RBCiv Conquests SG Discussion Thread

[Nad]

It appears that the release of Conquests has been put back a week in the UK and many other countries I'm immensely disappointed if not particularly surprised; after PTW I kind of expect this from Atari.

Anyway, I still want to play in Team A but I may have to be skipped for the first round and placed last in the roster. Very sorry about this

 

[Ridgelake]

It looks like I am too late to sign up. Maybe if a fourth team starts I can join in or something. Or maybe I can sub for a European player while they wait for the game to arrive.

It also would not be the worst thing for me just to watch this one.

Which ever happens, happens.

Ridge

 

[Arathorn]

I'd be kind of interested in doing a Rise of Rome conquest, too, but I want to at least wait until RBC2 and/or LotR8a is over. Too many games at once = burned-out Arathorn = once less Civ3 player. If there's interest in a Mycenae (is that right?) game, maybe to start after Thanksgiving, that might be good for me.

Or, like Ridgelake said, it wouldn't be the worst thing for me to just watch this one....

Arathorn

 

[Nad]

Ridgelake: with Sulla's permission, you are welcome to take my spot. A week delay might mean I miss more than one turn, and who knows if Atari will put the release back even further in the UK.

 

[Belial]

Originally posted by Sullla
4) Something else I haven't thought of!

I realize this is way off topic and posted a few days ago and the entire point about diety cheap legions is a good idea, but has the idea occoured that we have two succession game teams with, say, four players for carthage and four players for the romans? I guess it would be more like a multiplayer game and the bonus is lost for the shield-cheap legions, but still something I consider interesting.

 

[Kylearan]

So Conquests is delayed in whole Europe and not only at the store I ordered from? Oh grand. Hopefully me ordering an imported US version will leave me unaffected at least from any further delays of European versions.

So like Nad I would have to be placed last in the roster and maybe skipped once. Unfortunately, since I'm on the same team as him this might be problematic. If you all want to get started and don't want to wait on us Europeans, by all means drop me from the roster and insert other interested players instead, although I really would love to play both this scenario and with you people.

-Kylearan

 

[Sir Bugsy]

Thanks Kylearan.

I too have reread the RBCiv exploits list. I understand dastardly conduct is accepted. The one item I'm thinking of is starving or pealing off workers from a newly captured city. I do this often, and the reason I do it is because the AI does it also. Am I correct in my thinking?

I agree whole-heartedly with all the rest.

 

[Zed-F]

The difference between honourable and dastardly tactics has more to do with RL ethics than problems with the game. Dastardly tactics aren't "broken", game-wise, but they are nasty and can affect your reputation with other civs. Exploits are "broken" or over-powerful game moves and are therefore avoided.

Intentional starvation is dastardly, but not not broken, so it's fine in most games. I don't recall where slave workers fall as regards honourable play but I'm certain they are at worst dastardly and not exploitative.

 

[Rubberjello]

Originally posted by Sir Bugsy
The one item I'm thinking of is starving or pealing off workers from a newly captured city. I do this often, and the reason I do it is because the AI does it also. Am I correct in my thinking?

Yes. The AI does do it. We have proof of it to our poor city of Theveste in our Succession Game with Carthage at the following link: TH5 - Cutthroat Capitalist Competitors . (Bottom of page 8) Every turn, we saw the pop decrease down to 1, and when we finally did conquer it, there was no conscripts or forced labour. They were systematically starved.

P.S. I have a PBEM partner in Germany that got his Conquests Expansion with no problem yesterday from a local retailer.

 

[kryszcztov]

Originally posted by Charis
Then again, the real Greeks had Alexander the Great, and here they just have... AI.

Very funny really !!!

It would have been nice to play with so great players, but I have limited free time now, and don't want to be burnt out on Civ too. I guess I'll play the Conquests on my own sometime... So I'd rather sign up for a standard RBC game in the future when I have more time and when there will be a nice variant on the way. Will still lurk your games, folks !

krys, excited by the C3C shipping, but refraining from playing thousands of games at the same time, so as not to be burnt out !

 

[Kylearan]

The AIs intentionally starve down captured cities now? Nice to see that they've actually tried to improve the AI and not just added more units, wonders, civs and scenarios!

While this change is not the most important item on my personal AI improvement wishlist, it gives hope that there are other, more significant changes as well like better tile improvement algorithms, entertainer/lux slider management, building settlers only in size 3+ cities, ...

-Kylearan

EDIT: Wait, the game you linked to was PTW. Are you sure they starved Theveste down intentionally? I've never seen that before.

 

[Speaker]

Since Theveste was so large, when they captured it, it was without a cultural expansion, so they did not have enough tiles to work to keep it fed. That's my take on what happened at least. I don't think the AI intentionally starves.

 

[T-hawk]

Actually, it's more likely that Theveste in TH5 starved due to uncontrollable unhappiness. The city was in the middle of our territory, so it would've been cut off from any luxuries that the conquering civ (Egypt) had. And of course all the other happiness buildings are cultural buildings, which get destroyed when a city is conquered. And we know the AI doesn't use the luxury slider. We'd also drafted from it a couple times. Finally, the city would've had a huge level of "stop the aggression" unhappiness for the conqueror.

All that adds up to the AI being unable to work a single laborer in the city, so it unavoidably starved all the way down to size 4. The AI doesn't intentionally starve conquered cities, but it can work out for unavoidable starvation to be beneficial anyway.

 

[Sullla]

Short answers to some questions floating about.

- As far as workers go, let's use the principle from RBC2 of allowing ONE worker purchase max from each civ. That shouldn't prove to be too damaging for a Deity game.

- T_McC is added to the fifth roster spot for Team "C".

- This game will probably be more fun to play if you haven't already scoped it out in detail. I, umm, kind of can't do that though.

- Just to clarify, dastardly tactics from the RBCiv list are always in play if desired for this scenario. They consitute "evil" or "immoral" play, but are within the scope of the game. Exploitative tactics are never in play, and represent flaws in the programming of the AI. No team will be using any exploits.

- There is no problem with reading other team's threads. We're all playing different civs and this is not a competition. Also, keep in mind that the whole Mediterranean is already revealed on the map at the start of this scenario, so it's not like map information is an issue or anything.

- We'll make due as best we can on the issue of a later shipping to Europe. Those players can be shifted to the back of the rosters and there will be no need to rush through the first couple of turns to give them time to get copies of the game.

- I'm planning on getting my copy of Conquests today and starting the "A" game soon. Charis and Griselda can open their games at their own discretion (they don't have to play the first turn either if they don't want).

 

[Ridgelake]

Regarding AI starvedown, I noticed this occurring in my last turn in LK56. England flipped one of our towns when it was size 3. A couple of turns later it was size 2 and then went to size 1. By the end of my 10 turns, it was back to size 2.

It is possible that they whipped it. But my interpretation is that it was starved down.



Edit: Sulla, could you start a 4th team with me and Arathorn on it to play Mycenae. Game to start after Thanksgiving.

Nad, thank you for the offer. With as many Europeans as there are, it probably makes the most sense to delay the game starts so that everyone is in.

 

[Charis]

Ridgelake,

Yay! I was bettin' that we couldn't stop short taking just 3 of the 4 civs and leaving Macedon in the cold
Sounds like we may have to wait to read how that one goes with a peri-Thanksgiving start, but that'll work


Charis

BTW, with that response from Sulla, I will open the B game shortly, but will be asking folks for strategic input before playing the first turn, as there are many options on the table.

 

[Greebley]

Sirian,
That makes a lot of sense. I get it now. Thanks

 

[Coffee]

Can you pen me in with Ridgelake & Arathorn for the after Thanksgiving start. Thanks.

 

[Sullla]

Clarifying again; these should more or less be the final teams. Also, let's keep in mind that the final civ in this scenario is Macedon - not Mycenae.

RBC3: Ancient Mediterranean Mayhem

Team A: Carthago
Sullla*
Nad
ToddMarshall
Kylearan
Greebley

Team B: Persia
Charis*
Rubberjello
hotrod0823
Sir Bugsy
gormdragan

Team C: Roma
Griselda*
6thGenTexan
Belisar
Speaker
T_McC

Team D: Macedon
Arathorn*
Ridgelake
Coffee
[Open Spot]
[Open Spot]

Team "D" will open in another 1-2 weeks, while the other games will likely start this weekend. Team captains should feel free to open game threads at their discretion. Good luck to all and have fun!

 

[T-hawk]

Pencil me in for a spot on the D team. If others show up and want it, they can have it. I'm still deciding whether to jump into Conquests, but it's looking more and more like I won't be able to avoid it.