Gypsy Kings - pitboss session (closed game)

[oyzar]

I personally think option 4 is the best but i am fine with whatever... Playing as 4 vs 4 could be a bit weird at least.

 

[hellwitch]

I've played few MP games last 2 weeks and in such situation you just loose. Yes you got the bad feeling but you will never make the same mistake again.

Ofcourse we can decide to not take R1 capitol but it must be in normal diplomacy way: R1 is in bad position so you want peace (or cease fire) - and we could give it to you but we will have some demands for it. As it is option 4 here it is broken because that way R1 will not only be punished for his mistake but he will gain IMO advantage of this situation.

I just want to say that We(tp) must decide what to demand (if we decide to not kill R1) for somekind of peace deal.

 

[da_Vinci]

As it is option 4 here it is broken because that way R1 will not only be punished for his mistake but he will gain IMO advantage of this situation.

Oh ... I did not realize before that the point of the game was to dole out appropriate punishment ... I thought that primarily this was an introduction to pitboss for a large number of the GK.

That being said ...

I just want to say that We(tp) must decide what to demand (if we decide to not kill R1) for somekind of peace deal.

This point has merit, especially since the parallel second game is viable. If everyone is willing to play second game (or at least a reasonable number), then the question really is how to resolve the first game. For that options are:

1. Kill R1, play on

2. Spare R1, with simple compensation (he delays worker moves as if he built warrior when he saw warrior coming).

3. Spare R1, with whatever draconian compensation hw is dreaming up ...

4. End the game, declare tp/hw victors

(having removed the "reward R1" option that hw doen't like ... )

And it does make sense that tp/hw get to decide.

As to oyzar's comment that 4v4 seem strange, I have experience with that ...

My first pitboss was a 4v4v4v4 inland sea, I was invited by g_storrow (some will remember him as a GK briefly) to take over a civ.

The game quickly became a 2v2 on our western front (I had the border), and a 2v2 on our northern front (we had SE corner). So from a coordination point of view, didn't have to have long discussions each turn among four, just among 2 sets of two. Did need all four to agree on research ...

Also, the team on my west border had killed off one civ early ... which made their victory inevitable, since I could not talk our northern neighbor into stopping attacks on us and teaming to take down the giant soon enough.

While I was able to hold the west border (barely) most of the game, the big team rolled up the rest of the 3 civ team, rolled over our northern enemy, and when their infantry arrived on my border (we had just got to rifles) and cracked through my Maginot line (I was France), they were also streaming through our northern border.

All of which illustrates that the game, if R1 is killed off, is likely to become de facto either a 5 on 2 or a 4 on 3 (depending on whom oyzar allies with). Because otherwise, tp/hw will have so much room to expand into the R1 vacuum, with a weaker 1 civ team as neighbor, that to do anything else guarantees them the win.

so for tp/hw, one might say "be careful what you wish for ... "

Final point ... it is just a GAME ...

dV

 

[toller pretzl]

For me, the main concern is that the game stays fun. As long as I can view the game as an exciting head-to-head, it's easy to log in to the game every day, in fact it's something to look foward to. (It also helps that me and hellwitch tend to need little discussion to agree on a strategy).

That's why I don't much like the solutions where we have to make a different move than the best one. (Which, if Ronnie moves his worker out of the city, might actually be to demand his worker for peace - but I don't think that will help Ronnie much.)

I'd also like to mention that Ronnie's mishap, in my and hw's opinion, is not a simple matter of one small miscalculation. Why cut it so close ? Is it wise to build worker first if you start with a scout ? Maybe the strategies that are best against the AI are not the best in a multiplayer game.

So I'd prefer any of these :

- start anew altogether, declare this game a trial run
- start anew and also continue this game with 7 ("parallel games")
- just continue this game with 7

 

[oyzar]

Why build worker first? It is only 33% chance that he have a guy starting with a warrior as closest neighbour. And then you have about 50% chance of the warrior going in the "right" direction. There is also quite realistic chance that even if the warrior goes in the right direction it won't reach the capital before the warrior is finished anyways(it was one turn difference).. In my 10+ pitboss games i've seen something like this happen twice(including this) and in the other case warrior first was actually too slow due to extreme proximity...

As for the options i am sure we can solve this in a diplomatic way.. Just talk to me on msn tp...

 

[da_Vinci]

So I'd prefer any of these :

1- start anew altogether, declare this game a trial run
2- start anew and also continue this game with 7 ("parallel games")
3- just continue this game with 7

Note that from R1's perspective, 1 and 2 are identical, and 3 is ... well, no fun.

And it appears that tp (and perhaps hw too) don't have any interest in any of the "spare R1" options in the current game ... that's OK.

#3 is my least favorite option (hopefully everyone's least favorite).

So maybe we agree to start a new game. Do we all agree on that?

Then either this one goes forward with 7, or we ditch it. That will depend on if the seven want to be playing in 2 games here. C63 is away this weekend, I don't know if he has time for two games (although if one person does not have time for two games, then R1 might take over their civ if the rest want to keep this one running?).

I am fine to continue this one IF we also start a new one. If keeping this one means we can't start a new one, then I would rather ditch this one and start new.

dV

 

[da_Vinci]

From a strategic perspective, worker first is sound if you know the average distance between cities, how fast you can build the warrior, and if your scout can give you early warning. Not so sound perhaps without teams and inland sea, where you can't define the warrior approach route to scout and recon.

In this case, scout did give early warning, but an unfamiliarity with simultaneous turn implications lead to a miscalculation of the cushion. Sound strategy, but glitch in execution?

dV

 

[hellwitch]

Oh ... I did not realize before that the point of the game was to dole out appropriate punishment ... I thought that primarily this was an introduction to pitboss for a large number of the GK.

That being said ...

loosing is aways unfun to matter how and when. Me and TP want just to play but things happend that way.

3. Spare R1, with whatever draconian compensation hw is dreaming up ...

4. End the game, declare tp/hw victors

This is definetly the worse. Its all for the game and the fun .

Final point ... it is just a GAME ...

dV

Thats my opinion too.

 

[Munro]

For me, the main concern is that the game stays fun. As long as I can view the game as an exciting head-to-head, it's easy to log in to the game every day, in fact it's something to look foward to. (It also helps that me and hellwitch tend to need little discussion to agree on a strategy).

That's why I don't much like the solutions where we have to make a different move than the best one.

I agree with this. I am uneasy with any solution that doesn't allow tp to make the 'best' move because the game starts to lose its competitive appeal if all players are not playing to win right from the very beginning. Otherwise, any eventual win would be rather unsatisfying if I knew that my opponents could have done better and chose not to..

So I think we should continue with this game with tp raising Ronnie's city as according to their best advantage, and we can start a second game in parallel for Ronnie (and anyone else who gets eliminated.. ) to enjoy in the meantime. If there are some that don't want to play a second game in parallel that's fine too - we don't necessarily need 8 players to make for a fun second game. (In fact 3v3v3 might make for an interesting variation if it comes to it).

So - tp, play on.

And assuming Ronnie is now out, who would be up for a second game?

 

[adrianj]

I would be up for a second game! I think I could manage both in parallel as well.

Just to add my two cents - I think given HW's and TP's leader selection, everyone should have been expecting some form of early rush, or at least an early attack since they were the only team to start with warriors rather than scouts. Ronnie took a big risk - opting for earlier development rather than defence - and the gamble didn't pay off. C'est la vie. I think TP should definitely enjoy the advantage they get from this situation, otherwise we're pretty much condemning them for what has proved to be an excellent strategy and leader choice.

If we wished to clear this up for next game, perhaps everyone should be referred to OOB's ruleset, where there is no warfare before a given date. Although, I don't favour this, as I like the challenge of the early planning around a possible attack at any time.

http://theoob.googlepages.com/pitbossrules.html

Edit: Perhaps I should have read the rules myself - an attack after 3500BC is perfectly legitimate under OOB's rules. So defending against an early rush is still a priority.

 

[Ronnie1]

i appreciate munro's opinion, but as this was truly caused by my misunderstanding of a GAME MECHANIC. I had full view of the tp's warrior for the past 6 turns, I can build warriors in 3. This was caused by me not understanding/realizing how movement occurs during simultaneous turns. Also, oyzar happened to be away for the 2 turns when he could have told me to change builds, and I of course didnt realize what was happening until it was too late. It was not a choice of early development. I dont believe this is an unrecoverable situation. We are negotiating a solution that is acceptable to both tp/hw and R1/oyzar. If we cannot come to a resolution, then it will play out anyway. We are trying to negotiate a deal that would NOT alter tp/hw's strategy as a whole, possibly just DELAY it for a single turn. I personally dont believe that a single turn this early, will impact anyones long term strategies.

Because it was only a 1 turn error, i think we should try to find a diplomatic solution.

I of course, would prefer to keep playing, and have already learned a much greater understanding of how mp mechanics work in relation to turns.

If it is unrecoverable, I would prefer to start over with all teams so we get the game we were trying to get. We are only into this a VERY FEW turns, and a complete restart would seem like the next best option.

These are just my opinions of course, and i am still willing to go with the consensus.

 

[toller pretzl]

Both me and hw are up for a second game. We could make an extra rule for that game, like "no war before 1000 bC". That would make it a distinctly different game. Although you might expect some teams to then pick their leaders for the greatest military advantage at 1000 bC

 

[Munro]

It does seem as though everyone who's posted so far (everyone except C63?) is up for the 2nd parallel game if someone does go out early. C63 - when you return, what're your feelings on this idea?

Either way, with 7-8 players I'm sure we can have a meaningful 2nd game and all be much the wiser to the MP mechanics and early game strategies! And it's hard to imagine of any deal that would be better for tp / hw than raising Ronnie's capitol right now (and I think we should all be playing to win, that's part of the fun).

But, since it sounds like you're still in diplomatic discussions, I've added another 12 hours to the turn timer to make sure you've had time to discuss (and can do again if needed - just let me know). But, I think we should keep the '2nd game' option on the table in case that tp / hw decide there is no advantage in clemency. Either way, I suspect many of us will probably make quite a few mistakes in this first game anyway - either new to MP or new to BtS - so it's a decision that will come up sooner or later I am sure.

 

[Ronnie1]

And it's hard to imagine of any deal that would be better for tp / hw than raising Ronnie's capitol right now (and I think we should all be playing to win, that's part of the fun).

I could build some great cities for them to capture later.

 

[da_Vinci]

I could build some great cities for them to capture later.

But do they trust you ... ?

I can't imagine that there is much more to negotiate ... either they are willing to forgo the raze for something you are willing to give, or not.

dV

 

[oyzar]

While i agree that it won't be fun to not do the best move i still belive diplomacy should be possible... Example of a better deal is easy o come up with. For example it is better for them if we give them a worker than to raze ronnies city...

 

[toller pretzl]

I've added another 12 hours to the turn timer to make sure you've had time to discuss (and can do again if needed - just let me know).

I can't connect to the game at the moment. I don't get past the dialogue-box "Connected to host". Also the turn timer at civstats keeps adding minutes every so often.

 

[adrianj]

I can't connect to the game at the moment. I don't get past the dialogue-box "Connected to host". Also the turn timer at civstats keeps adding minutes every so often.

Same here!

I am also a newbie to MP. Just so that I don't make the same mistake, can somebody explain to me what the game mechanic Ron is referring to? Does a newly built unit not appear at the end of your turn ready to defend in the IBT?

 

[Conquistador 63]

Hi all, I'm back. Although it is taking me a while to understand completely the alternatives to the current issue, I'd like to mention that:
1. I am ok running a 2nd parallel game if that's what everyone wants.
2. If I were TP/hw I'd want to raze R1's city. They took their chances and their strat worked out well.
3. I am ok with awarding the win to tp/hw if that is what the majority wants (I do). If it is not, most likely the other 2 teams should be engaging (with oyzar?) in an informal alliance against tp/hw to compensate for their current advantage on land grabbing. This could also be fun (although not so much for R1)
4. I believe next game should have tribal villages (huts) on to give the civs starting with a scout some compensation against the ones starting with warriors.

 

[toller pretzl]

I can't connect to the game at the moment. I don't get past the dialogue-box "Connected to host". Also the turn timer at civstats keeps adding minutes every so often.

Going to bed now. Once the game is back up, we'll need another extension to finally finish this turn.