[NO PLAYERS] Witnessing Democracy Inaction

[timski]

We can't play the game this way.

Surely you mean "I"? The rattle has most definitely departed from Mortius' pram, leaving poor HAK on the naughty step. When Elkad talks of a "large enough" play error in the tech thread, they're not referring to the actual play error, but to the magnitude of Mortius' reaction.

Yet here's a strange thing: ShootTheMoon was intensely concerned that Team Pirate's reputation might be tarnished if they were revealed to be a disorganised rabble. Which was correct, but in that case unwarranted, since most had already concluded Team Pirate was a disorganised rabble. In contrast Mortius almost seems to prefer to wash Menagerie's dirty laundry in public, ambivalent to the diplomatic damage dealt by each of their outbursts. I'm quite sure that other teams *not* thinking you incompetant is worth more than 3 hammers, or Mortius' ego, or whatever one thinks this current debacle is actually about.

[timski]

I've looked at the plan thing post a few times. How does the fact that this turn we got 1F & 3H change much of anything compared to the 3F we would have gotten? We would have grown to size 4 either way this turn and this got us some extra hammers. That's the main part I don't understand.
Looking at it we still get the Stonehenge on turn 45 and then the rest is just Barracks and Granary stuffs. The only difference because of the turn I see is that we got a couple extra hammers into the Barracks.

HitAnyKey is reading the plan much the same as we (I) are, and consequently can't see what all the fuss is about either. Finally, I thought, Mortius will be forced to explain... But what is their response? To completely ignore HAK's queries and seek an oath of fealty. Why would they do that? Because HitAnyKey is correct? Because Mortius cannot be undermined?

I appreciate that Mortius is fundamentally unable to deal with (a) human behavior and (b) unexpected change, so the whole team multiplayer thing has a steep learning curve for them. But they still seem perfectly happy to waste days of discussion over a reload that they must realise is both unnecessary and unjustified, just to save face. If so, that's ethically sickening.

[Sullla]

Whoa, let's not go overboard here. I always hate it when the lurker threads in these games insist on telling me that I'm a terrible person because I made some decision differently than they would have.

I think Mortius is not experienced enough at Civ4 to realize that he's taking a stand over a non-issue. He really thinks this is a major issue, not recognizing how minor a slightly different tile configuration will prove to be. It's easy to get attached to those micro plans when you draw them up. I agree that this is a ridiculous reload request, and Mortius hasn't looked good here, but there's no need to crucify him either. It's not a diabolical plan to save face, rather someone who legitimately thinks that rushing Stonehenge and Oracle are crushing Civ4 plays in the early game. (Hint: they are not.)

[timski]

Sorry if my language was a bit strong. This latest development is evidently something I feel passionate about. Opinions perhaps best left to myself.

Added, for a little more context: I watch these games almost entirely for their human oddities. I'm not intending to flame Mortius in any way, merely present what appears to me to be a logical explanation for the behavior I see, in the hope that others will be able to help improve my understanding. Sometimes, as in this case, I genuinely don't like the result of my logic, and am grateful to those that can balance it. Further, if I seem to be overly focused on Mortius there is perhaps a reason: Mortius and I share enough traits to be recognisable, so a self-reflective impetus ("I wouldn't do that, would I!?") tends to creep into the streams of consciousness that constitute my posts in this thread.

[NobleHelium]

If this game ends very early (and there is a big chance that it will), it will be interesting to see everyone's reactions when they realize the actual difference between the HAK's played result and the intended result. Mortius said that it "makes their entire plan worthless" which is clearly not the case.

[timski]

Let's hope the players give Mortius the benefit of the doubt, and accept, to paraphrase Sullla, that Mortius has been blinkered. Now also consider Scooter's comments (both in the tech thread and in their forum) that they are unwilling to express an opinion because it impacts on in-game diplomacy. From that, conclusion #1: Players are not in a position to judge the case for a reload following in-game (in)actions, not necessarily even the players requesting the reload!

Lewwyn outlined the case against the "free mulligan" pretty well - eating misclicks and similar is a part of any complex strategy game. Mist's intention (please correct me) was to use the sole reload as an ultimatum to prevent repeated abuse of goodwill. But some lept on it as a "Get out of Jail Free Card", or argued that the Pirates had a reload so it was only fair to grant another to someone else when they asked. Conclusion #2: Any lingering sense of entitlement to something outside of the agreed rules of the game is a bad thing.

I've read several comments that indicate delays like this weaken the health of the game regardless of outcome, since players get bored or demotivated by the lack of turns. And as we've seen with Menagerie, there can be a tendancy to resort to the tech thread too quickly, before attempting to resolve issues within the team. Conclusion #3: Any form of pause, especially a lengthy mid-game debate, should be discouraged.

Unsurprisingly, it's a legal system in a microcosm:

• The rules and system of authority need to be agreed beforehand.
  
• The evidence gathering and arbitration needs to be outside the influence of those it affects.
  
• The system of justice needs to have the lowest impact on the activity it polices, while still policing.

I'm sure some Classical scholar expressed all that far better. Most of this stuff has been around for a while.

[NobleHelium]

Tortuga will be settled T34.

We'll need that Quechua to cover our new city. By the way, what are we going to name it?

Oh, I guess he meant the quechua and not the city.

[Hesmyrr]

So unless I'm misunderstanding something, M3 will be able to 1v2 the Pirate's planned city by T36. That's ~50% downright chance of losing the city?

[timski]

So unless I'm misunderstanding something, M3 will be able to 1v2 the Pirate's planned city by T36. That's ~50% downright chance of losing the city?

From our perspective, the maths isn't in doubt. Menagerie have more than enough Warriors to hit Pirate's Pink Dot city either T36 or soon after. They have more Warriors than anyone else in the game at the moment - more even than TEAM, who are technically fighting two wars. Menagerie will even have half a road to the site, with a pair of combat Workers ready to fill in the gap. It is hard to imagine a team better placed to respond militarily at this stage of the game. In contrast, Team Pirate have absolutely no way of reinforcing their city in the turns immediately after settling, lacking roads, whippable population, spare Workers for chops, spare Quechua in reserve... you name it, the Pirates don't have it!

Of course whether Menagerie know this is another question. Their late contact means they lack graphs on the Pirates, and their disorganisation means they lack C&D on anyone.

The unpredictable element is how Menagerie, especially Mortius, responds. I'll refer you to Sullla's "anything" prediction earlier... I'd wager annoyed caution from Menagerie, and annoyed caution doesn't respond immediately, even when the retaliatory situation looks favourable. Of course Team Pirate is in such a mess that Menagerie may still be able to play a waiting game till Axes, and then beat down the Pirates successfully. Where that logic breaks down is if Menagerie is unwilling to switch away from Stonehenge, giving the Pirates a good 30 turns to get some defenses online, a time-frame even they should be able to handle. IMHO the absolute worst thing Menagerie can do is shrug and settle towards Gillette instead, thereby losing a potential ally to their south, while yielding some of their best border land to their northern aggressor. But given Menagerie's early diplomacy, I wouldn't count that option out either. Yeah, anything.

Will be fascinating to watch these next few turns, especially as the position of Menagerie's scouting Warrior means they are sure to see Pirate's Pink Dot city the moment (if not the turn before) it is settled. Between this interplay of the lame ducklings in the west, and TEAM's "always war" choking in the east, this game may yet redeem itself .

Added: Curiously if Menagerie moves their Warrior SE, they'll get a low-odds chance against Pirate's Settler the turn before it settles. Those decisions are always interesting, since the odds are low, but the hammer ratio is often good. I'll let Commodore explain... Given the relative strength of Menagerie's military (they can afford to lose a Warrior) and the fact that Pirate's settlement plans will be immediately apparent (hostilities are unavoidable unless they take the shrug option), I would love to see Menagerie take the gamble. At best they come out with a free Worker, a gold spot they can settle, and a crippled opponent, since the Pirates losing their second Settler pushes their whole game back by 10 turns. At worst they get into a war they were probably going to get into anyway, but are necessarily more focused on an immediate counter-attack. In fact, the only reason I can see to pass on the option of a pre-emptive Settler attack is if they are determined to play in peace, come what may.

[timski]

After all the rather negative things I've said about Mortius in this thread, I'm glad to be able to report they have a firm grasp of what is happening and likely how to deal with it:

But if it's true [we lose the gold site], we are in a position to destroy Pirate's gold city, and than capture their capital.

(...while this forum may, or may not, be lacking in facepalms, war is certainly well covered...)

Here's the situation:




They are wrong about precisely where the Pirate Settler (S) is going, although the expected city spot would be a better location than Pink Dot, so I can see why! Pirate's Settler is actually heading onto the hill 1SE of (yellow) W2. But Mortius has read the Quechua (Q) move beautifully: That is indeed moving to cover a Settler. If both those lime-green Ws (Workers) are completing roads on the upcoming turns (3 tiles NE of thei capital), Menagerie will have 3 Warriors able to hit the Pirates on T37. That presumes they don't take a shot at the Settler as it stands on the hill, prior to settling, which I still think would be a good move.

Will be fun to reconcile Menagerie's diplomacy: Turn 32, "we can assure you that you do not need to worry about anything on our part, as we look forward to a long and prosperous relationship between our two great kingdoms," and a few turns later, "you settled our secret gold spot, and therefore must die!" Also known as, "we come in peace; shot to kill" diplomacy. (I apologise to myself for linking that, since I'm now listening to it :D .)

Elsewhere, Gillette got their vengence on TEAM's Scout, although unlike Gillette's, TEAM's Scout had largely served its purpose. As ever, Lewwyn has a strong read on the metagame:

Also, wtf with the roads to nowhere? They must be trying to pink dot M3 as well!

...although that will play into TEAM's initial assessment that Troll and Gillette were already having a love-in, which was not entirely true before TEAM declared war on both, but may be true now.

Final word to Nakor:

Settle either horses or copper. We do need military.