RBC16 - Sleeveless

[microbe]

Hardly. We have a clear and objective rule set.

But the problem is this is not the case. The "build and disband" isn't in the rules yet you said it's not allowed during the game. You also mentioned we shouldn't leave cities empty which is also not in the rules. I'm pretty sure there are other examples but I couldn't remember.

I accepted that one because if your spirit was "do not do tricks AI doesn't do", then it's still natural to conclude "build and disband" is such a trick. But if your spirit is "focus on players" and "no gamey", it's far more ambigious and I would argue if you want a clear and objective rule set, you shouldn't extend the rule set arbitrarily. I wouldn't argue about "no razing" at all if you never did that.

So you either
1. define a set of rules and do not extend them, or
2. define a very simple and objective spirit and a set of demo rules which follow the spirit, and extend them by following the simple spirit

and not both ways. 1 is always better than 2, but currently we seem to have
3. a very subjective spirit and we yet still extend the rules as we play

You objected to an item in the rule set as inconsistent with the "spirit" and I explained why it isn't. Now you are complaining about the spirit itself, as if it existed in a vacuum.

I would not have argued about "no razing" if you never extended the rules (approach 1). I was then arguing about "no razing" because I thought the spirit was simple (no non-AI tricks) and we were following the 2nd approach. I was then arguing about the spirit because I found it's no longer simple and we are following the 3rd approach, which is bad. It's not that I like to argue about everything. It's I change what to argue because I respect and accept what you told me without argument. But you have to tell me: aren't we following the 3rd approach?

In one word, no matter what the spirit is, and no matter what's in the original rules, I accept anything you say why it's there and why it meets the spirit without further argument. We don't need to care as they are written officially in the rules anyway and we are able to follow them.

But for things aren't in the rules and later added, and we still might add more, that's another story. If we do not understand why they are added and why they meet the spirit, we'll fail to make judgment to follow the rules (or the spirit).

The spirit only enters over bits I did not account for, and frankly, that's been VERY few items, all minor.

What do you mean by "minor"? We don't have to follow them (but rules are rules)? It's OK to not ask when we have doubt and make our own judgment (that's why everyone might play a different rule set)? For what is worth, I hardly consider having to build wealth is minor.

I'm starting to get the impression that you enjoy arguing for its own sake.

No, I am arguing because I want to make sure we understand what this game is about and avoid doing things you are against. I believe I have my points not answered, so please bear with me.

Of course, we can also ignore the problems and play on, as you seem to start getting bothered. But it is frustrating to have legitimate moves shot down by reason of "spirit". So please at least answer one question: can we do anything that is not listed in the written rules? (fall back to approach 1)

BTW: I read the epic rules again and cannot find one that forbids gifting AI cities. But I guess I've had enough questions.

 

[Grimjack]

I will play early tomorrow night. Sorry for not making enough time tonight.

Grimjack

 

[Grimjack]

Partial update. Will finish tomorrow evening.

RBC16 Grimjack take two.
Goal, keep ahead of the opponents in the space race, while having a sufficiently large force as to be able to storm any opponents that are too successful.

Checking the lay of the land. Carthage is in anarchy, dare one hope for a fascist state.
Byzantines lack rubber, so they have no Tanks A respectable number of Mechanized, but no Tanks.

Switch New Orleans to Temple, hoping to draw in the rubber. I do not rush though, as that would slow down the safe steal tempo. I will rush it in two turns, if I have money.

Cirta the size 3 iron city is one of our better shield producers, so I start the Cockpit there instead of Stock exchange.

I fly in a worker from our middle island, he could help reduce pollution. I will trust the preceding players that Solar Panels are worthwhile. I can have no opinion really, since I have never built them.

IBT: Hmm, that’s not good, China and Byzantines sign peace. Byzantines start Cure for Cancer.

1752 Carthage is still in anarchy, so I dare risk a safe steal from them. I know this is extra expensive, as we will get below 1000 gold, but the cost is some 30 extra gold out of a total cost of 3800. I debate internally whether to take miniaturization or Satellites, but in the end take Miniturization, as that would increase our available shields. I cannot get Fission out of Mao, and Mao only has 2000 gold, and that’s too little for us to help him with his tech race. I would rather wait until next steal for this tech.

IBT: Carthage flips, and we lose one Mechanized. I can only hope our troops gets deposed somewhere nearby. Get more pollution.

1754 Move workers, check trades and MM.

IBT: Do not renew deal with Byzantines, as they are a danger to our space race. We get kicked out of Carthage. Chinese finish SS Storage.

1756 Sigh, we got teleported to the far corner of the Carthaginian island. I will dispatch the transports to go get the troops, but it can take a while.

IBT: Carthage and France signs peace. And then Byzantines and France also sign peace. India lands one cavalry on one of our small islands. I smell a sneak. Chinese complete docking bay.

1758 I buy spices from Carthage, hoping they will not build spaceships really really quickly.
China and Carthage are both Fascist states. Unlikely China would be a threat, as they lack techs, and during fascist governments, techs come slowly if at all.

IBT: That’s a short peace. For some reason Byzantines declare on the Chinese. Unfortunately, we lose our wines and our Aluminum as the Indians declare on us. That means one of their aluminums are freed up. We get a double hit of Pollution just as I thought I was getting it under control.

1760 Move ships.

IBT: Chinese finish Cockpit.

1762 I am almost clear of pollution. The extra workers I flew over from the other island pushed us over the hill. I am suffering under a low number of troops, and I am painfully aware I should have started some modern armors when I saw the sneak coming.

 

[microbe]

oops, didn't notice it's a partial report.

 

[Sir Bugsy]

For a peace loving vegetarian curry lover, Gandhi sure can be a ****. Hopefully we can settle the war quickly and get some aluminum. Unless we can go capture some for ourselves :devil2:

 

[Sirian]

But you have to tell me: aren't we following the 3rd approach?

Your list of three items is loaded. Where's item four, "none of the above"?

I reject the notion that subjectivity is undesirable. Some games are too complex or too subtle to lend well to complete objectivity. We see this in sports such as gymnastics, diving, figure skating. Sometimes when you want purity in the game, or at least to reach for it, a fair amount of subjectivity is called for. Since it's going to be there anyway, let's be up front about that.

You were right (technically) and I remembered incorrectly about the city giveaway. That IS in the RB rules, but it's listed under dastardly options, which means it IS legal. Yet the direct purpose of the move is to circumvent city flips -without- razing, which is how it came to be specified.

However, I was right in interpreting the intent. Razing is also not against the RB rules, but it IS listed in the dastardly section. The third party trade rule is a corollary to the razing rule, added for the express purpose of closing a gamey loophole involving technical avoidance of razing while still enjoying the virtual benefits attached to razing. When playing Honorably, by RB rules, razing comes off the table and so does the city giveaway trick involving third parties.

Now I realize that it takes a high degree of familiarity with the RB rules to draw that intention out of them. Having written the rules and remembered why, it is not unreasonable for me to connect the corollary to the main rule. Why take razing off the table yet allow the same effect with a clearly gamey move?


Although the team has been unclear on the rules a few times, everyone else seems to get it when it comes to the general flow. I'm sorry that you don't, as yet, but part of what may be standing in the way is some assumptions you seem to be holding. 1) That subjectivity is automatically bad. It's not. 2) That using what the AI can do would serve as a useful and objective yardstick. (I don't think so.) 3) That my intentions are obscure and "very" subjective. I guess that's in the eye of the beholder.

The fact is, good rules are hard to write. I know, having been writing rules for gaming communities on and off for more than eight years now. To me, it goes without saying that any first pass at rule writing is going to have some flaws. Maybe you don't agree with that, but I've taken several cracks at it now, and I have never batted 1.000 -- nor have I seen anyone else do that.

It just seems to me that most of the team is cutting me a bit of slack and accepting of some reasonable rules tinkering. Better that than sticking to flawed rules or letting gaps I failed to address tilt the results. You might think I can foresee everything, but I cannot. I think I did a pretty good job, though. I'm sorry that this work in progress isn't as tidy as you would prefer.


I hope this manages to answer most of your questions.

Now on with the game.


- Sirian

 

[LKendter]

The fact is, good rules are hard to write.

That is the key to the problem. Even in what I thought were very simple variant - 5CC I had problems with the first time run with accepting cities in peace treaty, then abandoning them. That is why my 5CC games now say we may never have a 6th city for even a second .

If you play in more complex variants you have to expect issues with the rules set.

I had several variant not playout 100% as planned due to rules issues.

 

[Grimjack]

IBT: Our southern cities get hammered by Indian bombers who must be based off of two carriers somewhere in the ocean. I do not car as long as he do not land troops here.

1764 Our stranded task force in the northern Aztec forests is finally rescued by our fleets. They will now head for India, where it is hoped they will secure coal and Aluminum.

Since I do not know where the Uranium is located, I will not give up the fight of the southern island just because our defending spearmen where bombed away. I will see if Mechanized troops are more sturdy before I rush some flaks.
I sink an Indian Sub I accidentally spot. Note to self, move Destroyers one move at a time, so I can react to subs.

IBT: Chinese finish Engine.

1766 We are free of pollution

IBT: The six bombers in the south are really annoying, and now a transport approaches.

1768 I use part of our fleet trying to disconnect northern India, which I would like to annex. I have no luck though. It is hard to disconnect those mountain roads.

IBT: The Indians land seven tanks and a cavalry on the southern island. Good thing I flew down some reinforcements. Unfortunately they discovered I had rebased our fighters, and they decided to start bombing the city where our airforce had flown to, instead of the city they had bombed every turn thus far.

We complete our first spaceship part. The engine is flown into orbit.

1770 Our Carthaginian taskforce is just not lucky, the Chinese boot them out to the north. Next time we try the straights, the straights is blocked by foreign navies.
I carefully steal Genetics from the Byzantines.
Steal Satellites from Byzantines, and sell to the Chinese. I had hoped for Fission, but Mao was insulted at the mere idea.
I consider using the proceeds from the sale to finance another steal, but I suspect that is at least borderline fishy.

Better to leave the cash in the drawer, so next leader can decide to rush or save for a safe steal. Do take a careful look in the south. I believe we can hold if we are not unlucky. We will however not be able to grab any Indian soil unless we can convince China to let our ships through.
You have one transport ship with a couple of artillery by the fleet to the northeast of India. The gunships have been trying to disconnect the rails in the mountains, in order to slow down reinforcements to the Indian north.

Good luck.
Grimjack

 

[microbe]

Sirian, I don't know what Bugsy or Grimjack thinks, but now it seems this is a very different SG than my previous experience: you actually expect us to focus on the spirit instead of written rules and assume the rules are always incomplete, which is a good thing, in your opinion. Thanks for clarification. That's "approach 3" in my mind, as I don't trust myself to draw the same conclusion as you did on things like "build and disband".

Giving that you said earlier: "No one has had to check and recheck for clarity, as you describe." and you didn't answer my question "are we allowed to do things not listed in the rules?" I'm a bit lost, but I'll now assume the following:
1. Follow all the written rules, plus the extensions of "no build and disband", "no give away cities or leave cities empty to avoid flip loss". Never had any question about this. By the way, I do not personally agree "good rules are always hard to follow". I have no problem following any written rules and I can always ask for clarification. Unlike rules that are not written on the table. The problem is you have a good _spirit_ which isn't translated into complete rules.
2. For anything else, I'll assume I can do it, unless it's very clear _to me_ that it's against the spirit. No promise that it will be consistent with what you or others might think. And I expect no one would throw away my turns if I make a wrong judgement.

Fair enough? If we can agree on this I'm happy. I have NO MORE questions.

I got it.

 

[Sirian]

you actually expect us to... assume the rules are always incomplete, which is a good thing, in your opinion.

Please don't reinterpret my remarks. I said nobody gets it right on the first pass. How you go from that to... what you posted, I have no idea.

You're making this seem way more complex than it is. Nobody's been asked to walk on eggshells. Nobody's been taken to task for not following rules that weren't clearly spelled out. So why are you giving me grief? I don't get it.

The spirit doesn't affect everything. It's the last resort for dealing with situations that weren't covered in the rules but perhaps should have been. You act as if that is a vast ocean of items in which you are drowning, when in fact it's only a few bits here or there. At this point, it might even be fair to say that the rules lawyering now underway has been more costly to the game than the issues you are trying to clarify.

You were OK at the start, interpreting "sometimes do our own research". The level of common sense necessary to interpret that reasonably is all I've ever asked for from the team.

This is the first run on a new variant. This is an exploration. We're doing this to have a little fun and check some things out.


- Sirian

 

[microbe]

So why are you giving me grief? I don't get it.

With all due respect, this isn't a fair comment. I could also ask: why you keep saying "it can't be done" almost whenever I mention something not in the rules? You may consider it minor, but that's more grief or frustration to me than my asking some very reasonable questions for clarification.

I hope no one takes questions as offense. I've got your idea and I'll shut up to make everyone happy.

Playing now.

 

[microbe]

Preturn: fail to plant spy on Aztecs and France but succeed on India. 9 tanks and 58 MI.

I actually think we should declare on Aztecs, which has Aluminum and is backward and small, but we are stuck with a 16-turn iron deal.

A careful steal gets us Fission from Byzantines.

You guessed it, we have no Uranium. Aztecs have one.

There is no point in war with India now, but what else can I do?

Byzantines and Carthage have Nuclear Power and Superconductor.

I put a scientist on Stealth.

Carthage has Uranium for sale, but it's about 140gpt, so I pass.

We do not even have a worker with our troops, so how are we going to build airfields? I switch seoul to worker and rush it.

IBT saldae is bombarded. We lose a harbor, 3 MIs and a worker.

(1)1772AD: Our MA kills two tanks, MI kills a cav and cleans up the Indian landing.

I sign RoP with China.

IBT More bombardment. Indian submarine sinks one of our transports!

(2)1774AD: our destroyer kills the submarine but redlines. It's the only escort we have. Good news is that last turn we lose an empty transport.

Rush harbor in New Orleans.

IBT China and Carthage sign peace. More Indian landing.

(3)1776AD: India agrees to talk. There are 3 tanks and 3 MIs next to Hyangsan, but we are really short of offense on the island (and defense too).

But our troops can land on Ganges this turn. I decide to hold for now.

Our boats bombard and kills fighter in Pune - I didn't realize it could do this.

I move some MIs from other cities to Hyangsan. Draft two MIs too.

IBT France and Aztecs make peace. 3 Indian tanks die against MI.

(4)1778AD: more WW.

MA flawlessly kills 3hp TOW, drops 1hp and kills 2hp MI.
Vet MA dies against a 2hp MI.
Elite tank redlines but kills it.
Elite tanks drops to 2hp and kills marine.
We capture Ganges.

I immediately upgrade 4 tanks.

It has all improvements. I sell coal plant in it to avoid pollution, but I keep factory for now. I do think we should sell some more as we'll not benefit from them until the city grows big, and we are paying a lot of maintenance for them. But I'll leave to those who understand better what is allowed or not.

Rush offshore platform in Conventry and Oxford.

IBT we lose a MI. China builds SS Thursters. Indian MI pillage some of our tiles.

(5)1780AD: move some MAs. Continue the Indian war!

IBT Furious attack at Gengas but we hold and kill about 8 units. More Indian pillaging. We lost our iron (but fortunately I rushed a harbor in our remote island so we didn't trash our rep.

(6)1782AD:

Lose one MA but kill two MI and one marine and capture Pune.

Rush temple in Ganges.

I carefully steal Nuclear Power from Byzantines. Both Byzantines and Carthage have Laser.

I decide to buy Uranium now and start Nuclear Plant to replace those Coal Plants, so I buy it from Carthage by rubber+52gpt. Rubber is no longer very crucial since Carthage can build MA anyway.

For some reason I cannot build Nuclear Plant in Nottingham or Canterbury? Then I realize it can only be built next to fresh water.

WW raises again and set to 30.

IBT Our rax and harbor in Gengas are destroyed. China builds the 6th part.

(7)1784AD: lose one MA but kill 3 MIs and eventually clear the landing.

IBT we build two more parts.

(8)1786AD: Kill more units around Ganges.

IBT Carthage wants to renew peace, sure. Indian marines attack Pune from sea! But our MI promotes to elite. India drops 4 TOW. We are hit hard by pollution.

(9)1788AD: I upgrade two pikes to MI as I don't want our core cities to fall to marines.

Rush worker in Ganges.

France seems to have some evil plan as it moves 3 marines and 1 guerillas next to New Orleans.

I renew spices vs ivory deal and get 64g and WM. I then ask it to leave and it declares. We kill the units.

We lose the lux, despite the war happiness lux is 40, but in a couple of turns we can make peace with India after we capture Dacca.

China has Superconductor, and we can exchange Nuclear Power plus about 120gpt. But since China is the only AI that has built parts, we are in competition thus I don't trade.

IBT Lots of French bombers and kill our SAM. India MA with Aztecs against us. We get our iron back.

(10)1790AD: Taejon is defended by a flak, so our MA autorazes it.

Just notice Carthage captured Tenochtitlan, so it now has a native rubber. Good that we traded for the Uranium.

To next leader: it will require two turns for us to take Dacca. The only reason is to lower flip chance at Ganges. On the other hand we can make peace, lower lux, and turn to take some Aztec towns. It has only 3 cities now, and has Uranium and Aluminum.

France is bombarding us but nothing else. Make peace asap.

The only threat is China. We need to prepare for a war.

EDIT: the last but not least: we need some MI at home. Those pikes won't defend marines!

 

[Sir Bugsy]

No one can ever say this is a boring game now. Time for our fearless leader to take the reins of power.

Question - should we go back to the original roster or should Grimjack and me remain flipped?

 

[Sirian]

With all due respect, this isn't a fair comment.

After saying that, you go on to give me four more forms of grief in four lines:
* A complaint about the number of disputed incidents.
* A complaint about my interpretation of their significance.
* A charged description where you are "very reasonable" and by implication I am not.
* A charged description with the implication that I want you to shut up.

Your questions have been reasonable, but the charged comments and manipulations when you aren't satisfied with the answers are another story. Pressuring me to do things your way is not a recipe for success. I realize you have legitimate concerns, which is why I've tried to answer them. Yet there is a difference between a question and a lobbying effort. You've crossed over from asking questions into rules lawyering.

You got into trouble time and again because of the erroneous assumption that the spirit of the rules was tied to the AI. Guess what? That is not an objective standard anyway. Different players have different levels of knowledge and understanding of the AI, and different beliefs about what it actually does and why. My own familiarity with the particulars of the C3C AI is fairly low. Yet my understanding of the Civ3 vanilla AI is almost unmatched. That's a recipe for conflicts of another sort, so this notion that the standard you thought existed is better than the one I chose... That's a faulty notion.

I don't mind questions or even dissent. Everyone on my teams is free to speak their mind about anything. However, too much sourness and jabbing and unproductive arguing is not good. There's a difference between asking for some of my time and wasting my time. Please try to keep that ratio in a healthy range.


- Sirian

 

[Sirian]

should we go back to the original roster

I don't have a preference. If either of you do, go with that. If you want me to choose, then return to the original order.

I don't have the game just yet, but I will try to pick it up on Sunday.


- Sirian

 

[microbe]

After saying that, you go on to give me four more forms of grief in four lines:
* A complaint about the number of disputed incidents.
* A complaint about my interpretation of their significance.
* A charged description where you are "very reasonable" and by implication I am not.
* A charged description with the implication that I want you to shut up.
...
Pressuring me to do things your way
...
so this notion that the standard you thought existed is better than the one I chose

Those are not what I meant at all. Let's just agree to disagree and end this discussion, OK? It's getting ridiculous. Shrug.

By the way, I appreciate the time you spent answering my questions, despite the misunderstanding.

 

[Grimjack]

You secured Aluminum. Good going. I agree on the Aztecs now. I was just hit by the stupid bug when I sold them the iron.

Grimjack

 

[Sir Bugsy]

Sirian - I think you're up again. Must have had something else on your mind.

 

[Sirian]

I'm going to have to pass. I didn't get to it today, and I have other commitments for tomorrow. I thought I would have time to handle team issues and to play, but looks like that didn't work out.

Did you two sort out who's going to go next?


- Sirian

 

[Grimjack]

It would feel wrong to go again after only one other player, so feel free to go ahead Sir Bugsy.

Grimjack