Long term future plans/strategy.

[templar_x]

If they weren´t Greece, maybe. But as soon as we attack, they have their GA and at least a few hoplites. Too much for our early empire to overcome AND prosper.

What we really could and maybe should do is a fake war with them some time, when we trigger EACH OTHER´s golden age. This way we jump ahead in the joint research program of the other continent. THEN we might be far away ahead all by ourselves, that we could kill them. Maybe after the MA free tech trade.

This way we could get the best out of THEIR GA!

Before that, I believe we simply should REX like crazy. If they are weak, fine, we will get so much more of this continent. But we will NEVER grew as strong as fast, like their core is, with our faraway towns. That is the key though in my eyes - two cores will always be so much stronger. Therefore, with 4 teams, co-operation must be significantly stronger than taking our continent ultra-early.

templar_x

 

[I. Larkin]

Ok, may be "a plan": Squeeze them like lemon and than say "sorry, pals..."
Wonders: TGL is good, but if there is a passage may "Granary"?
I don't think, that Colosus profit deserve 200 sch. FP definitely better. But Tinta not good location for FP.

 

[Memento]

I will not yet specify how far and how long will take the cooperation.
let us first trade something and then see what it is and what happens if we take the other teams.

 

[Lanzelot]

Victory conditions: I think it is time to discuss.

Let us do the Philo-IW deal in the next Rounds, CoL later and hope that we find a 2nd trade partner.
Makes Techs cheaper and we have more options.

I have been thinking about this. These two points are inter-connected. Most of you seem to favor Domination. For this we need to conquer land, either from the Greeks or from the other continent. If we start a tight cooperation with the Greeks, then they will get stronger, making it more difficult to win a war with them. But both of us will be stronger than the two civs on the other continent (because we will have Republic some 20 turns earlier than the other continent). So it will be easier to capture land over there, which means, we should not trade with the other continent (as that would make them stronger).
So one plan goes like this: cruise through the tech tree with the Greeks, help them to get stronger so they can be a good research partner, try to gain a substantial lead on the other continent and then capture territory there for a Domination win. For this it would be helpful to send a settler over and plant a "colony" in a place where it is very inconvenient for one (or both) team(s). If they don't attack, our town will hamper their development, if they attack, we get the WH and can start taking their land without being the agressor! (So the other teams will have no pretext to attack us. Perhaps they will even join a dogpile on our side, if we make good propaganda.)

However, as Memento wrote above: one of the advantages of being seafaring is that we will be able to trade and broker quite early. So a different plan would be: trade a bit with the Greeks, trade a bit with the other continent and that way get a lead over all three. But then it will be very hard to gain territory, because: no one will dare to attack us. So we need to declare a war. And once we do this, the other two will join and it is basically "we against the rest of the world". There is a high chance that we loose such a war, even if we are way ahead, because the others will immediately exchange each other's techs, combine their production and get ahead of us.
This kind of strategy might work in combination with Spaceship, but not in combination with Domination. (If we stay peaceful, the other three will not attack us, or only when it is already too late. Or only one of them will attack us, but if we have friendly relations with the others and helped them in the past, we can probably avoid a three-way dogpile, so the war will be good for us. Also in such a situation most often the other three will all try to catch up with us by taken over an even weaker neighbor, not by attacking us directly... See my RoD game for an example of this. I was lucky in the beginning, that my direct neighbor's King unit was destroyed by a third party. Thanks to that I was able to rex like crazy and build up twice the empire than anybody else. While doing that I helped all the other ones with free techs and resources. Now there are quite a few wars going on, two more rivals have already been eliminated, but I'm still peacefully expanding. I am now 130 tiles from dom limit without firing even one single shot the entire game...! They keep fighting amongst each other and can't get a coalition against me going.)

According to Secret service information Anarchie backward, low fpt, low spt and gpt. It is very ulikely that they will be valuable research partner. I think we should consider possibility to destroy them in early stage. Let consider build up and Diplomacy strategy for this option. As I mention, good time will be after we trade Map Making and discover Republic.

If they weren´t Greece, maybe. But as soon as we attack, they have their GA and at least a few hoplites. Too much for our early empire to overcome AND prosper.

...

If they are weak, fine, we will get so much more of this continent. But we will NEVER grew as strong as fast, like their core is, with our faraway towns. That is the key though in my eyes - two cores will always be so much stronger. Therefore, with 4 teams, co-operation must be significantly stronger than taking our continent ultra-early.

Templar is right here. In fact he used almost the same words that I said to my two partners in the CDG1 game one or two weeks ago: "Three palaces are stronger than one palace. So even if Calis empire is bigger than our three combined, we will still out-research and out-produce him." The situation in the CDG1 game is as follows: Calis (playing the Celts) had a great start and built a huge empire. On the other hand, I wanted to try, whether a 20K victory can be achieved in PBEM and consequently had a very slow start... When he reached 600 points, I was somewhere at 300 points. But thanks to my very productive core and some trading (and an ultra-early Republic, while he went for Monarchy) I was able to stay slightly ahead in techs. Then he attacked with a huge stack of Gallic Swords. This attack almost killed me, but I was lucky and a short time before the attack I had found two other very weak nations, which were more than 10 techs behind at that time. They were also very worried about the Celtic super-power and started cooperating with me. I gave them all my techs for all their gold and was able to upgrade my spears and warriors to pikes and MDIs, just in time to stop the Celtic invasion. Also thanks to the small gold contributions of my partners, I was able to reach Chivalry before the Celts, and the war developed into a stalemate. The three of us kept cooperating, and now we reached MT 8 (or more) turns ahead of the Celts, and the first attack of my Sipahis has just destroyed 25% of the Celtic army this turn (at only two losses).
So what I want to say with this example:

• Don't underestimate the "weak" nations. Their help can be of great value, much more than if you have a dozen totally corrupt cities...
• "He who takes up the sword, will end through the sword." This is very true in PBEM... It is easy to say "let's destroy them", but quite hard to execute it at this level. (And even if you succeed, it may make your situation difficult, because the others gang up against you.)

I think: all 4 teams have very good players, so it will be very difficult to win. We do have a good situation now, thanks to Philosophy, but the game is far from over. If we get into a dog-pile, we can loose quickly...
This is like a game of chess between two equal partners: if you try to "force" a win and attack prematurely, you will loose. You need to have patience, move carefully back and forth and watch the other side closely like a spider in its net and wait for a mistake that can be exploited.

So my preferred strategy would be:

• Make a tight cooperation with the Greeks. If they are weak, we can always strengthen them (with tech, gold, or even gifting a worker). We don't know yet, what happened to them. Perhaps they even lost a settler to a barb?! But I don't think they are stupid, they certainly have some good players and should be able to be of good help to us. And perhaps indeed they currently have two settlers on their way, which will settle down next turn and then they have already caught up with us!
• Stay friendly with the other continent, but don't help them too much. And watch very closely, what is going on over there. As soon as the first team commits a mistake, we need to be ready to exploit it. (Usually a declaration of war is such a mistake...) Perhaps we can even isolate one of the teams over there, or benefit when they are quarreling amongst each other.
• Never go to war alone. Only with a partner. The best situation is, when a big nation brutally attacks a small nation. Then we can rush to the help of the weaker side, earning their thankfulness while at the same time gaining a bit strength without getting the reputation of an agressor.
• Keep the Spaceship as a fallback victory in case none of the other teams commits a mistake.

Sir Lanzelot

 

[I. Larkin]

Oh.
May be.
I just want to say that to avoid "dog-pile" we have to attack Greeks before intercontinental war will be efficient. Or even before they make contact. If we go to this route we have to prepare NOW.
If we miss this opportunity it will be "Grossmeiter's draw". Most probably.
Or we will find some combination in the middle of the game.
Have no idea. Most probably other continent thinks in the same way and they will make something like MPP. For inwasion we needs Army at least, but at "Peace at our continent" there is "no way".

 

[Memento]

Yes we need a strong Partner, but......

we don´t know what the other Teams are.

Eagles: Portugal or England
DK:
Persia- industriell+scientific->freetech too
Osmanien- industriell+scientific->freetech too and ugly UU at end of MA
France-> industriell and worst Deff-UU most of the MA

what is if we meet someone is in 5-10 round which is much further with the research than the Greeks? someone we do not have to push? someone with a better UU than Greece? someone from which we benefit more?

as long as we have no further contact, i will not agree to a peace for eternity.

 

[templar_x]

@ Lanzelot - you once again mention that ss victory, without addressing that i doubted that we could finish that ship when there are nuclear missiles flying around.

templar_x

 

[I. Larkin]

what is if we meet someone is in 5-10 round which is much further with the research than the Greeks? someone we do not have to push? someone with a better UU than Greece? someone from which we benefit more?

as long as we have no further contact, i will not agree to a peace for eternity.

Yes, we should be careful with Diplomacy now. What if another will offer better deal?
In general, we should assume, that we are equal partners. We may trade on the conditions that we get back the same amount we have given.

 

[templar_x]

i´d like to do some GA planning.

Of course our GA should only start in Republic and after we have settled most of our core. Both should have happened in around 30 turns already. But I think the towns are too small then, so we should have them grow for a bit more still.

I think the end of age - start of new age period could be a good time, so to research the last expensive AA techs and make the transition for the new era, building libs and other improvements. (or troops, if we really decide to go for an early war... but i am becoming more and more doubtful that this is a real option)

in the 2nd wheat town, it could be possible to install a 1-turn worker factory during GA, size 6->7. but it would require to have 20% corruption only or so.
works 3 fp+1pw+bg+oasis+cc+mined hill on growth, makes 14 shields before corruption. enough? 20 workers from one town are a nice boost, which I think we should prepare for if it is possible to pull it off.

if we want that a granary in the 4th town does not make sense, so then defenitely 4ne from my side.

GA should be planned now because we need to time it with the Anarchos as well. they should have theirs at the same time, so we can get the best out of them at the right time (and it gives security also, because they cannot use their e.g. later GA to outproduce and attack us).

another plan could be, if together with the Anarchos we get a good enough lead over the other continent, to start an invasion with either knights or cavs, when we are first to it. or caravels later. MIs and pikes could work also, but we won´t be ready by then I fear. But if we really trust each other, we could become strong enough for a low-size invasion at the beginning of the MA and totally cripple the other continent by destroying a few of their towns and improvements. if we are MA and they are not, that should not be too difficult to pull off.

and then we really go into a research competition with the Anarchos some time for a spaceship (takes forever... that´s the off side). and we need to cancel out a UN victory!

templar_x

 

[I. Larkin]

We also may use War Happiness effect. After first attack we make peace and then second party attack.

Better to have WH all the time but at GA it even more effective. With 3 lux and size 8 10% lux may be enough. So we may discuss it as well. (Instead of 30 turn notice treaty).
I prefer overresearch another continent and suddenly strike. But we need to find them first.

 

[templar_x]

If we could settle the tile on the island where the barb hut is now, we could block any peaceful ship traffic via this route with only 1 curragh.

templar_x

 

[templar_x]

Another GA calculation:
The cap can easily crank out 60s every 4turns as a 5-7 combo factory!
One could think of:
- 1 galley+1 settler
- 1 NM+1 settler
...?
But it requires a mine on the sugar hill.

templar_x

 

[I. Larkin]

I think at GA cap must be 8-10 size at least. It is zero corrupted City and better to pump settlers only occasionally. I hope we managed to make war with Greeks for WH.

 

[templar_x]

That would mean a rather late GA then. With the size of our workforce it will take quite a while to fully improve every core tile.

This implies a decision that has to be made: Do we want to gain the most out of our GA in relative or in absolute terms. Or to put it differently: Do we want to (partly) use it to gain as much land as possible or to be as productive as possible.

The "big size cap" rather represents the latter and would mainly build infra, I assume.

However, the capital has a granary. where else should we then build the settlers and workers we do still need.

Theoretically, with a granary build, we could have Tinta build settlers during the GA?! Not sure if this is really useful.

There is a third option maybe, something I believe I saw Klarius do in one SGOTM: we could join workers to the capital, and build from the capital, at certain times, thus shifting pop from the cities to the workforce, forth and back. I was not really convinced that this paid off, but for sure it was a cool plan.

templar_x

 

[I. Larkin]

Join workers is extreme, but normally I do not build much Settlers during GA. Optimal circulation at size 8-10 looks normal, for GA. At Republic it will have 7 fpt, it is 3 turn growth at size more then 6.

 

[templar_x]

Not at all. For me, improving all the tiles necessary and then joining workers is the normal way to grow above size 6.

Why let my empire use 20f (and waste 10f) on growth beyond 6 when I can have the same growth, saved in a worker, for 10f?!

Regularly all my growth beyond size 6 is alimented by WF.

templar_x

 

[Lanzelot]

Ok, let's continue this point here.

Well, within OUR team we have to come to common ground about ethics.
As we will break 30 tun pact if we want we may tune GA and WH with Eagles, say.
Or other have other opinion?

But I would even say we have to distinguish between the group of PBEM-players and, e.g., XOTM-players or HOF-players. And after having read quite a few PBEM stories, I would also say that the ISDG is something different than a normal PBEM. It has its own ruleset, and there very probably won´t be another game with the same people ever. It is a singular competition, which makes it even more insane to consider to forgo certain moves that are within the rules for "ethical reasons".

Speaking for me:

• Looking back at the past "multi-player democracy games", I see that the role playing aspect has always played a definite part of the game, and it influenced the "game mechanical" aspect. (Even more than in the "normal" PBEM games.) We have created a picture of ourselves like "the honorable knights, helping the weak and figthing for justice", so we should act according to that role.
• I know many players from the Eagles team, and now also some Civforum people, which I am now meeting in the "Pokal". And I'm pretty sure that I will continue to play normal PBEMs with many of them after the ISDG has ended. Our conduct here will carry over to future games.
• If there are certain "tactics", which the other teams consider "unfair", "unethical" or a "dirty trick", then we should adopt their opinion and also consider it unfair. I'd much rather loose this game than winning it but having the other teams say "yeah, they won, but only because they are cheatin' bastards..."
• And finally, we do have a strong team, and I think we can win without having to resort to any dirty tricks.

So personally, I don't want to break any deals (but of course we need to be prepared for the case that others break deals on us and stay in a position where we can pay them back...) And if the Civforum teams consider phony wars dishonorable, then for heavens sake let's build the Lighthouse and the Pyramids.

BTW: I do agree with their view that a phony war for triggering a GA is fishy: it may not be against the "letter of the ruleset", but it is certainly against the "spirit of the ruleset"! After all, the ruleset explicitly forbids phony wars for the purpose of

• canceling 20-turn deals
• exchanging workers/artillery (or double-duty of them)
• leader fishing

So why do you think it should allow phony wars for GA-triggering?!

Lanzelot

 

[templar_x]

After all, the ruleset explicitly forbids phony wars for the purpose of

• canceling 20-turn deals
• exchanging workers/artillery (or double-duty of them)
• leader fishing

So why do you think it should allow phony wars for GA-triggering?!

Knowing a bit how the law system does work, the answer is just too simple:

because it is not listed.

templar_x

 

[templar_x]

• Looking back at the past "multi-player democracy games", I see that the role playing aspect has always played a definite part of the game, and it influenced the "game mechanical" aspect. (Even more than in the "normal" PBEM games.) We have created a picture of ourselves like "the honorable knights, helping the weak and figthing for justice", so we should act according to that role.
• I know many players from the Eagles team, and now also some Civforum people, which I am now meeting in the "Pokal". And I'm pretty sure that I will continue to play normal PBEMs with many of them after the ISDG has ended. Our conduct here will carry over to future games.
  [*]If there are certain "tactics", which the other teams consider "unfair", "unethical" or a "dirty trick", then we should adopt their opinion and also consider it unfair. I'd much rather loose this game than winning it but having the other teams say "yeah, they won, but only because they are cheatin' bastards..."
• 
  And finally, we do have a strong team, and I think we can win without having to resort to any dirty tricks.

So personally, I don't want to break any deals (but of course we need to be prepared for the case that others break deals on us and stay in a position where we can pay them back...) And if the Civforum teams consider phony wars dishonorable, then for heavens sake let's build the Lighthouse and the Pyramids.

BTW: I do agree with their view that a phony war for triggering a GA is fishy: it may not be against the "letter of the ruleset", but it is certainly against the "spirit of the ruleset"!

My first reaction was that I thought I could partly share your opinion.

However, I believe your elaboration contains one pivotal mistake. And that in fact the assessment above is very ambivalent.

The critical point is, to which extent can you follow someone else´s perception when it goes about ethics.
Thinking this to the end, to do that is what typically is called politeness or consideration.
Ethics however have to be applied because YOU YOURSELF believe that it is right to do so.

So basically, if we want to apply THE OTHERS´ ethics, it is the question of HOW POLITE DO WE WANT TO BE. (Not too much, other than in words, if you ask me.)
If you want to check whether I am right here, just imagine the others would find it "unfair" if we settled more than half of our island if we had the production and population and the Anarchos had not. Will we yield to this? Then, they think it is unfair to make contact without permission of our trade partner. Yield? Two say it is unfair to bombard the coast in war, one finds it ok. Just one finds pillaging is unfair or using the archer for amphibious operations. Continue with battle settling, prebuilds, using nuclear weapons, or whatever else comes to your mind.

Where do you draw the line?

In my eyes, this does not work at all. Like in real life, you have to decide to which point you stay POLITE, and from which point on you APPLY YOUR OWN ETHICS. Again like in real life, adopting others´ views does not do anything in most circumstances (when you do not differ), and won´t do anything good when it really matters.

Since we "as a team" won´t have common ethics, because we know each other much too little for that, the maybe surprising fact is, that we can only decide what our "ethics" are *by majority*. Please be careful to consider anything as "natural", because it is not. (Btw, this was probably never put into a better logic or clearer words than by Karl Popper, if anyone knows or wants to read "The Open Society and its Enemies", where he amongst other things derives the difference between facts and opinions.)

For myself, not playing PBEM and therefore not having stepped into a community that developed any "game ethics", I hold that I only see the rules as limits of our game right now. I might develop another opinion on a certain issue, but I cannot think of one such point right now.

Regarding the issue of a phony war triggered by our UU, I cannot see at all how this would be "fishy". Everyone could have incorporated these thoughts into his civ choice, and although I may not have mentioned it, I DID.
Actually, if we did not want to do that, I think we should have considered that right then, and we really should have been building a wonder by now. 800 shields are nothing to just slide in randomly...

templar_x

Abstract:

- I am grateful I have learnt for myself that I do not care about anyone saying "yeah, he won, but only because he is a cheatin' bastard...". Dependence on someone else´s acknowledgment is sandy ground in my experience. Especially when the other one lost.
- I cannot see the fishiness in a not-so-serious war in order to trigger the GA.
- "Ethics", if it all, need to be decided on by majority.
- So is what we do out of "politeness".
- I understand Lanzelot´s role playing argument and we should take that into consideration. It has no automatic consequences though, but only means that we should not forget about it "before we vote".

 

[I. Larkin]

Reading - thinking...

Well, I hate long writing...
So: 2 wonders -NO WAY!!
Agreed GA with UU "yes!".
Agreed war with WH "yes!".
Hopefully Eagles will be more cooperative.
If Lanzelot cooperates with stupid enemy we must consider his role in our team.
[joke, that partially joke...]