Our Goals

[remake20]

Our major goal is obvious, to win, but I'm wandering what else to you guys want to accomplish? May it be building a wonder, or rapid expansion. Of course we will have to be flexible in what we do, but what do YOU want our team to accomplish? Sorry if this is something that shouldn't be posted, I was just bored . I would like to set a team goal of never dropping below third place in points. Also I would like to have one successful invasion.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Winning is the only goal that matters. If we want to play optimally, we might have to abandon any other goal, although goals involving military superiority are quite likely to lead to a W.

 

[Sommerswerd]

As usual, the AMAZON Constitution has the answer to this question:

Mission Statement
The focus of the team will be maximum participation and maximum fun. All other goals will be secondary.

Sorry if this is something that shouldn't be posted, I was just bored .

For me, a personal rule of thumb is not to post a new thread just because I am bored. A simple post when you are bored is the best way to go IMO

If we want to play optimally, we might have to abandon any other goal, although goals involving military superiority are quite likely to lead to a W.

I agree, however, as an aside, I will never be comfortable abandoning the primary goal, which is participation and fun

But in terms of playing the game, you are absolutely correct that military superiority should be our focus, and is probably the best way to acheive victory.

 

[remake20]

Well I really do want to know what you guys want our team to do, and I thought this WOULD add participation and probably some fun.

 

[nabaxo]

Well, maybe "Always be ranked first on the power curve" would be a nice goal to have?

 

[damnrunner]

Well, maybe "Always be ranked first on the power curve" would be a nice goal to have?

The power graph can be so misleading however.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The power graph can be so misleading however.

And military only helps when it's used . If we're not in war mode, and intend to be wielding military as a deterrent, we want the theoretical minimum possible that will serve that role adequately...it's only when we opt for the offensive that we want a larger force.

Besides, collateral initiative is a big deal in this game for most eras (if not all, though air combat and nukes complicate things very late). Even if your invasion forces is say 33% bigger, if the stacks are large and you get collateral raped, you could easily get the entire invasion force annihilated, eating WW and possible retaliation. Power definitely isn't everything, although being up there helps a lot to keep one safe. We still have to avoid cheap surprise-raze attacks regardless! I've been on both ends of the "surprise naval assault = 4 cities razed" strategy, and even if one has a superior military, if they're caught with 4 razed cities in their territory, it will be hard to recover. I've actually never seen someone recover from multiple cities razed by surprise, so we should prevent that and look for opportunities for cheap KOs ---> mounted forks, guerrilla II longbows, or small amphibious raids vs capitols. Probably we won't see that vs this caliper of competition, but we shouldn't ignore opportunities if they arise.

 

[Sommerswerd]

look for opportunities for cheap KOs ---> mounted forks, guerrilla II longbows, or small amphibious raids vs capitols. Probably we won't see that vs this caliper of competition, but we shouldn't ignore opportunities if they arise.

Alll I can say is... Spies, Spies, Spies.

 

[Norton I]

I think an important goal should be to make early contact with other teams and put a lot of effort into diplomacy. Especially when it comes to wars, having allies will be vital. Even if an ally hasn't got the equipment to join an attack, it could create a diversion that would open the door for us. Equally important, we don't want to be backstabbed by a third party while we are on the offensive.

I have no experience with diplo in civ MP, but I played the game "diplomacy" for some time. It is of course a completely different game, but there some lessons one can learn from that game that will probably apply to our situation. Here are a few of those lessons:

- Be very communicative; strong bonds with other teams are won by communicating a lot. Making deals about all sorts of stuff, but also just exchanging little pieces of information. Keep the lines open and reply rapidly. When teams have to choose at some point where their loyalty lies, they often choose the team with which they communicate most.

- Don't be too angry; when someone attacks you, you should of course retaliate as best as you can. But don't start shouting at the other team or break off communications. Even during a war it is good to keep talking. You may at some point convince your enemy that its in their own interest to stop the attack. In other words: retaliate, but never whine.

- The ground situation always has the final word; no matter how beautiful the words of your partner are, always look at the sizes and locations of armies and the possible advantages that teams can have from an attack. Trusting your ally is easiest when he doesn't have the opportunity to backstab you.

- If you backstab, make sure it is final! Never betray an ally for a small advantage. A backstab should only be made if you can do it so thoroughly that it kicks your victim out of the race.

 

[mariogreymist]

Probably we won't see that vs this caliper of competition, but we shouldn't ignore opportunities if they arise.

This is very true in my experience. It's important to not underestimate the power of psychology in game theory. People often assume their competition will be a certain kind, and play accordingly. If an opponent makes the assumption that we won't do something crazy that will only usually work against incompetence, they will sometimes exhibit serious liabilities in that area.

Below, a poker story explaining this theory in practice:

Spoiler :

When attending college in NYC, I supplemented my income by playing poker in Altantic city on the weekends. I generally played a game called 20-40 stud, which is a fancy way of saying 7 card stud with each player having $1000 on the table or more. About half the players in a good game were professional or semi-pro like me, and you knew to not mess with those guys. Sharks don't eat each other - they eat the fish.

I was at a table with 3 other pros, all of us knowing each other having spent many hours playing together (we'd been sitting at the table for 12+ hours each, most of us having played together before). These guys knew I wouldn't check-raise on the river without a full house or better. They knew it because they'd seen me check raise tourists a dozen times or more, and every time I was called and every time I flipped up a big boat. So at about 9AM, all of us bleary eyed, I started off drawing to a high flush, with four cards to a Royal flush by fifth street (five cards out) when I paired my door card (first up). I bet out, and the last tourist dropped out after 2 of the pros called me and one raised. I called, and checked my apparent pair of kings on the river.

The previous raiser, holding three of a kind, bet out again and was called by the other pro. There was over $500 in the pot, and a $40 bet to my pair of kings which I knew was no good. I raised. I did it not because these players were bad enough to fall for a check raise bluff, but because they were good enough to fall for it. The guy with trip 8s folded, cursing, followed by the caller. The only player that knew I was bluffing was the lady (a pro) next to me who had folded a pair of hidden kings on fifth street when both me (meaning she'd not get a third king) and the guy with 8s paired our door cards. She leaned over and said, "nice move, I had the other 2" (she shouldn't have told me, because I then knew to never try it against her, ever)

The moral of the story: never assume your opponent won't do something crazy, because it's that moment they are sure to do it.