SGOTM 11 - Fifth Element

[havr]

We perfectly know why we choose this:
if we go for Culture 5 religions will greatly improve our date
if we go for Diplo, we're denying religions to the AIs and unless they are all in another single continent forming a Buddhist block, we have far more chances to convert many of them to one of those religions, making our victory possible and easier.

Yes, I know that. That is why I wrote "exactly why". We know "why" but since we didn't decide culture or diplo then we do not know "exactly why".

 

[Mitchum]

OK, so before Unclethrill plays his turnset today, we need to vote again on worker first of warrior first. In light of Dhoomstriker's latest test, we can accomplish two major goals: getting the worker out sooner AND fogbusting the west by T50. This plan will not support exporing east, which we really can't settle until we have warriors 3, 4 and 5 anyway.

So, all in favor of Dhoomstriker's latest plan say "Aye!"

Mitchum: Aye!

 

[unclethrill]

OK, so before Unclethrill plays his turnset today, we need to vote again on worker first of warrior first. In light of Dhoomstriker's latest test, we can accomplish two major goals: getting the worker out sooner AND fogbusting the west by T50. This plan will not support exporing east, which we really can't settle until we have warriors 3, 4 and 5 anyway.

So, all in favor of Dhoomstriker's latest plan say "Aye!"

Mitchum: Aye!

Honestly I don't see how another vote is in order on this one. The votes were made. The choice was made and the TS should have happened last night. There was no reason to wait 24 more hours since there was no "major change" to the PPP. We had a completed PPP. (2 in fact) and we voted for one.

With that said, in the interest of keeping the communication channels open, being fair to all and getting my TS done tonight, I will say that I will play in 4.5 hours. If anyone wants to cast a new vote then go ahead and if there is a change of heart then I will go in that direction.





Fair enough?

 

[BLubmuz]

OK, so before Unclethrill plays his turnset today, we need to vote again on worker first of warrior first. In light of Dhoomstriker's latest test, we can accomplish two major goals: getting the worker out sooner AND fogbusting the west by T50. This plan will not support exporing east, which we really can't settle until we have warriors 3, 4 and 5 anyway.

So, all in favor of Dhoomstriker's latest plan say "Aye!"

Mitchum: Aye!

If this is a joke, nice, otherwise the votes are already casted, the time is passed even if there was no need to let it pass.
I approve what UT did, for the sake of team relations.

Unclethrill needs to do 2 things, basically:
- keep warrior 1 (the free one) alive
- scout S and E with the warrior we already voted to complete being careful to keep him alive and to verify he can arrive W before t.50.
- alternatively to this, since we have some more time to decide, if we can build a warrior in Dehli while growing after settler 1 and this can arrive W by that same deadline, we can better scout the S and E, even the NE area.

 

[Mitchum]

If this is a joke, nice, otherwise the votes are already casted, the time is passed even if there was no need to let it pass.
I approve what UT did, for the sake of team relations.

This makes no sense to me. I agree that you gave Unclethrill the green light to play his turnset, even though his updated PPP had not been posted for 24 hours (which I believe is against the spirit of our rules). However, Dhoomstriker did a lot of testing and came up with a scenario that met all of our goals with warrior 2 (scout Silver and fog bust by T50). On top of that, it gets our worker out first, providing all of the benefits associated with that. Why should this not be allowed as a viable option? It meets all of the goals we intended, right?

Also, regarding scouting east, even if we found something there, would we really settle there at the cost of having to deal with barbs from the west? In my test game, barb archers were starting to flood in and warriors would have difficulty containing them. I'm curious about what's to the east too, but if we see something would we really settle there and risk a barb invasion?

Finally, I don't think the warrior can scout too far east or north due to all of the animals. Every warrior I sent out to scout got attacked at least once and had to spend 5 to 8 turns healing.

Regarding receiving late inputs, if I came up with an idea at the last minute that could win the game in the next turnset, would you disallow it because you had already approved the previous plan? What you're saying about not allowing this latest test game is ridiculous.

 

[Mitchum]

From our strategy post:

Research
Agri - Masonry - Monotheism - PH - BW

BLubmuz, I thought the current thinking was to research BW before PH. At least that's the tech path I've been using in my test games and the completion of the Oracle is fairly well synchronized with learning Writing. In fact, I think we need BW first in order to get some pre-chopping done.

 

[Mitchum]

Fifth Element Team Rules

....

13. A minimum of 24 hours will be allowed from posting of PPP to playing of TS.
a. Any suggestion to modify PPP will be accompanied with a justification that relates to the overall strategy.
b. Conflicting suggestions will require a discussion with playing not beginning until a clear decision is made. Majority Rules plan will be followed as necessary.

I think rule 13b applies in our current situation, no? Dhoomstriker made a conflicting suggestion within 24 hours of unclethrill posting the latest PPP. Should we not at least evaluate it to see if it has merit? It appears that some of us are discounting his suggestions without really taking the time to understand them...

 

[unclethrill]

This makes no sense to me. I agree that you gave Unclethrill the green light to play his turnset, even though his updated PPP had not been posted for 24 hours (which I believe is against the spirit of our rules). However, Dhoomstriker did a lot of testing and came up with a scenario that met all of our goals with warrior 2 (scout Silver and fog bust by T50). On top of that, it gets our worker out first, providing all of the benefits associated with that. Why should this not be allowed as a viable option? It meets all of the goals we intended, right?

Also, regarding scouting east, even if we found something there, would we really settle there at the cost of having to deal with barbs from the west? In my test game, barb archers were starting to flood in and warriors would have difficulty containing them. I'm curious about what's to the east too, but if we see something would we really settle there and risk a barb invasion?

Finally, I don't think the warrior can scout too far east or north due to all of the animals. Every warrior I sent out to scout got attacked at least once and had to spend 5 to 8 turns healing.

Regarding receiving late inputs, if I came up with an idea at the last minute that could win the game in the next turnset, would you disallow it because you had already approved the previous plan? What you're saying about not allowing this latest test game is ridiculous.

I don't believe that is what he is saying at all. I posted a PPP (warrior first). Within 24 hours an alternative with testing was presented (worker first). I then posted a second version of the PPP to accommodate the suggested alternative. I then waited 24 more hours for a vote on either alternative. The vote was done and the result was posted (warrior first). During this 24 hour voting period, Dhoom asked for the first couple warrior movements if that was the choice. I posted them (still in the first 24 hours. After the votes were all in (excluding Tata), I posted the results and said that I would play the first PPP. Then since the vote was not as hoped for by 2 of the team members, more test results were posted and continued discussions were made to try and persuade a change in votes. I was told repeatedly to stop and not play for multiple reasons that I feel did not warrant holding up the TS.

By your logic, if we have a disagreement and there is a vote then it is fully in the loser of the vote's prerogative to hold the game up until he changes enough people's minds to his point of view. Sounds like we are approving a filibuster.

I feel bad that we can't come to a complete agreement on this issue but this is going to happen sometimes. We won't all agree on everything. While some feel that one choice is best, others will feel differently. This is why we vote.
We followed the rules that we set out before the game started and now we all need to abide by those rules without the 'sour grapes'

 

[BLubmuz]

From our strategy post:

BLubmuz, I thought the current thinking was to research BW before PH. At least that's the tech path I've been using in my test games and the completion of the Oracle is fairly well synchronized with learning Writing. In fact, I think we need BW first in order to get some pre-chopping done.

Honest, i forgot the path we decided, provided it's "officially" decided. I was sure until Mono, so i'll be more than happy to update it as as soon as we decide.

If you already tested enough, we can set the path until writing.
I know BW have to arrive before writing for pre-chopping and chopping reasons, not sure before PH. But i think it's better before PH.

 

[Mitchum]

We followed the rules that we set out before the game started and now we all need to abide by those rules without the 'sour grapes'

I was on board with you playing your turn set with warrior first as agreed by the team. No issues there. However, based on the events of yesterday, your turn set got delayed another 20 hours. In one of your posts, you said that you would give Dhoomstriker time to evaluate you PPP and to give input, which he did.

Fast forward to today. We have new information that says there may be a way to accomplish all of our major goals without compromising our overall strategy. Why would we not at least consider it as an alternative? Isn't more information, no matter how late it comes, worthwhile to consider? Have you looked at his proposal? What is it about your current PPP that you think makes it a better alternative to this new option that we have before us?

I'm not being a sour grape. I would just like us to play the best game possible and I think Dhoomstriker's test shows us that there is a better way. Why not at least consider it for the sake of playing a better game?

That's the last I'll say on this matter. If you don't have an open mind to new information, nothing I write can change your mind.

 

[unclethrill]

Quote:
Originally Posted by BLubmuz View Post
Fifth Element Team Rules

....

13. A minimum of 24 hours will be allowed from posting of PPP to playing of TS.
a. Any suggestion to modify PPP will be accompanied with a justification that relates to the overall strategy.
b. Conflicting suggestions will require a discussion with playing not beginning until a clear decision is made. Majority Rules plan will be followed as necessary.

I think rule 13b applies in our current situation, no? Dhoomstriker made a conflicting suggestion within 24 hours of unclethrill posting the latest PPP. Should we not at least evaluate it to see if it has merit? It appears that some of us are discounting his suggestions without really taking the time to understand them...


I agree that 13 b applies. There was a conflict and we voted. Dhoom's suggestion to go worker before warrior is not new every time he suggests it or runs another test.

First post of suggestion by Dhoom at 3:37am May 2 (my time)

My post of both PPP to vote on at 8:35pm May2 with a 24 hour time frame

The vote is in and I have given it 48 hours.

 

[Dhoomstriker]

Well done!!

With that said, HOLY CRAP! That took a bit to figure out. I can't imagine how long it took you to create. Wouldn't turn-by-turn descriptive text in a post with turn-by-turn warrior 1 and warrior 2 movements on the map been easier on us (and you)?

On this computer, it takes a while to Alt+Tab out of the game. It was actually faster to write things in little signs than it was to put them in a log in the thread.

I can certainly improve upon the process. All Worker actions and all unit movement can probably be written on the squares themselves, so that I don't have to write "NW Rice" and "N Grass" in the signs. I only thought about doing so when I got Warrior 2 built, so I didn't do it for Warrior 1 or the Worker. The tricky part is figuring out a way to say that I ended a unit's turn ("skipped" his turn)--perhaps writing T42e, where "e" represents ending that unit's turn?

1. Why did warrior 1 fiddle around in the northern peninsula? Did the bear cause this behaviour? Or were you trying to avoid the double lion attack from the east?

The Bear came up from the south. Because I'd been ending my turn, I was able to react and run away. Whenever the Bear didn't follow directly, I waited where I was for at least a turn, to see if there was a nearby Lion going back and forth to the north-east of where I was standing. That way, if I needed to retreat further from the Bear, I would feel relatively safe with my choice of direction in which I chose to run.

Barb unit evasion is not an exact science. What worked for me could fail for someone else. Even defending in a Forest is not a sure thing, but doing so is better than any other square we have up there. If there was only 1 Lion about, I'd suggest moving into the Forest right away; it's the dual-Lion attacks shortly after each other that's making Warrior 1's job difficult.

2. Why is warrior 2 spending 2 turns in two different locations on the tundra peninsula (T40/T41 and T42/T43)? I'm not including the spot that passed through on his way down and again on his way back up, since that is obvious. Were you waiting for barb animals to disappear and clear your path?

That's to simulate the reality that not ALL of the same squares in our Test Game will be Ocean squares. You can see across Coast to Ocean, but you often can't see across Land to Coast. So, I allowed for a bit of extra movement to make up for the potential inaccuracy of our Test Game, where our Test Game makes it "easy" to explore down there because our Test Game has a bit more water squares than probably exist in the real game.

Feel free to refer to my Map of the Test Game to get a feel for the BLUE SQUARES that I am simulating us needing to uncover.

 

[Dhoomstriker]

Honestly I don't see how another vote is in order on this one. The votes were made.

If this is a joke, nice, otherwise the votes are already casted

Sometimes, you guys really surprise me. I am speechless. BLubmuz is allowed to change his vote at the last minute, but others are not?


What is the point of having any sort of discussion if someone cannot be swayed by the discussion? What's the point of even having any discussion whatsoever?


Because what keeps happening is that voting polls are being made before enough information is discussed. Voting polls miss possible voting options or else make "options" out of barely-tested-scenarios.


If voting polls came out a bit later and were more accurately managed, then they'd be good polls. But when new data can easily come out after the voting poll comes out, then the person who made the voting poll messed up.


It would be like saying "oh, I won a pre-election poll, so I should be president." If the voting poll comes out too soon, it's not the official voting poll. It can't be, as the options aren't known well enough.


I might as well write a poll now that says "should we attack the second AI that we meet?" We have no clue who that AI will be, and voting without certain key information, such as who that AI will be and what their relative place in the world theatre will be will CHANGE THE VOTING RESULTS. But what you are suggesting is that we go ahead with that voting poll's results just because I decided to put out the voting poll sooner than I should have--before enough facts were known about the options and before the options were properly analyzed and discussed. And then you are saying that we should stick to that goal, even if the choice was not to attack and that AI will end up being the best AI to attack, or if the choice was to attack right away and it turns out that it was the worst AI to attack in the game.

 

[BLubmuz]

Regarding receiving late inputs, if I came up with an idea at the last minute that could win the game in the next turnset, would you disallow it because you had already approved the previous plan? What you're saying about not allowing this latest test game is ridiculous.

No new ideas were posted.
The only problem was that i needed a test (you did it) to take a decision.
I've already seen the pros for worker first and the pros of warrior first.
I was in the fence, but not having the settler out 1 turn sooner made me jump on the "complete warrior" field.
Now, we've spent some 6 pages of posts, a vote and several tests for 1 worker turn.

Isn't it a bit much?

I considered this a minor decision, not a game-breaking one.

Now, please let's play this TS, let's uncover some land and start make plans.

 

[Mitchum]

Based on reading the thread, I can only see three people that have actually played test games from our new save point (Dhoomstriker, Havr and me). I apologize if I missed someone else having mentioned playing a test game, but those are the three I recall.

I think test games, especially for the up player, are critical because:

1. There are often subtle things that need to be worked out, like when the city grows, where to put your citizens, the best scouting options, synchronizing growth with builds/ techs, etc.

2. The up player should play at least 2 or 3 turn sets beyond the one he will play to better understand how his current turn set affects future turnsets.

3. They allow you to test different alternatives to see first hand the tradeoffs between the different options.​

We can talk about all of these things related to which options is the best and why for days and days (something this team is good at ), but to truly understand the decisions being made and discussed, there is no substitute for having actually played several test games.

 

[Dhoomstriker]

- scout S and E with the warrior we already voted to complete being careful to keep him alive and to verify he can arrive W before t.50.

No, no, NO! There will be no eastward exploration.

The facts do not support it.

We will have nasty Barb Archers on our doorstep from the west if we do not use Warrior 2.

No other Warrior can come out soon enough to take its place.

There will be no defence for building City 2 to the east. Either the Settler will die or the city will soon be overrun by Barb forces. We need THREE fog-busters to surround a city in that area if we want to keep Barbs away from it. You can't possibly get that many Warriors there in time. Settling City 2 in the east is NOT EVEN AN OPTION--it is suicide.

- alternatively to this, since we have some more time to decide, if we can build a warrior in Dehli while growing after settler 1 and this can arrive W by that same deadline, we can better scout the S and E, even the NE area.

You're the one who made a big deal about commenting on the naming settlers. Can you please stick to the naming convention, since I know that you read it. It's Settler 2 that you are talking about.

Even that Warrior comes out too late! Not only do you mess up our tech rate in a very bad way by delaying Settler 2, possibly THROWING AWAY THE ORACLE as a result, that Warrior will take TOO LONG OF A TIME to build!

I don't get how you're able to throw out these ideas that have already been tested and have been proven to be VERY INFERIOR and yet we're the ones doing the work running the test games.

Trust the results of the test game players. If you don't, then we're going to stop running them, as it's clear you won't listen to our results. What's the point of wasting our time if you're just going to keep pushing ideas that were ALREADY PROVEN NOT TO BE GOOD by test games? We all have lives, too. It's not just you that doesn't have time to run test games. I don't either, but I sacrificed parts of my personal life for the team. Now you want to throw away the results without even paying attention to them?

I don't understand you at all.

 

[Mitchum]

No new ideas were posted.

Not exacly true. Dhoomstriker posted a test game showing that we could meet our two primary objectives (worker first and fogbust west). All other test were an either-or situation. Isn't it good to have our cake and eat it too? I don't understand why you're resisting a better option than ones we were considering at first. It sounds like you're standing by your old decision based on principle alone without considering the new facts.

Now, we've spent some 6 pages of posts, a vote and several tests for 1 worker turn.

Isn't it a bit much?

If we want to finish in the top 3, no I don't think it's a bit much. Top players (like MW), are able to make these decisions on the fly and don't have to discuss them at this level of detail. If we want to compete with the top teams , we will have to do this.

If our goals are to finish in the middle of the pack, then I agree that we should just play this game with minimal testing and get on with our real lives.

 

[Dhoomstriker]

No new ideas were posted.
The only problem was that i needed a test (you did it) to take a decision.
I've already seen the pros for worker first and the pros of warrior first.
I was in the fence, but not having the settler out 1 turn sooner made me jump on the "complete warrior" field.
Now, we've spent some 6 pages of posts, a vote and several tests for 1 worker turn.

Isn't it a bit much?

I considered this a minor decision, not a game-breaking one.

Now, please let's play this TS, let's uncover some land and start make plans.

WTH LOL!
I HAD ALREADY PREVIOUSLY STATED FROM MY TESTS that Settler 2 would come out at an equal time. You had read this and then somehow, with no supporting reason, decided to make this known fact the "REASON" for why you would pick one scenario of the other.

It was already PROVEN that Settler 2 would come out at the same time, BEFORE you made this fact "A CONDITION OF WHICH WAY TO VOTE." The answer was known. It wasn't a condition at all.

But what DOES HAPPEN is that the next Warrior, the next Settler, and every other building or unit in the future is delayed by another turn by this ARBITRARY DECISION!

Yes, on your behalf, it is TOTALLY ARBITRARY!!! WHAT DOES Settler 2 coming out 1 turn earlier do for us? Absolutely NOTHING! It doesn't get us a Warrior out of City 2 a turn faster. It just gets us working an UNIMPROVED SILVER for one extra turn. That doesn't help much at all. But you ALREADY KNEW THAT GETTING SETTLER 2 OUT SOONER WAS NOT POSSIBLE BECAUSE I'D WRITTEN ABOUT THAT FACT PREVIOUSLY, whether you knew unconsciously or consciously, you knew it.

It's a totally arbitrary decision. If we could have the Silver improved earlier, then yes, it would make sense to try and get one more turn of working the IMPROVED Silver. But that's not the case. Settler 2 coming out one turn earlier DOES NOTHING OF VALUE for us. It's a totally non-sensical way to approach the decision.


YOU HAVE NOT LOOKED AT THE PROS AND CONS AT ALL.

PROS:
None. We won't be exploring eastward. Period.

Even if you find a way to do it, that knowledge WILL NOT HELP US, as we'll still need to send Warrior 3 or Warrior 4 THROUGH THE EXACT SAME SQUARES. NOTHING THAT APPEARS IN THE EAST WILL SWAY THE DECISION TO SETTLE CITY 2, AS WE CANNOT DEFEND A CITY OUT THERE! NOTHING! Not even 4 Floodplain-Corns and 4 Golds! We can't get a city there for City 2! THERE ARE NO PROS!

CONS:
You F___ up our empire. You delay Warrior 3 and every unit built thereafter. You delay our tech pace by part of a turn of research.

 

[BLubmuz]

Sometimes, you guys really surprise me. I am speechless. BLubmuz is allowed to change his vote at the last minute, but others are not?

What is the point of having any sort of discussion if someone cannot be swayed by the discussion? What's the point of even having any discussion whatsoever?

Actually, i never clearly expressed a vote.
True that at some point i was in favor to stop the warrior, but it was due to a test ran to grow 4 (big mistake) before the settler.
After i realize that test was wrong, i moved on the fence. You have seen my post and the ones which followed it.
Once Mitch confirmed we have not short-term benefits in delaying the warrior, i jumped on the complete-warrior side, voting for the first time.

Havr, Irgy and UT were already for complete warrior. They were all reading and posting yesterday (night, here) and they did not changed their vote.

So, our discussions were interesting, detailed and test-supported enough to move me from one side to the other (i started with "i strongly disagree" about suspend the warrior).
I must admit that my vote is not a 100% for warrior, but something like a 55%.
If i abstain, and i don't find nice the Captain abstains from a vote, even if honestly undecided, there's still a clear majority for warrior first.

 

[BLubmuz]

No, no, NO! There will be no eastward exploration.
The facts do not support it.
We will have nasty Barb Archers on our doorstep from the west if we do not use Warrior 2.

I don't understand you at all.

Same for me.
How can you say we have no time to go East if our warrior can - at least - walk for 8 turns E, then go back following a SW path and be W exactly when he would be if we stop him?

WTH LOL!
PREVIOUSLY, whether you knew unconsciously or consciously, you knew it.

You F___ up our empire. You delay Warrior 3 and every unit built thereafter. You delay our tech pace by part of a turn of research.

Probably you're right, my question could have been: "does anyone tested if the settler is out 1 turn sooner...".
I just would not dive in some 10 pages to find an answer, since i can't remember all the tests, the reports and so on.

Last thing: why me? why not Unclethrill, Havr or Irgy? only because i decided last?
They won't change their decision yesterday. I start thinking you don't like to lose a vote. I did (to lose a vote and thanks to a ghost member) and i just recorded it and went ahead.