating the exact same amount of beakers a 10 city civ gets +10 trade routes while a 2 city civ only get +2. 500% more trade routes for the spending the exact same amount of beakers.

Now before you raise the red-herring that you don't "spend" beakers, let me nip that in the bud. You do spend them, the only difference is they are spent automatically. You build them up and when you get all the beakers you need they are automatically all "spent" back down to zero to obtain the tech.

Getting back to the point, you will never hear anyone say that Currency is unfair or unbalanced or broken. I will not go into all the reasons for this as it will take too long. But the point is that the idea that something is broken just because it doesent scale with Empire size is a manifestly poor argument. And it is illogical to selectively apply that argument to CSM, when there are so many things about the game that do not scale with Empire size that are considered perfectly fine.

Simplicio - However it is important not to miss that point that tech cost do scale with Empire size. The more cities I have, the more commerce/beakers I can generate and thereby decrease the time it takes me to raise the beakers needed to obtain the tech. Therefore, the larger my empire the faster my tech rate. In other words tech does scale with empire size.

Maximus - This brings up the Second point. Espionage cost (and consequently the cost of CSM) does scale with Empire size, in exactly the same way. First examine it from the perspective of the person using the mission. The more cities he has, the more commerce/espy points he can generate and therefore get enough espy to perform espionage missions faster. So the relative "cost" of the espionage mission gets lower as my Empire gets larger. In that way, the cost of CSM (and all other espy missions) does scale with empire size.

Now examine from the person on the recieving end. The larger his empire, the more cities he has, and thus the more commerce/espy points he can generate. The more espy points he generates the higher it costs to run any espionage mission against him. This is a less known concept about espionage. Every single espy point you generate all game makes the price of all espy missions against you go up. It does not matter whether you spend the points, they never go away in that sense. The game tracks the total espy generation of a civ all game long and gradually, espy mission costs against Civs that generate a lot of espionage go higher and higher. In that way the cost of CSM (and any espionage mission) do scale for empire size in an even greater way than tech does. In fact, ironically, because of the imbedded total-points-generated multiplier, espionage is one of the few things that actually can scale along with empire size.

Also, the more cities he has, the more commerce/espy points he can generate and therefore gmore quickly get enough espy to perform counter-espionage (to increase the cost of spy attacks against him by 200%). So the relative cost of the counter-espionage mission gets lower as his Empire gets larger. In other words, the cost of defending yourself from espionage scales with Empire size in a similar way to how tech does.

I will stop there... Not because I am done, mind you, there are way, way, way more things to say about CSM and espy in general, but I will talk about that stuff later. Thanks for reading

 

If we get Mansa or another Spi leader, paired with a UB that produces espy points, some of the other teams might really freak out that we are going to go all-out with a CSM-based strategy.

Maybe one way to use this to our advantage is to try to get concessions from other teams for agreements not to spend espionage points against each other. Especially if we decide to avoid an EE entirely, it would be in our own best interest to get these agreements with other teams. They should be much more willing to enter them if they believe from the beginning that we will be the Espy powerhouse.

 

My thoughts exactly

 

Devious! I like this

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

 

Okay, Sommerswerd, I'm convinced.

 

Cool Socratic story bro.

My espy game is non-existent, I rarely pay any attention to it tbh. It's one of those game mechanics that I haven't grasped fully, so I tend to always go for blunt force.

I do know about the csm though, but since I underprioritize espy points it's never dawned on me that those kinds of missions are comparatively "cheap".

I guess my biggest grief with these missions are that they are so far fetched and unrealistic. I see the unfun part of them too, obviously, but so is getting hit with a SoD when you least expect it. This is just another front to defend, then. And that could make the game more balanced, actually. Ar least against cIV suprstars that arn't used to thinking about it.

So, how do you counter these covert missions effectively? Is your only option pouring espy points on your pedicted culprits? Or are there other ways?

 

I was going to address this in another analysis post, but hey why not. So yea, I have heard that said before, but check out The 1953 Iranian Coup D'etat. Basically US and UK intelligence toppled the Democratically elected Iranian government and instituted a Despotic/Authoritarian one. This kind of thing happens all the time TBH, so it really is not far fetched at all, its just that since its done by intelligence agencies, it usually happens without us knowing about it Hey if you think about it, 9/11 kinda made the US switch civics (we can debate from which to which)

But the real point on that is, Civ is unrealistic in so many ways that I know you have heard a thousand times like ... Why does it take 100 years to walk from Paris to Berlin?.. or 1000 years to sail from Rome to Timbuktu?... Why do I need to be able to read and write to teach my neighbor how to fish, or string a bow? People in a city survive 3 ICBM strikes...No... and everyone's favorite "Civ is unrealistic" thing...

This. It really is just a matter of what you like or don't like as opposed to anything being realistic or unrealistic, right?

Losing sucks. That's the bottom line. People hate anything that makes them lose.

I will write more details on that soon.

 

I think this is actually the biggest fear about allowing CSM in the game. You can make these missions more costly for your opponents, but you can never make them impossible to perform, afaik. That's why I think it is very important to establish agreements with other teams not to spend espy against each other, because if they haven't built up the necessary espy points, then they cannot perform the mission.

Counters that I am aware of include:
-Simply accumulating more espy than your opponent makes their missions more expensive, and less likely to succeed.
-Sitting your own spy in your city makes missions more expensive, and less likely to succeed (in that tile only, though)
-Performing a Counter-Espionage Mission makes all of their missions cost 200% more to perform, for a limited number of turns
-Build up a large, advanced army while your opponent wastes builds and economy building up espy points, then go take them out!

 

Of course you have not only right, but duty to raise your voice to defend what you believe is best for the team. I would 100 times prefer team mates who dispute and argue their opinion where the truth is born in the dispute, rather than ones who agree with everything. Just like you and Sommers had different opinion and you both raised them.

Preparing ourselves for heavy espionage possibilities, I dont know if other teams will look at us with fear and respect for the possible harm we could make to them and avoid messing up with us, or they will look at us with fear and prefer to kill us at first possible opportunity and not risk being hurt in the future...

 

Sorry, kind of unrelated, but why don't we try and set up "espionage pacts" with other civs? We could tech trade in a roundabout, inefficient, way by stealing, with consent, your allies' techs, and even make a CSM-defense pact if they aren't spiritual and you share their civics.

 

Might be good part of a strategy. Friendly stealing is nice. But it is some kind of one way business. It becomes expensive for the other involved.

CSM-defense pact sounds like a great idea. So is friendly anarchy-less civic switches

 

Would any of you guys like to discuss this or do we have enough on our plate?

 

All the rules seem logical and fair. Still don't quite get the rules applied to a free-for-all, but otherwise I approve.

 

Disputed spot rule is also very shaky. You could double-move for a spot and not even k is it was disputed until the city has been built.

 

If you're both approaching the spot from the same direction then the rule makes sense, but you might not have even met the other team or know they're planning to settle there.

The other question I have on the DM rules is what's up with not logging in in the other half of the turn, even to look? Especially team A logging in after they have ended turn in * state.

 

This rule has a lot of unenforceable stuff that is going to start some player-quitting game-ending arguments IMO. TBH I think most of it is just hogwash and should be completely re-done (I cant declare war in the second part of the turn? Why?).

But, I also think that we (and I personally) don't need another public battle with RB over the rules. It's just bad politics. I don't know... What do others think?

 

Also, now that I think about it, some of this stuff (in a paranoid sort of way) could be interpreted as being directed at us. More specifically at fast workers and spies. For instance, it is a pretty well accepted concept in Civ that when it comes to settlers... you snooze you lose. Anti settler DM rule? That seems like he is aiming to nerf the positive effect that fast workers can have on our race-to-settle-a-spot options. Why would we agree to that when settlers have always been an exception to DM rules?

Another thing, it addresses the pillage/sabotage at the end of the turn thing, but it does not address the espy mission at the beginning of the turn in the counter-espy window thing. It also ignores the heal/promote at the beginning of the turn then attack wounded units before they can heal/promote thing.

The whole thing seems a little fishy to me.

 

If you want to go up against RB, then I suggest you have an alternative rule all written up. Looks a lot better if you come prepared. Also if we have our rules we can try to synthesize the two, giving us a better final product.