SGOTM 15 - Discussion Thread

I'm confused. I thought we had a 100% chance of winning the gold (t166), if not for a "Make Peace With" BtS bug as summarized in our Silver Laurel winning game description by AlanH:

It's not strictly a game mechanics bug, as others have tested and reported in various places. Peace brokered between others involves only the code's TRADE_PEACE trade commodity, which calls only makePeace(), which functions like (as?) a cease fire trade. Other kinds of peace deals can involve TRADE_PEACE_TREATY, which calls setForcePeace(), which sets the flag that prohibits war.

So the only people who might have robbed Kaku were ourselves, for trusting the text of the diplo screen too literally (and not getting Shaka a secure Hindu city back when we had the opportunity ~T130 - we got a bit lucky that GhostTown survived the T160 DOW). The bug, if any, is that text string displayed does not match the underlying mechanism, if one interprets "peace" to mean "peace treaty".
 
Unless I missed the answer...

A warning to all teams.

We are currently investigating a potential bug.

The result of this is that the WHEOORN fist may or may not be displaying properly.

While we are investigating, then I suggest that if you want to know WHEOORN status, you talk to each of the AI.

just curious about the advancement of the investigation ... any promising 'leads' yet? ;)

I guess the latest version of BUG has it right but isn't part of BUFFY3.19.003 yet. :think:

We almost lost because of this nice bug.
 
It's not strictly a game mechanics bug, as others have tested and reported in various places. Peace brokered between others involves only the code's TRADE_PEACE trade commodity, which calls only makePeace(), which functions like (as?) a cease fire trade. Other kinds of peace deals can involve TRADE_PEACE_TREATY, which calls setForcePeace(), which sets the flag that prohibits war.

So the only people who might have robbed Kaku were ourselves, for trusting the text of the diplo screen too literally (and not getting Shaka a secure Hindu city back when we had the opportunity ~T130 - we got a bit lucky that GhostTown survived the T160 DOW). The bug, if any, is that text string displayed does not match the underlying mechanism, if one interprets "peace" to mean "peace treaty".

I wouldn't even attempt to use known buggy source code of BtS to form an argument that "Make Peace With <Civ>" is rightly implemented as a "Cease Fire" rather than the obviously correct "Peace Treaty". As I have said several times before, the game designers would have called this action "Make Cease Fire With <Civ>", if a cease fire was intended.

"makePeace(), which functions like (as?) a cease fire trade"

How is the above not a "bug" in itself? The function name that creates a cease fire should be called makeCeaseFire().

How is this not purely a game mechanics bug? The Diplomacy windows offers "Make Peace With <Civ>" and provides something drastically less, effectively equivalent to a Cease Fire.

Some game coder may have simply called the wrong function for the "Make Peace With <Civ>" diplomatic action. Presumably, the test protocol was faulty, possibly missing the end cases of attempting to break the "Peace Treaty" brokered.

When the code and documentation are inconsistent, you can't simply say the documentation is wrong, because it could easily be the code that is wrong or they could even both be wrong.

I suppose the inconsistency could be removed by changing the string "Make Peace With <Civ>" to "Make Cease Fire With <Civ>, but that may still violate the game designer's specifications for this action and without these specs, we really can't know with 100% certainty which is the correct interpretation.

Sun Tzu Wu
 
I wouldn't even attempt to use known buggy source code of BtS to form an argument that "Make Peace With <Civ>" is rightly implemented as a "Cease Fire" rather than the obviously correct "Peace Treaty".

I didn't make that argument at all.

It happens that there are two states of being "not at war" - able to declare war and not able to declare war. Assuming that "peace" is one or other of those states is an assumption. You think "peace" clearly implies "peace treaty," from the word "peace"...

As I have said several times before, the game designers would have called this action "Make Cease Fire With <Civ>", if a cease fire was intended.

... but if the diplo screen text read "stop the war with X," how would you interpret that? Peace treaty or cease fire? You'd have to go and test, or look at the code.

Under normal English usage, assuming "peace" means "peace treaty" is a more reliable assumption than assuming "peace" means "cease fire", or that "stop the war with X" is either "peace treaty" or "cease fire". However it's only a matter of degree. You think that difference is more marked than any body else seems to :)

Some game coder may have simply called the wrong function for the "Make Peace With <Civ>" diplomatic action. Presumably, the test protocol was faulty, possibly missing the end cases of attempting to break the "Peace Treaty" brokered.

When the code and documentation are inconsistent, you can't simply say the documentation is wrong, because it could easily be the code that is wrong or they could even both be wrong.

I didn't say either the code or the user interface text (which I think you are calling "documentation") was wrong. I observed that they are inconsistent.
 
Over the years I've seen lots of old pros at Civ 4 complaining in various forums about hidden mechanics and undocumented bugs when doing diplo, but I had no idea!

I had fun on Neil's develish all-Toku map :devil:, something I would normally never play. It felt like the only time we went on the offensive was sneaking past Shaka's SoD to steal a city and backdooring Hatty after baiting her with a bait city. So, this game was truly Beyond the Sword in my opinion. It went so far beyond the sword that the teleporting mass barbarian invasion was just a footnote of the legendary Gawa rage. (Yes, I felt Hyunagawa did that barb thing on purpose)

I lost count of the number of times they were a turn from delcaring on us or hurried a build of something or changed our plans every single turn. That last stunt on T165 made me yell NOOOOOOO and just stand with my jaw hanging down for a few minutes.



Sorry if people don't like all this mechanics talk :crazyeye:, but we pulled out all the stops going to the mat for a perfect game. Just goes to show how tough the competition is ;).

One day I will have to convince my team to go for the lovingly simple smash-everything method :hammer: :hammer: :hammer: Having a huge power rating and army really simplifies diplomacy in my opinion.
 
I hope so, if there will be an OSS. I'm done. Moving on to bigger and better things. :)

:cry:

Good luck in your next endeavers. I will miss your strong competition and posts!

Didn't interact with you much but I remember you cleaning house in the first HOF Challenger Series.


**Edit**

Oops, thought you were retiring from SGOTM for a while, but don't see nothing in the OSS thread so my mistake :blush:
 
What I wanted to do with this game was:
- have good debates on where to settle the capital and the first cities (I always enjoyed this in my playing days)
- make the teams throw out the standard cookbook on how to win.
- have teams not know how they would win in the bc's.
- have teams change strategy as events unfolded.
- make teams think! :p

It worked pretty well indeed!

1)Scout, OMG bears.
2)Settle new cities, OMG Tokugawa is right there!
3)How do we exploit all these closed bordered, religion sharing, highly aggressive Gawas?
4)OMG, Liz has Redcoats and the rest have castles/are spamming castles.

You turned a 4x game into a 4:run: game :lol:

:goodjob:
 
... but if the diplo screen text read "stop the war with X," how would you interpret that? Peace treaty or cease fire? You'd have to go and test, or look at the code.

Under normal English usage, assuming "peace" means "peace treaty" is a more reliable assumption than assuming "peace" means "cease fire", or that "stop the war with X" is either "peace treaty" or "cease fire". However it's only a matter of degree. You think that difference is more marked than any body else seems to :)

I would "guess" that "stop the war with X" probably means via a "cease fire". Here, I agree that there is some ambiguity about how this action would be implemented, via a "peace treaty" or via a "cease fire". In this case, it is best to test and verify.

In regards to "Make Peace With X", I agree that it is our fault to fail to test and verify. We lost our chance to win t166, and we have only ourselves to blame for that failure. I agree that ignorance of the bug is no excuse for failing to get the RL DV resolution on t165. The fact that the deadline was about two days away and our certainty that we had mitigation plans for all foreseeable risks turned out to be wrong, both probably did us in for that earlier RL DV opportunity.

I didn't say either the code or the user interface text (which I think you are calling "documentation") was wrong. I observed that they are inconsistent.

Sorry, I thought you were arguing that this wasn't simply game mechanics bug.

I agree that the inconsistency is the essence of this bug.

To simply say the "Make Peace With X" is effectively a brokered "Cease Fire" and not a bug is also inconsistent. It seems that many players have a different interpretation of the term "bug" than I do. For me, any inconsistency, no matter how small is a bug. For others it seems to be a matter of (subjective) degree.

Sun Tzu Wu
 
- make the teams throw out the standard cookbook on how to win.
- have teams not know how they would win in the bc's.
- have teams change strategy as events unfolded.
- make teams think! :p

ps. I don't know if anyone remembers the minimap mistake, but it actually showed you where Liz's capital was.

Minimap: We Suspected there was something interesting there that the mapmaker had been playing with... but stuck between hostile crazies in WHEOOHRN, there was not much use to be made of that information.

cookbook: There is a cookbook? How come nobody told US? Where can I get a copy? :mischief:

know how to win in the BC's: Good job there, Neil, we didn't know how (or even if) we would win until about 1700AD. :p

changing strategies: the risk here is that if the strategy is changed every turn, the result is that there is no strategy at all. At least for some of us. :(

make teams think: :goodjob: you really made us push the envelope on this one.
 
@STW/mabraham

Can I ask you where you got source code for Apostolic Palace behavior? I wanted to check something myself and did very quick find for words "apostolic" and "palace" in CvGameCore.dll sources and found nothing relevant...

have a feeling I don't look into right folders for things...
 
@STW/mabraham

Can I ask you where you got source code for Apostolic Palace behavior? I wanted to check something myself and did very quick find for words "apostolic" and "palace" in CvGameCore.dll sources and found nothing relevant...

have a feeling I don't look into right folders for things...

The mechanics are somewhat generalized for the AP and UN, so searching for "diplo" is more effective. CvGame.cpp has most of the relevant stuff.
 
:cry:

Good luck in your next endeavers. I will miss your strong competition and posts!

Didn't interact with you much but I remember you cleaning house in the first HOF Challenger Series.


**Edit**

Oops, thought you were retiring from SGOTM for a while, but don't see nothing in the OSS thread so my mistake :blush:
You understood correctly. I will not be playing SGs any more. Hard pill to swallow, because I love the team play and get easily bored by individual games. Thanks for your kind words. :)

It seems that many players have a different interpretation of the term "bug" than I do. For me, any inconsistency, no matter how small is a bug. For others it seems to be a matter of (subjective) degree.
I think this is the key point. Bug for me goes back to the original bugs (a moth I think) in computers. It means that the code doesn't function the way it was intended. Mabraham is demonstrating that it's not a bug, meaning that the code is functioning as intended, in other words, the programmers did their job correctly.

Your issue is with the terms "peace" and "peace treaty" rather than with the code. Peace is, by definition, a time without war. It describes the current state of affairs between two players. They are at peace or they are at war. In CIV there are three types of treaties, if you will: 1) a Cease Fire Treaty, 2) a Peace Treaty, and 3) a Declaration of War "Treaty." The first two involve a state of peace, the third involves a state of war.

Your argument is that "make Peace with" should mean "make a Peace Treaty with" or at least it should be made less ambiguous. It really isn't ambiguous, though, if you understand Peace to mean peace. Your basically saying that Peace means Peace Treaty. It doesn't. What it certainly is, though, is subtle, something dear to your heart methinks... ;)
 
Your post in the maintenance thread about the deadline and this post (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=11235295&postcount=476) did not seem to be friendly to me.
In my post in the maintenance thread, I was calling out kossin, mostly, precisely for the reasons you say he was <i>just voting</i> as I said in the post. You guys are extremely good, fast players. Everyone knows that. In the past, when I have been on the team that was obviously winning the game, my heart was open to all players and teams to take as much time as they wanted. The last thing I wanted to do was pressure them to put forward less than their best effort. You can call my post unfriendly to kossin. So be it. I respect kossin, but my heart goes out to all of us who have slower computers and slower abilities, myself included, than the best.

As for the other post you linked, it was not unfriendly in the least (annd for that matter not public to you guys at that moment). I was just explaining to Neil my frustration because he asked. Do you not agree that researcing Agri->Poly or Agri>Medit would give any top team a huge advantage, <i>other things being held equal</i>? That I referred to your team is no more than a sign of respect, no?
About SGOTM11, I'd be very interested in seeing anyone replay it to beat our date 20t, no matter how he already knew the map as long as he don't rush Zara since that's not a natural play. In my estimation, 5~10t is maximum. I believe our SGOTM11 result was close to optimal in the 1st try.
I don't think that way. I think the Klarius Way and if you study our SG11 thread you'll note that I gently pushed for us to DoW Zara, just as I gently pushed for Argi first in SG15. :)

Behind my push to DOW Zara, though, was a careful study of the mechanics of war declarations (thanks to DanF :)) and it was clear that we would be able to get Hatty (was it Hatty or Izzy to the east?) to DoW us, and then get others to DoW us as well. So I was fairly certain that we could afford to expend one of our two DoWs and still survive and sure enough, the game played out exactly so.

Once again, it just boils down to game mechanics, understanding them, and knowing how to manipulate them. The SG11 game rule was we can only DoW twice, not we can only engage in two wars. :)



Well, I have never seen any member of Kaku post such an opinion, I don't know how could you represent Kaku for such a statement.
That's just my English again. You just don't seem to understand what I mean when I say I'm speaking hypothetically, despite your English reading comprehension being better than most AMericans (which wouldn't surprise me in the least... :lol:). I'm not saying Kaku expressed that sentiment. Judging from recent sentiments, Kakus now think they could have won by T130... I'm saying that their choice to build a Hindu AP is a game decision that works better if the Buddhist AP is built far away.

Look at it this way: Suppose Toku built the Buddhist AP in Kyoto right before someone captures it on T100. That team just saved all those beakers (or GProph) and hammers on the AP. Game over, n'est-ce pas? That's all I'm saying.

Conversely, for you guys any team planning to capture the Buddhist AP, the Kakus' Hindu APers' worst nightmare would be an AI that is unreachable until paratroopers, or whatever.



If you posted the above in your 1st post, then I would not say too much as that's simply a disagreement of game result. Still, there's no "our T100 save PLUS YOUR STRATEGY" as your T100 save focused on military and ours focus on economy and long term advantage, those 2 things just can't coexist.
Not true, imo. You could have slingshot Construction and still accumulated the necessary EPPs. You keep saying your economy was ahead of ours, but it wasn't. Not at T100, not at T127. I compared. We saved a ton of beakers not researching Alpha+Constr. (Granted, researching Medit waas a mistake, but that only reinforces my argument, because if we had researched Poly instead, we'd have finished LIterature even sooner and our economy would be even better.) Plus we had WarCapture GOld from three ciites long before you. With all those savings and with Kyoto and Osaka already in our pocket, which you didn't have yet, we could have devoted our energy to EPPs for several turns if we had wanted.



At last, let's put this to an end. I do and always respect OSS as a competitive team. I would not have interest in SGOTMs for so long time without you guys.:)
Fine by me. Just conversation for me. You have your opinions, I have mine. I learn from you adn our discussion. That's what's important to me.

.
 
Bottom line for me, though, is I hated our strategy. I really didn't like this entire game, because I didn't feel like warmongering and we couldn't figure out a way to get the AIs up to Pleased in our initial planning. Dumb.

I feel I have to take some responsibility for that.
I just couldn't imagine neil would square the circle of intending for an optimal game to be an AP win, while also making it interesting enough to be a SGOTM, and didn't put enough thought into it. I suspect this drove diplomacy from my mind when we met the first two Gawas.

From when we got past Toku (at the very latest), we just didn't have a strategy, and we didn't really execute our non-strategy that well either - we kept getting bogged down.

I'm sorry to see you go. I've enjoyed playing with you.
 
I feel I have to take some responsibility for that.
I just couldn't imagine neil would square the circle of intending for an optimal game to be an AP win, while also making it interesting enough to be a SGOTM, and didn't put enough thought into it. I suspect this drove diplomacy from my mind when we met the first two Gawas.

From when we got past Toku (at the very latest), we just didn't have a strategy, and we didn't really execute our non-strategy that well either - we kept getting bogged down.

I'm sorry to see you go. I've enjoyed playing with you.
My "hate" was really just frustration. We forgot all about using espionage to affect attitudes. Shame on us after using it to win in SG12.

Just to be clear, I loved playing with you guys, you especially ZPV. :) That's what kept me going. We've had a ton of great times together! :goodjob:
 
The english were given very nice lands and an extra settler, and were supposed to get to Rifling before any warmongering teams could get to them. The problem with this is that the english would/could conquer poor Gandhi.
Aha! "This AI is too strong". Famous last words. :p
Did you ever consider giving the English a security bureau, ikhanda, dun, citadel and totem pole in London? :mischief:
One problem I faced in the game setup was reliigon. I can worldbuild all the Toku's to have buddhism, but I don't think I can make the player Hindu without pre-settling their city. Giving the player Polytheism (the tech required to discover Hindu) doesn't work either.
Did you consider giving Liz Meditation, and everyone else a Buddhist Missionary, some distance from their capital (so that it would take >5 turns to spread)? That way Liz would found it on turn 5, and then everyone else would get the spread through their missionaries.

Similarly, Poly for the player will found Hinduism, but only after 5 turns of playing.
 
Aha! "This AI is too strong". Famous last words. :p
Did you ever consider giving the English a security bureau, ikhanda, dun, citadel and totem pole in London? :mischief:

Did you consider giving Liz Meditation, and everyone else a Buddhist Missionary, some distance from their capital (so that it would take >5 turns to spread)? That way Liz would found it on turn 5, and then everyone else would get the spread through their missionaries.

Similarly, Poly for the player will found Hinduism, but only after 5 turns of playing.

Are you wishing to apply for a job as WOTM game designer? You seem to be devious enough for the job.:mischief:
 
Aha! "This AI is too strong". Famous last words. :p
Did you ever consider giving the English a security bureau, ikhanda, dun, citadel and totem pole in London? :mischief:

Did you consider giving Liz Meditation, and everyone else a Buddhist Missionary, some distance from their capital (so that it would take >5 turns to spread)? That way Liz would found it on turn 5, and then everyone else would get the spread through their missionaries.

Similarly, Poly for the player will found Hinduism, but only after 5 turns of playing.

Ahh, well, I don't know all the game mechanics perfectly, I did what I did. :)
 
Ahh, well, I don't know all the game mechanics perfectly, I did what I did. :)

It wasn't really intended as a criticism - just poking fun at ways to make a difficult scenario even harder. :crazyeye::goodjob:
 
Top Bottom