RBD Succession game 1 - Ghandi Tales

[Hocus]

1430 A.D. (1): Lots of Worker movement.

1435 A.D. (2): Lots of Worker movement.

1440 A.D. (3): Germany cancels our trade agreement of Incense for Ivory.

1445 A.D. (4): Bangalore finishes War Elephant, builds Cannon.
Chittagong finishes Granary, trains Worker.
We disover Industrialization, research begins on Military Tradition.
Numerous cities change their production to a Factory.
Bombay begins building Universal Suffrage. Due to finish in 11 turns.

1450 A.D. (5): Indus finishes Granary, trains Worker.

1455 A.D. (6): Bangalore finishes Cannon, builds Factory.
Chittagong trains Worker, trains another.

1460 A.D. (7): Indus trains Worker, trains another.
Persia cancels their Wine deal with us, they want Steam Power to continue it. Haha, yeah, right. They are denied.

1465 A.D. (8): Xerxes demands Steam Power. Their army outnumbers ours, and we are ill prepared for a defensive War, I feel. However, we are going to discover Military Tradition next turn, giving us Cavalry, so after the initial wave we should be able to effectively fight back. We go to War.
We discover Military Tradition, research begins on Nationalism.
All our War Elephants are upgraded to Cavalry.
Science rate turned down since next turn we will go into the red.
Cannons are moved from Bangalore to Ganges, and from Bombay to Dacca.

1470 A.D. (9): Much fighting occurs. Indus loses a Musketman.
Punjab finishes Courthouse, builds Cannon.
Much bombardment from our Cannons commences.
Our Cavalry finishes off damaged units.
We capture Orleans, taking the Great Lighthouse in the process. Two Musketmen are moved from Bangalore to Orleans for defence.
We capture Chartres. Reinforcements are moved in to help defend it.

1475 A.D. (10): Indus loses several Musketmen to Immortals. Musketmen are moved from Chittagong to Indus.
Kolhapur finishes Factory, trains Cavalry.


Jaffa: Just keep that Cannon bombardment up and shipping in reinforcements where necessary, and you should be fine. The Persians have already lost 2 cities and a number of units - they should back off soon enough.

Charis: In my opinion, you have played just fine, and I appreciate your style. Not only that, but you are willing to learn and adapt, which is great too. Don't be too worried about the overbearing a**hole who must be the greatest Civ 3 player that ever existed and ever will - there is one in every game, you'll find. They insist on controlling the game and bullying others into playing the way they normally would, even though this is directly contrary to the true spirit of Succession games. Just play the way you want, don't be afraid to ask questions, and more importantly - have fun.

If you stop having fun, there isn't much point in continuing to play. And at the moment, I'm approaching that point. I guess I'll have to see what happens from here.

-H

 

[Charis]

H. -

Well things have perked up quite a bit!

> 1445 A.D. (4): Bangalore finishes War Elephant, builds Cannon.
> Chittagong finishes Granary, trains Worker.
> We disover Industrialization, research begins on Military Tradition.
> Numerous cities change their production to a Factory.

Cool. For a cost of 4 turns we now have the OPTION to wage an *offensive* campaign, or to be less concerned about ramifications of decisions that cause war to be declared on us. It may even help us set back Persia FAR more than 4 turns.

> 1460 A.D. (7): Indus trains Worker, trains another.
> Persia cancels their Wine deal with us, they want Steam Power > to continue it. Haha, yeah, right. They are denied.

As of course they should be. Alas this will leave them in an annoyed state. The way to un-annoy them, at this stage (just as an FYI) would be (I think) to sign an RPP with them. It might be free or might cost small gold, but it would buy another 10-20 rounds of peace, at which time our rail network would be complete, a few factories would be in place, and we would have two dozen cavalry waiting to charge.

> 1465 A.D. (8): Xerxes demands Steam Power. Their army
> outnumbers ours, and we are ill prepared for a defensive War,
> I feel. However, we are going to discover Military Tradition next
> turn, giving us Cavalry, so after the initial wave we should be
> able to effectively fight back.
> We go to War.

Or we can just go to war now!

The choice to not cave in was right (imho), it was letting them stay annoyed that led to war. We'll soon see if the outcome is good, or if this backfired. Getting to be a good mystery novel, can't wait to see how it turns out

> We discover Military Tradition, research begins on Nationalism.

The war may be over before we finish Nationalism, an otherwise optional tech. Hopefully we'll gain more than we lose from that.

> All our War Elephants are upgraded to Cavalry.
woot


> We capture Orleans, taking the Great Lighthouse in the
> process. Two Musketmen are moved from Bangalore to Orleans
> for defence. We capture Chartres. Reinforcements are moved
> in to help defend it.

Excellent. I expected those two would be quick to fall, and with the speed of the chivalry, I figured 1-2 turns.

Paris, iirc, has a lot of goodies in it, wonder-wise. It shouldn't last another two rounds, and Lyon shouldn't be tough either.

The BULK of their army is east of Tarsus. I would think we should strike ASAP on the remaining 'chokepoint' cities of Sidon and Tarsus after Paris fails. Then a mop up of the rest of the continent is fully assured.

> 1475 A.D. (10): Indus loses several Musketmen to Immortals.
Gah! Rookies!

> Jaffa: Just keep that Cannon bombardment up and shipping in > reinforcements where necessary, and you should be fine. The
> Persians have already lost 2 cities and a number of units - they > should back off soon enough.

Persia isn't fighting with anyone else, they'll bring the bulk of a huge army if allowed. "Call off" is not really an option. That continent is ours!

> Charis: In my opinion, you have played just fine, and I
> appreciate your style. Not only that, but you are willing to learn
> and adapt, which is great too. Don't be too worried about the
> ...

Eep. Uh, I'm not worried about anyone, and will continue to do what I think is best and not totally against grain of team, although not all folks may like all calls. I wasn't sensing any hostilities, and hope the only further ones are on the battlefield for Tarsus

Our writer friend has a quite a forceful style that should be seen as wrapped in an implicit "imho". (Well, that's my take on it, I would hate to think anyone with only about 3 games more Civ 3 experience than I could not possibly think they know all the answers!!)

As a gentle reminder to all, each player is free to call the shots as they best see fit. Part of the fun/challenge is in "cleaning up" some messes that we would never see in solo games. (If that's not considered fun, a succession game probably isn't a good idea for a skillful player)

> Just play the way you want, don't be afraid to ask questions,
> and more importantly - have fun.

Thanks, I plan on doing all of those. The questions and debate and alternate views are more than half the fun for me. I'm an avid bridge and chess player, and one of the oddest but most fun things is the "post mortem", where you grill to pieces every single play of the game, and if 'mistakes' are backed up with the 'why' and data, the good player learns from it. Before this game ends there will be at least a dozen 'crossroad' decision points in the game that I'm looking forward to replaying, and I expect to learn a lot and have fun with that. At that point, whether I was right or wrong in the actual game is of no consequence -- it's done. I'll get to see at that point if strongly touted advice was superbly wise, or the ravings of a mad man

I hope we can reign things in before they get out of hand , and that it remains *highly* fun for all. Is it Jaffa up next? He and Cy are gonna have a nail-biting time of it.

Charis

PS Did you forget to attach the save file?

 

[Hocus]

Indeed I did. I've attached it to this post.

 

[Sirian]

Hey Charis.

1. What ON EARTH does having a courthouse have to do with protection from flipping???? That occurs (presumably, or so I thought) when a no culture town in a low culture country is surrounded by high culture elements in a decent culture country.

Courthouses dramatically lower the chance of flipping. The presence of them in the Persian towns may be why they've held out all this time against our cultural pressure. I don't know what the actual formulas and weightings are, but the factors that go into a flip decision include border pressure, total culture of each civ, presence of foreign nationals of the related country, distance from each capital, military units stationed there, courthouse, and possibly a luck factor (RNG). I've never had a city flip on me without foreign nationals (IE, a city I founded). I was as surprised as you, because the cultural factor in Ganges is quite high. So high, in fact, that I presume it's higher than what the Persians have achieved in their cities right there. Could the leftover "culture" of the French be a factor? I don't know, but if so, that would tilt things quite a bit.

With so much border pressure, though, I would have built courthouses sooner, defensively. If you replay it, build courthouses, and the city doesn't offer to flip... I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that the courthouse made the difference, because of the unknowns in the formula (I do suspect a luck factor).

2. 500 Gold for a luxury?? Absolutely not! We didn't need the luxury. That was 500 gold for 20 turns of peace. In 20 turns we have near full rails and lots of factories and an improved lead.

Right. Isn't Xerxes interested in Ivory, though? If not, or it wasn't available, the RoP would surely have kept him polite much more cheaply -- or at worst, gold per turn would have been less risky, and not depleted the treasury on the spot.

Also, 20 turns of Improved Odds of peace. Nothing will deter the AI from coming at certain times. If not for them acquiring saltpeter somewhere else, I'm sure they would have attacked already.

Was that a crit of barracks in the middle?

No.

Are your comments on artillery from experience or theory? My *very* limited experience suggests that they miss alot, and if the number of defenders is similar to number of artillery, or even a quarter the size, the damage done is useless, FULLY rehealed next round by the barracks. If you want to pit 20 canon vs 5 riflemen, I'ld rather pit 20 Cav against 5 musketmen.

Well yeah, given an either/or of 20 artillery 20 cavalry, I'd take the cavalry, too, but I'd take 10 of each over 20 cavalry. Note I said artillery, not cannon. You expressed concern about the "window" closing on us of our chance to wage an offensive war, due to riflemen arriving. You'd be right, but it opens right back up with artillery, which a 4+ tech lead would have us pulling down at about the same time. Artillery can undo ANY defense, the AI is totally sad at defending. The further down the tech tree you move, the more advantage conveys onto a human player, due to flaws (or at least weaknesses) in the AI. They do not and will not stack more than a couple units per city -- you could overrun them with more cavalry but it would mean losses once riflemen are on the scene, ESPECIALLY in big cities. Artillery don't expire unless you fail to protect them, so they can move city to city to city, and they can take out barracks and reduce population (and thus defense bonuses) in stubborn cities. You have to have enough to hit one location pretty hard, though, but they can chew through mech infantry, and lighter defenders get roughed up sooner.

What is needed is enough artillery to damage the few defenders (so they only have one or two hp's left, or at least the "big" defenders are thus wounded). Then your gropos charge in with vastly reduced chance of losses and mop up. Engineers run along and build rails underneath the troops and the whole stack marches on to the next city on the next turn or two. It's not blitzkrieg, but it IS inexorable.

That doesn't mean you have all your blitzing units wait around for artillery. I was answering your fear about window of opportunity. Now if the AI were improved to weight self-defense more, with more robust numbers of defenders, and at least ONE more option for strategy besides "round up all our surplus units and charge" then that might change my analysis. I suppose I've developed a certain disdain for the AI, which is far more one-dimensional on closer inspection than meets the eye initially. It's why you see AI's mop one another off the planet with such regularity: once a civ has expended all its surplus force, often in some long-ranging offensive action, it is ripe for the plucking, and someone else with their offensive units intact goes in and cleans up. The AI also won't tackle an enemy stack head on, so someone with a really large stack of strong units can go from city to city to city, with the defender ignoring the biggest threat in favor of nibbling off the edges. Even so, often the civ that is most successful OFFENSIVELY is the first one to die out in a game with a lot of civs, as all their gains are picked apart by others who sat on the sidelines and preserved their stacks of mobile units.

The AI is GOOD, but it is 100% predictable, because it does only one thing. If there were three or four "stances" it might choose to take, including some with more priority on robust defense, that would spice the game up enormously.

I'ld like to learn if/how artillery is effective, so please do elucidate!

You've read the report from my very first civ game, right? I made so many mistakes there, that ironically, I got the chance to learn a lot of things I wouldn't have been able to see if I had known what I was doing. One of those is the power of artillery, as with no oil and a LONG running modern age, I had literally forty or fifty artillery spread out in about three stacks, and won decisive military victories against more advanced opponents. I got a great feel for how much artillery was needed to get any particular job done, because I had SO much of it, there was never any question of what I might have been able to do if only I had more. I got to see more, perhaps, than I realized at the time.

The patch has rendered cities more resistant to artillery, but that only affects the number of units you need on hand by a little bit, in my recent experience. The point of the artillery is primarily to wound the defenders just enough to reduce your losses from "severe" to "several" or from "several" to "few or none". It is not the best case for a single city, but it works marvelously at conserving forces for a protracted campaign.

Another thing I got to see was having tons of obsolete units lying around, because I did so little upgrading (and didn't realize inf could be upgraded to mech). So I did a LOT of assaults against inf and mech inf, with CAVALRY and infantry and artillery, and won the day with a combo of evolving tactics and brute production force. In fact, if not for the space race aspect, I was in military control of the game and on the path to victory once I got a source of oil secured, all without communism or poprushing. The more I look back at that game, the more I realize what a bounteous blessing it was, full of all kinds of opportunities and lessons that were well learned. I lost! But in playing it out iron style and coping with each "aha, so that was a mistake" I ran into rather than backing up, really accelerated my sense of what to do. And this before I understood the AI. It's only been in games lately that I've really picked the AI apart and come to favor the industrial age as the time period when the player has the most advantage militarily -- unless you can get cavalry going against spears and pikes, or dedicate to exploiting the faulty happiness weightings attached to endlessly whipping cities, but neither of those are much heard of in my Emperor games.


- Sirian

 

[Sirian]

If you stop having fun, there isn't much point in continuing to play. And at the moment, I'm approaching that point. I guess I'll have to see what happens from here.

When people disagree, there's a natural tendency for them to feel less comfortable in each other's presence. I'm sorry that my comments are annoying you. I'm not trying to crowd you out.

Don't be too worried about the overbearing a**hole who must be the greatest Civ 3 player that ever existed and ever will - there is one in every game, you'll find.

Well, at least that's blunt and clear.

Every player in this game except for you, Hocus, has played Diablo 2 team variants with me on an extended basis. They all know me fairly well as a gamer and have a different relationship with me than you seem to suspect. I have great faith in those relationships, which is why I'm not afraid to speak my mind here or write a full blown in-character piece and let them decide what to do with my various opinions. I know they won't take anything personally -- or, if they do, they'll let me know and we'll work it out. Clearly, you and I don't have that kind of bond going, and apparently I'm really ticking you off now. Well, what can I say, when you've already boiled over? That hardly endears me to you, either, but I don't plan on going anywhere nor changing my degree of involvement with the group, nor engaging in some kind of power struggle. I'm here to play and write about it.

Just play the way you want, don't be afraid to ask questions, and more importantly - have fun.

That's sound advice. I don't think Charis is having a problem here, though. You're the one who's upset.

My vision of succession games is strong on interaction and teamwork. There's a sliding scale between individual decision and action-by-committee, with all sorts of range in there, and we're far from approaching the extreme on the committee end. You don't want to be told what to do, and I respect that. I don't either. But I've looked around the board at other games running, and some of them have disintegrated for a variety of reasons, among them a lack of cooperation strategically. LK's games run with a regular commentary and advice/directives from him after each player's turn. There are lots of ways to organize and play this sort of game. For someone calling me names, you seem pretty sure of the rightness of your own vision for the "proper" mix of teamwork vs autonomy. The true spirit of succession games? You have that nailed down, do you?

I can point to each of my turns and outline a number of things I did differently than I would have in my own single player games, directly due to compromise to carry out strategic imperatives set in motion by others on the last round of play. I've done so for every player in the game, from Charis's wheat grab and early road to Jaffa's horse grab to Cy's culture gambit. I've made the least compromise in your direction because your turn is the most removed from mine and often others before me have already changed the situation by the time it gets back to me, but I've done things in response to your plans, too. My support has gone beyond the necessary fact of life of accepting what others did and moving from there, well into the range of true cooperation, changing my gameplay in any number of ways to fuse with the team, giving as much as I ask for. I've invested a good bit of time and energy into the atmosphere here, writing up in-character reports (as started by Charis) with the intent of helping to breathe more life into what might otherwise be just six unconnected players taking turns at a single player game. Too much for your taste? You'd rather just take your turn, be left alone, write your report and sit quietly until your next turn? And have everyone else do the same? Sure, it could be done that way, but Charis organized this thing, he set the tone, and all I'm doing is playing along the best I can, with no sense that I ought to be apologizing for that just because you're annoyed over some of my critique and requests.

So what do you want? Where does it go from here?


- Sirian

 

[Jaffa Tamarin]

Ouch, ouch and ouch again. The wise men of India went looking for the Monkey Cult to lead us through this time of crisis, but all they found was an abandoned temple and a crude hand-written note, "Please leave us alone!"

Reviewed trade agreements. Is anybody else doing this? Americans paid 15 gold to renew RoP. English were getting saltpeter for 5 gold/turn, they're now giving us spices + 11 gold/turn (+ 50 gold lump sum). Trade furs + ivory to Germans for incense + 2 gold/turn.

Upgraded our two horsemen to cavalry.

Persian frigates destroy temple of New Delhi. Our fleet consists of 1 galleon? Eeep.

Massed Persian assault overwhelms our defenses at Indus. They land an immortal next to Fishing Village.

1480 Switched Jaipur and Punjab to building ironclads. Swordsman from Delhi takes out the one Persian immortal. Retake Indus and move in cannons from Chartres. Launch assault on Paris using cannons and cavalry from Dacca. Persians have riflemen already

Persians destroy the road from the saltpeter outside of Chittagong. Ack!

1485 Persian frigates destroy barracks at Chittagong.

1490 Captured Paris and the Art of War In the first version of this history, we also created a Great Leader, but then the game crashed, and on the replay I didn't get one. Bah

Persian frigates destroy granary at Chittagong and courthouse at New Delhi.

Riots in Madras, Lahore, Chartres, Karachi, Hyderabad and Indus.

1495 Persian frigates destroy temple of Chittagong. Universal Suffrage completed in Bombay. Finish nationalism, start on medicine.

1500 We take Lyons, and raze it. Our cultural boundary expands to the coast. Bump the luxury tax to 20% to deal with widespread unrest. Persians still won't talk about peace. Buy saltpeter from the Americans in exchange for magnetism + 14 gold/turn (which I considered better than breaking the deal with the English).

Persians destroy Chittagong and our horse supply.

1505 Persians land troops near Tours.

1510 Our first ironclad enters combat, sinking a Persian frigate.

Persians destroy Tours.

1515 Persians beat us to Shakespeare's Theater. By two turns. Double ack. We lose a lot of shields from Delhi.

1520 Fighting continues around the ruins of Chittagong. I have a settler rush-built in Chartres.

1525 Re-establish Chittagong and our supply of horses.

Well. There you have it. Our border with Persia is a little more defensible than it was, but our cavalry advantage is probably gone, and our troops are stretched very thin. I've been selectively upgrading our frontline musketmen to riflemen.

Chittagong is by no means secure.

Bombay is building a palace for the next wonder (Newton?).

There's a Persian rifleman wandering around in our territory near Bombay. Make sure we don't leave any unguarded workers next to him until we can deal with him properly.

 

[Hocus]

Hi,

I had hoped that it would not have to come to this, but apparently it has. I have no desire to get into another prolonged exchange with you Sirian, we have been down that path before. I can tell that not only would it have wrecked the game for me, but for everyone else as well, as it would have been impossible to continue such a team-based game in the hostile environment currently brewing.

As a result, I hereby resign from this game.

To Charis: thanks for letting me be a part of it. It was fun while it lasted. And apart from one individual, I enjoyed playing with you all.

However, before I do go, I do wish to clarify some things Sirian said, as I feel that they should not go unanswered.

"My vision of succession games is strong on interaction and teamwork. There's a sliding scale between individual decision and action-by-committee, with all sorts of range in there, and we're far from approaching the extreme on the committee end. You don't want to be told what to do, and I respect that. I don't either. But I've looked around the board at other games running, and some of them have disintegrated for a variety of reasons, among them a lack of cooperation strategically. LK's games run with a regular commentary and advice/directives from him after each player's turn. There are lots of ways to organize and play this sort of game. For someone calling me names, you seem pretty sure of the rightness of your own vision for the "proper" mix of teamwork vs autonomy. The true spirit of succession games? You have that nailed down, do you?"

I have had a fair bit of experience with Succession games, having done so with Civilization 2, Alpha Centauri and now Civilization 3. In my experience, I have found that it is best to let people play how they want to - as long as it does not endanger the goal of the rest of the group, in this case to have fun, (so I assumed, or was I wrong?) and it does not prove to be directly counter-productive to the game, in a deliberate and extreme fashion. No one person should ever be in control of gameplay, officially or otherwise, and feedback should not be too overbearing, since after all, the whole point of the game is to mix people with different styles. There is a fine line between providing feedback and outright telling people how to play their turn, and I believe this line was crossed during the course of our game. And, if someone does not do what you expected them to do, or would have hoped they would do, you shouldn't chastise them for it - perhaps they had a different strategy in mind. If you do not like it, you are free to attempt to remedy it in your own turn.

Now, this is merely my opinion of what Succession games are all about. I never went any further than to offer my opinion. In hindsight, this may have been hard to pick up, since I did not end this:

"...even though this is directly contrary to the true spirit of Succession games."

with in my opinion. No matter, you know now.

"I can point to each of my turns and outline a number of things I did differently than I would have in my own single player games, directly due to compromise to carry out strategic imperatives set in motion by others on the last round of play. I've done so for every player in the game, from Charis's wheat grab and early road to Jaffa's horse grab to Cy's culture gambit. I've made the least compromise in your direction because your turn is the most removed from mine and often others before me have already changed the situation by the time it gets back to me, but I've done things in response to your plans, too. My support has gone beyond the necessary fact of life of accepting what others did and moving from there, well into the range of true cooperation, changing my gameplay in any number of ways to fuse with the team, giving as much as I ask for. "

In my opinion [], you went further than this. I had this constant feeling that I was merely a tool that was meant to do nothing more than follow the implicit directions of Sirian, and not think for myself.

You may have meant well, but every time I read your comments, after your turns and everyone else's, it seemed to me as if you were telling the next player(s) what to do, instead of merely recommending, as you should have. Things like setting building queues that lasted for many turns during your turn only strengthened this feeling. Saying things like, "I have set (x) up like (y), you can change it if you want but it would be a bad idea if you did." It went further than trying to be courteous towards the next player, as I know you will try to claim. I thought the idea was that we would build what we felt was best? You may say you did not remove the choice from us, but the implication to not change it was there. You were, whether you realised it or not, causing the game to be more like a Sirian single player game than a Succession game. I do not know if any of the others feel the same way, but that is certainly how I felt.

"I've invested a good bit of time and energy into the atmosphere here, writing up in-character reports (as started by Charis) with the intent of helping to breathe more life into what might otherwise be just six unconnected players taking turns at a single player game."

Not all of us have the ability, time or desire to write in-character reports. I prefer to use the standard report format, since:

a) It is easier for other people to read, at the very least much easier than overly verbose and detailed in-character reports.

b) It is easier to see what happened each turn, rather than trying to decipher such reports.

c) If we ever need to go back and see what we did, it is far easier to read what happened on a turn than to dig through a long in-character report.

"Too much for your taste? You'd rather just take your turn, be left alone, write your report and sit quietly until your next turn?"

No. You know this is not the case, but thanks for misrepresenting me. It's not as if I wrote my report and that was it - I made recommendations on what the next player might want to do, in a far less forceful way than you did, and gave my take of the current game situation. You have also failed to notice that I gave Cy some advice on how to control Workers. If it was my intention to interact with everyone as little as I could, I would not have done that, would I? It is true that I have not provided nearly as much feedback as you, but that was for a purpose - I did not want other people to feel pressured into taking their turn any other way than they wanted to (within reason, of course, as was used the whole game). I did not want the game to feel like a standard Hocus game, I wanted it to feel like a Charis, Sirian, Hocus, Jaffa, Cyrene and Skandranon game, and so to ensure that this occurred, I did my best to leave as much control to everyone else as I possibly could.

<snip>

Good luck to you all for the rest of the game,

-Hocus

 

[Sirian]

I had hoped that it would not have to come to this, but apparently it has. I have no desire to get into another prolonged exchange with you Sirian, we have been down that path before. I can tell that not only would it have wrecked the game for me, but for everyone else as well, as it would have been impossible to continue such a team-based game in the hostile environment currently brewing.

You can try to lay that at my doorstep if you like, Hocus, but whatever provocations you may believe you've suffered, and whatever behavior of mine you disagreed with, you passed on the chance to confront the issues politely. A little editing out of the misplaced personal comments, and leading with the explanation of what was bothering you that you just posted, sans the personal judgements, might have led to a better understanding. You didn't give it the chance. I apologized for my provocations, and that too has been rejected.

I'll take the criticism for being provocative, but tensions are a two way issue. Our expectations and ways of doings things differed -- but if you can say your bit without feeling a need to add "in my opinion" to every remark you make, why should I be denied that benefit of doubt you presume you are entitled to? Much of your criticism of me boils down to a lack of "in my opinion" posted alongside my comments. You felt like you were being told what to do? Well, you were, but then you also weren't. It was all just my opinion, which I thought was welcomed by all. Apparently not all, though. I only harped on that point about your view of the spirit of succession games to show up the double standard, not needle you into tagging "in my opinion" onto everything. I'm with Charis, that part is presumed, at least between myself and all the others here. Perhaps I should have taken more care not to offend you, but I didn't think that would be necessary.

Calling my reports "overly verbose" is just as harsh as any of my criticisms, in-character or otherwise. What is that if not an effort to persuade me to change over to the way you'd prefer it? You have a lengthy history of civ succession games, much longer than mine -- but this is also the RBD game, with the tone set by Charis and adopted in-character by everyone but you, and quite consistent with all my experiences with this group of players. I can appreciate your experienced view, with the conventional wisdom and established ettiquette of such games. If you had resigned without the cheap shots first, then I might have taken your claims at face value, but isn't your resignation here at least as much an attempt to influence the game as anything I wrote?

I rather resented your presumption that we'd automatically go for space race or diplo win, and considered it the same sort of impact in trying to persuade the course of the game as you accuse me of. What's different about the two? You accomplished your persuasion de facto in the game by taking other options off the table. What could I do? Advocate my position. You rejected that with a "I'll do what I want on my turn" reply, and then what could I do from there? Two choices: try to reach some compromise, or at least some kind of team harmony on the game play, or attempt to unilaterally force the game into a mode of my preference. I wouldn't do the latter, so I grumbled a bit and decided that if that was the way it would be, I would abandon any attempt to pursue a strategy that you only planned to undo (and could undo) the moment your turn hit.

Perhaps it would have been useful to discuss more in advance about expectations. Neither of us, apparently, realized how divergent the preferences and expectations of others might be.

I find your criticism of me to be, at every turn, reflective back on some of the things you yourself have been doing. If I'm a bad guy for advocating my opinions and preferences, I'm not alone. Or, perhaps, nobody is really an ******* here, and it's all just a misunderstanding, partially influenced by previous misunderstandings with nothing at all to do with Civ3. If you had a problem with something I was doing, why wait until after you've blown up and removed any hope for solving the problem to define the problem? That's a set-up.

You don't have to resign on my account. The only hostility here is from you. I won't be called an ******* and not stand up for myself, though, so if that's a judgement you want to stick by, with a "there ain't enough room in this town for the both of us" attitude, I'll say my farewell to you. If my promising not to say another word about any of your actions or decisions would be sufficient to persuade you to stay, consider it done. But if that's not good enough for you, and you want to control what I say and how I interact with the others, write my reports, etc, well then go ahead and quit.


- Sirian

 

[Cyrene]

Got it.

War before infantry, tanks, and bombers? Eeeep!

This is not my forte, but I'll do the best I can.

I'm going to have to work this around friendly fire, but I should get it back in tonight, but it might be reeeaaaalllllly late...

--Cy

 

[Skandranon]

My my my, this game gets interesting yet! Industrial age warfare isn't my strong point either, I usually do all sorts of swordsman carnage, or modern warfare with a tech lead. This will be most fascinating (or lethal, or both).

Cy, take your time. I don't have time until tomorrow night ~8 anyway.

-Skan

 

[Mardoc]

If the current "breach" remains, I think that I would enjoy playing with you, if you'll have me. Of course, I've mainly played on Chieftain, but I'm getting a lot better. The only problem would be that occaisionally I wouldn't be able to take my turn, but I could "pass", right? Anyway, tell me what you think,

 

[Cyrene]

Greetings followers of the Great Democratic Empire of India.

Our great nation had been beset by war with our dastardly neighbor for nearly 50 years when Jaffa the Steady declined to seek re-election. In his place, our wise people elected a great statesman to lead her out of darkness. His mind was subtle, his wisdom deep, his leadership and courage unquestioned. He was also hit by a bus while crossing a street 3 days after the election, and his idiot Vice President (chosen to appeal to the minor but crucial beer-drinking-moron party) took office. In this way Cy_Ghandi, beer in hand, assumed the Presidency and the Regency of Great India.

I was expecting, quite frankly, a mess. What I found was a country in great shape, considering. Units were distributed well, the road network was intact, a military rail net was begun, production was logical, and workers were working hard, yet in protected places. Thanks, Jaffa. I then proceeded to screw around with things, of course . Actually, the only change I made was to shift off of most (but not all) of the navy production. Persia was pounding our coasts on three sides with masses of ships, but they were old and vulnerable to ironclads, so producing a round of them to drive off the Persian ships and protect against invasions was a great idea. So of course I nixed it in favor of cavalry .

1530. Xerxes goes on the attack. We have a sole immortal in the tundra attacking infrastructure (no big deal as we don’t need the tundra infrastructure anyways, but annoying as heck), a rifleman loose in the interior, and then the bad news. Xerxes (1) starts another push out of Tarsus, putting riflemen in front and hitting our cities with Cav and then retreating the Cav behind the riflemen screen, and (2) he opens a second front by Marseilles with an amphibious assault and attack on New Delhi. Erk! I take a loooong, long look at the situation, and decide I’m screwed. Actually, I used sterner language than that, but the scribes deleted it .

My assessment: Nation in good shape, but our military is as thin as paper. Our few extra units are around Tarsus on the front lines. A second front is very, very, bad. Worse, a Persian battlegroup is operating off our western coast—a third front would collapse us like a second tired cliché in the same paragraph (erm, house of cards). If I turtle and make them come to me, they will ignore my cities and spend their time cutting all my roads and destroying years of work, then start on the cities (that is opinion, but my observation is when the ai has tactical but not brute force advantage that is what it does—actually, I have learned to do this myself, it can really cripple a nation in a hurry). I decide my best chance is to take the fight to Persia, and quickly. But my round of Cav I swapped to out of navy won’t be ready for a turn or two, and even with it I won’t have enough offense for more than 1.5 fronts. I need 2 turns to breathe, and I need to eliminate the threat of further sea-side invasions. I need to distract the AI .

A look at the map shows America has the common border with Persia, they are also competing with colonies on an island, and I recall they have been at war at least twice already this game. Perfect. Hat in hand, and prepared to bend over, I go visit Mr. Lincoln. No dice. No way to get an alliance, even giving all our techs. Hmm. OTOH, he will give a MPP for our world map, and the Persians are attacking every turn. Hmmm. I hate MPP. I don’t think I’ve ever had one I didn’t end up regretting. Not to mention that the American AI is a jerk, and we are sure to be embroiled in war for the full 20 turns it is in effect and for however long after that we need to get ourselves out of all the crap it got us into. OTOH, I really feel the need for a distraction. I do the deal (and feel dirty). I just know I’m gonna regret this…

1535. Xerxes attacks again, America declares war, and Xerxes pulls the navy off our west coast and some ships off of the other two fronts. Life is good.

1540. The Zulus declare war. Eeep. As I had no contact with them, I assume Xerxes is behind it all. Oh well. Persia’s offense is particularly weak this turn. Now it is India-America vs Persia-Zulu in a Texas-cage-hype-death-match . Oh, and I also got those two turns I needed . The counterstrike was on. My troops swing into motion in the elaborate, detailed, technical offensive code-named “erm, just attack somebody, and try not to die, ok?”.

1545. I took out the lone immortal, the rifleman, Rheims, (kept) and Siddon (kept)! I could only get the cav in position to attack on the same turn there, and was only attacking to soften things up and count his guns. Through sheer luck, I caught Xerxes with his pants down (or robe up, or whatever) and there was a single conscript rifleman in an important border city. That was it. One unit, one conquest. Even more fun, the unit was an elite Cav, and produced a GL on the victory. Woot! The leader is safely in the capitol now, contemplating what project he wants to head up before his unfortunate demise 8-0.

1550. Drunk either with power or cheap American beer (I had to trade them fine Indian pizzas for that horse-piss, too), I use the burgeoning military rail net to transfer excess troops that would have been used in the sack of Siddon to take Marseilles. I razed that one, as I was out of units for garrison and it was only 3 hexes form our nearest city anyway.

1555-1565. Consolidated, expanded military rail, prepared for next round of aggression. Persia’s counter-attacks were weak. I, erm, also did something pretty much guaranteed to cheese off Persia until the end of time. I knew I was locked into war with them until the end of the American MPP (unless Lincoln bailed first), and that we were going to have to eventually cripple Persia or just dominate it, so, erm, I signed a peace treaty with them which took all their gold, knowing on the next turn they would hit the Americans putting us at was again due to the MPP. I’m so bad…

1570. Second round of aggression. I went after Tarsus. Got it, too. This brought on the second biggest decision of my turn (after whether to climb into bed with the Americans), what to do, what to do 8-0. Raze or try to hold? I must have stared at the screen for 10 minutes. I eventually decided to try to hold it. If it lips I’m gonna feel pretty crappy…

1575. Held Tarsus one turn, anyways .

You are up, Skan.

As always, it is your game to do as you see fit, but here are my thoughts, to be taken or not as works for you.

The MPP. Every one the Americans piss off for the next 11 turns or so is coming after us. Sorry.

Tarsus and Siddon. I was working the “starve them down low then add your workers to the city to maintain control by eliminating foreign nationals while building a temple and courthouse” plan. Your call. As the resistance is quelled in Tarsus, you might want to move at least the cav out of there, there are some elites. Tarsus should end resistance in one turn. I think Siddon is ok.

The English planted a city at the very edge of the far tip of the northern tundra. If they can make that work with one hill hex and one tundra hex, then more power to them.

Military disposition. I’m shifted WAY too far east. The Persians have a large navy and the Zulu’s will eventually do something. On the bright side, after about 2 turns you should be able to assemble a “flying squad” of about 12 riflemen and 6 cav to handle problems without draining the defense at Tarsus (unless it flips and takes an army with it, heh). You have 42 Riflemen and 21 Cav on duty with another 12 Riflemen due to arrive within 3 turns. About 3 cav and 4 Riflemen are also escorting workers building military rail near the border. With the military rail net coming in, you should be in the clear in a turn or two. The rail to Tarsus will complete in one turn (I sent workers along with the army—I blame the cheap american beer, myself).

Wonders. I’m clueless. Someone with a clue might want to jump in with an opinion, as we have 1 GL and a lot of shields saved in one city.

With all this said, Cy_Ghandi cheerfully decline to run for further office, at least until the beers run out.

--CY

ps—Skan—I have let city and trade agreement maintenance slip. I have every confidence you will sort thing out

 

[Skandranon]

Got it, but give me a bit of time.

-Skan

 

[Charis]

Cy!! Great job

Just opened up the save file, and I somehow missed in your description that...

WE OWN THE WHOLE CONTINENT! And the 'door' is closed, nailed, tighter than a drum! The next turns should be straightforward, as productions complete, switch all back to infrastructure, factories, coal plants, and as soon as that MPP expires, see about peace with Persia and Zulus before war weariness nails us.

Way to go team ;P
Charis

PS The only major backlash would be if Persia now goes and wipes out all of America, leaving them with a continent as large as ours.

 

[Cyrene]

Nay, hats off to Hocus and Jaffa. 50 years of war with Persia. I was expecting to inherit a disaster or at least a crisis. What I got was more cities than I left the game with in peace, and a nice, balanced, neutral empire to work with. Outstanding. Just outstanding.

Actually, a bold SOB could, in about 2 turns, strike right out after the Persian capitol. The plus is I THINK Xerxes is out of gas. The minuses are (1) I’ve been wrong before, and (2) a landing by the Zulus on the west coast while all our free troups were occupied in the heart of Persia would be interesting times.

Good thing that is Skan’s problem .

Ah well, sanitation is coming. After that we can go to infantry, and after that no one will be able to touch us.

--Cy

 

[Skandranon]

The next election featured a horrendous upset as the Hippopotamus Party came to power once again! Encountering a terribly misprinted ballot on which the Hippopotamus Party was the only party listed, voters docilely voted the Hippos into power, their leader, Skandranon II, becoming President. Opposition calls for an inquiry into the misprint were denied by the new President, claiming that India's tax rupees were best spent elsewhere.

1580 - Much movement of workers. Consolidation and starvation of Tarsus. I want to keep Tarsus at a safe size before I move onward, because if it flips, whatever force we send into Persia gets stranded until we can take Tarsus back (or we have to send that force back to take Tarsus), neither of which are particularly pleasant options.

1585 - Bismarck comes calling and tells us that he won't go for that Incense for Dyes and Furs deal again. To go for it again, he wants 91 gold of our 92. Grudgingly, it is granted, since we really need that Incense to keep our rioting citizenry happy. Then Elizabeth also comes along and decides to break off the Spices deal. She wants Steam Power for them (greeted by raucous laughter) and gets insulted at offers of up to 20 gold/turn. We confidently refuse her Spices and instead get 20g/turn for Saltpeter and 15g/turn for Furs. This should help us build up our reserves again quickly. An Ironclad is laid down on the west coast.

1590 - The people, bereft of their Spices, turn their attention to tearing out their hair and burning down their homes instead. Civil disorder in every city over size six. Encountering once again the age-old dilemma of: Smart, Solvent, Sedate - choose two, the President selects Solvent and Sedate. President Skandranon orders another ten percent of tax revenue directed to replace the exotic spices with exotic dancers...er...cooks. This comes out of the coffers of the scientists, but there is no other choice. Much city micromanagement to make sure cities are producing and happy. I somehow miss Hyderabad, which stays in disorder until the next turn. Tarsus starves down again...excellent. MMOW as usual. I have to note that with the rail net in place, all I'm doing is railing down every used tile in sight, no long-range planning as of yet. A Zulu caravel that is approaching us is sunk by someone. Shaka and Xerxes send back heads of Indian envoys.

1595 - MMOW and general lack of movement while waiting for Tarsus to starve. It makes a temple. Half of the cities, finishing riflemen, are switched to infrastructural builds (coal plants mainly, colosseums in certain cities to make up for lack of luxury). Some of the remainder make cavalry. Forces gather outside of Tarsus.

1600 - American and Persian ships fight a battle along the south edges of our vision. Some Persians die. A Persian frigate appears in the northern waters. Three Ironclads are now on guard against possible Zulu incursion, but see nothing. One more turn on Tarsus. More worker stuff. A large Indian force gathers outside of Tarsus.

1605 - MMOW. The Persian frigate bombards our northern land improvements. Shaka and Xerxes catapult heads of Indian envoys in our general direction.

1610 - Tarsus is starved down to a sedate five or so citizens. The Indian Expeditionary Force takes a step out onto the mountain just outside our borders from Tarsus. The Persian frigate goes back the other way. Due to misrouted commands, one rifleman steps out on to open plains.

1615 - The Persian frigate comes back. The Indian Expeditionary Force takes another step onward onto a hill. A single Persian cavalry unit attacks the lone Rifleman, who beats him back 3-1. The Persian cav runs away to Pasargadae, which I have decided is my target. A secondary Indian force consisting of four cannons and five rifles moves to link up with the main force. MMOW. Some coal plants and colosseums complete, infrastructure builds continue - Persia seems to be running on vapors, and I'm sorry I didn't attack earlier. England calls to cancel the RoP, unhappy with paying 5 gold/turn, but is easily persuaded to take it at 4 gold/turn. Skandranon, as a test, sends two large chickens as envoys to Shaka and Xerxes. Heads are returned promptly.

1620 - The Persian frigate bombards our northern terrain improvements. The IEF steps on to the open plains near Pasargadae. Four or five cavalry move into Pasargadae. One tries an attack and is beaten away 3-0. The Americans cancel the saltpeter deal, but I already reconnected our local source and re-improved it, so I wave it a hearty good-bye and take back my 14 gold per turn. Combined with the English payments, we have a rather hefty income and over 500 in the bank now - Solvent and Sedate appears to have worked. We discover Sanitation and start Electricity.

1625 - The Persian frigate leaves again. The attack begins on Pasargadae! Cannons and catapults fire ineffectually. Despite the uselessness of the opening volley, hordes of cavalry assault the city walls. After much death and destruction, we trade six cavalry and one rifleman for about six cavalry, four riflemen and four recruits. Pasargadae falls, and we seize Smith's Trading Company (wild cheers all around). At the same time, Tarsus' cultural borders increase, giving us a territorial road link to Pasargadae. Furthermore, we seize a lot of Pasargadae's wines, which may allow us to wheel, deal, and set luxuries lower, but before President Skandranon can see to that, a flying Indian envoy head somehow makes it in through his office window and deals him a lethal wound. Chickens were fine, reflect the historians, but elephants were going quite a bit too far.

Comments and stuff:

Cy, that MPP with the Americans worked out fine. Their navy has apparently been duking it out with the Persians and Zulus, and our Ironclad killed the one Zulu ship to make it anywhere near our shores. They're not pissing anyone else off, so it's all in our favour for now.

Militarily, I see nothing wrong with going for Persepolis and those oh-so-delicious Pyramids. I think Persia's last punch (those six Cav) died in Pasargadae. Throw every worker into the gap and rail forth from Tarsus right to Pasargadae and you can flood troops quite literally onto Xerxes' front porch. My only worry is if Pasargadae flips. If we can stop Pasargadae from flipping, we can blast Xerxes off this continent in relatively short order, especially if we can turn those newly captured Wines into money and more luxuries to hold the peaceniks at bay. Actually, if we really are putting the pressure on Xerxes, we should be able to ask for and get some of his outlying colonies, which can then be shopped around (the AI loves cities). The Americans are tying up the Zulus in lovely fashion, and we have two Ironclads positioned to pick up any ships that make it through anyway - and we can build a few more if we need to.

In terms of science, I would highly recommend NOT going to Replaceable at the moment. Get to Scientific Method quickly, or Bombay will build the Palace before we get the ability to build ANY wonder, and those shields will be effectively wasted. Theory of Evolution is better than nothing, and we can GL the Hoover Dam for a real production spike if we keep going along that way for a while. Building ToE also goes a long way toward justifying my rather weedy decision to get Nav and Econ - since ToE can't pick those (it selects cheapest techs) it will give us an instant two-tech kick up the Industrial age. Even Communism and Espionage wouldn't be bad.


A question for everyone: is this tactic OK or considered somewhat immoral? When we took Pasargadae we captured two workers. You'll note in the save file that I moved them outside of Pasargadae and into Persian territory. The reason I did this was not to scout, but because the AI will attack unguarded workers or settlers before ANYTHING. Therefore, if they really do have a big reserve force ready to kick our rifles back to Tarsus, that big reserve force will be down two attacks as one Cavalry will be assigned to recapture each of the warriors as top priority - which could be the difference. Or, if they have no big reserve, this will tell us, depending on the number of cavalry that DO go after the workers. In essence, this will tell us whether Persia has 0 Cav, 1 Cav, or 2+ Cav. The thing is, it's a bit of an AI exploit. Well, more than a bit, it's a pretty big AI exploit. So - acceptable tactic (part of that human brain advantage to negate their cost bonus)? Or "borderline cheating don't-do-it-again"?

-Skan

 

[Sirian]

A question for everyone: is this tactic OK or considered somewhat immoral? When we took Pasargadae we captured two workers. You'll note in the save file that I moved them outside of Pasargadae and into Persian territory. The reason I did this was not to scout, but because the AI will attack unguarded workers or settlers before ANYTHING.

This flaw in the game goes way beyond "exploit". An exploit is easily avoidable. To avoid THIS mess, with the AI madly ruining itself to chase down meaningless workers, is quite difficult to avoid even when you are going far out of your way to do so.

Just tonight, as I was playing on a game, I had forces arrayed around an enemy capital. The AI starts charging a knight around and I wonder what the heck it's doing. ZOC fire reduced the thing to one hp and finally it weaves its way through all kinds of my forces, along a twisty zigzag-back-out-forward-and-around my flank... to capture a worker in MY territory that just build a road on the border. I mean, this flaw in the AI is just INSANE.

I personally don't intentionally exploit this. The AI on defense is... well, sad. Exploit? Maybe. Yet it happens anyway, as the AI will choose to capture a worker above all else, and it will do so even if you leave it a one-in-a-million pathfinding option to squeeze its way to it. So what's really the difference between exploiting this on purpose and watching it happen over and over and over by accident, because you didn't bother to hide all your workers deep in your own territory while at war? They need to reprogram this, and until they do, I pretty much consider the whole thing a bug that intrudes on the quality of the game -- and don't much care if someone makes use of it. In fact, I could see it being a deliberate valid tactic, baiting the enemy. What the AI really needs is to be unpredictable: to have multiple tactical options/priorities, and to vary them according to some random seed preset on the previous turn. That way, it wouldn't auto-capture workers, nor would it auto-ignore them. You might stick them out there and have them ignored, which would mean you couldn't rely on the bait move -- yet they MIGHT grab workers, so you couldn't also rely on not losing workers you leave in a vulnerable spot.

The real failing of the AI isn't the workers: it's that city defense is NOT the top priority, when by all rights it ought to and must be. How to write a better AI, I do not know -- all I know is that this one is, in some regards, too one-dimensional, despite its advanced nature. As much as I hate luck factors, I really do see a need for one here. The AI needs to have a couple of GOOD options, and to select from them on an unpredictable basis. For sure, the priority on capturing workers ought to be lowered in cases where the player's forces are in position to attack cities, or if the AI is in position to attack player cities.


I agree with Cy: the early course of the war, as fought by Hocus and Jaffa, is where our success and victory were earned. Cy did make a strong choice to switch ships to cavalry, though. Looks like this thing is going to be already decided by the time it gets back to me. All I've had on each of my turns is lots of peace. This has to have played much different for Jaffa and Cy than it has for me.


- Sirian

 

[Skandranon]

Yeah, I have to say that Hocus and Jaffa did a sparkling job running the early phases of the war. All I did was wait for a city to starve and send in a "Your-Fate-Is-Sealed-Stack-O'Doom". You'll get a city or two though; in ten turns, I figure Charis can take maybe three cities if he goes for Persepolis first. Healing time, making sure cities don't flip, stuff like that...you'll get your share of mop-up

-Skan

 

[LordNocturne]

This is an interesting game, i like it
Good job against the Persians, i'm learning a lot from this game.

I used to Lurk too, for the record, hehe.

 

[Charis]

I'm on it... good job all

The big question going in -- go for blood (and the Persian capitol) or take the time to end the war, consolidate at Tarsus, and push the industrial improvements.
I meant to ask for thoughts on this early, but the forum wasn't accepting posts at the time.

I'll have the turn done tonight.
Charis