How to play when you have no chance of winning?

[NobleHelium]

Dogpiles often don't work because of the motivations you mention, but it doesn't mean that dogpiles are a bad idea. However, it also doesn't mean that participating in a dogpile is necessarily a better move than attacking a weaker opponent, or is better than not participating. Attacking the leader is pointless if it doesn't improve your overall chances of winning, you'd just be substituting one overlord for another. The key point is to contribute to the dogpile without exposing yourself to attack by a third party, which would result in an overall worse position for you regardless of the dogpile's outcome. This can mean contributing quite little to the dogpile, but it would still be better than not contributing at all.

But dogpiles are actually not directly related to the original post. There's no reason to dogpile if you really have no chance of winning. After all, if you have no chance of winning, then a dogpile doesn't improve your chances of winning by definition. I don't think that really happens that often though. If you really have absolutely no chance of winning, then I'd basically do what Seven described.

[Jowy]

Dogpiles don't work. Because war against a strong opponent is always negative-sum. Each dogpile participant will lose more than he gains. Each dogpiler's best interest is to commit minimum force, ideally zero, in hopes of finding himself ahead after the other dogs commit and lose more. Which means the dogpile is weak and ineffective and doesn't stop the leader. We've seen this happen in practice, most notoriously Pitboss 2.

Dogpiles work in other games like Diplomacy where there is no loss in war. It's zero sum for everybody and positive sum for the dogpilers (against the negative for the victim), properly incenting the dogs to fully participate. But not in Civ 4.

While I agree that dogpiles aren't the end all be all answer, PB2 is a bad example. That game had players of extremely different skill levels, in addition of an unbalanced map. That contributed much to our downfall. Imagine if I had had copper (like every other player) and the attack commenced much earlier when India was still running a farmer's gambit? Might not eliminate them, but it would do massive damage and probably make them an underdog in the game. What would make it even more effective was if the players dogpiling were actually good at the game. I'll only speak for myself to not offend anyone: I pretty much had one full game of BTS played at the time (way more for vanilla but it had been a while) and was only getting into the competitive scene. I think PB2 could rather be an example of a good time to dogpile someone: They are running a farmer's gambit! That's when they are at their weakest point.

[Commodore]

Dogpiles work best when the leader organizes them, see FFH PBEM XXI.

[Sullla]

Two years later and still spreading misinformation about Pitboss #2, I see. I guess if you repeat something enough times, people will start to believe that it's true. Unfortunately though, I have all of the screenshots saved from that game, and there's little evidence to suggest that our team was ever running a farmer's gambit at any point in time. Let's look at some evidence.



This is Turn 52; we had horses connected at the time and copper connected on the following turn. Power rating is right in the middle of the pack, and nowhere near the bottom.



Turn 58 shows the exact same thing. If anything, we are higher compared to the average rating in military power.



Here's Turn 78, and India is third in Power rating, very far above average, below only the two teams at war (Ottomans/Byzantines). Not seeing much evidence of a farmer's gambit so far.



This is Turn 95, right before the wars broke out. Wow, India sure is running some crazy farmer's gambit here. All the way down at second place in power rating. Those slackers.

Or if you'd rather see it in bar graph form:



We were equal to or higher than our neighbors in Power for the entire early game. Oftentimes MUCH higher in power than the neighbors. Although you can make a legitimate argument for a dogpile in that game, a "farmer's gambit" simply didn't exist. Speaker and I simply outplayed the field. We were better in everything: Food, Production, GNP, Power, Land Area, etc. The other teams knew they could not beat us fairly, so they gangbanged us with a massive teamup. And it still failed.

Look, I have no desire to open up old wounds either, but you can at least be accurate if you're going to quote from old games. If you want to see a farmer's gambit, look to Parkin's performance in Pitboss #4.



He was ahead by eight techs and was still sitting in last place in power, relying on NAPs for safety. That's a farmer's gambit.

[Jowy]

" Of course, going without military is a big risk, which is why Speaker and I acknowledged that our opening was a gambit. We could have been the ones eliminated! " - Sullla
IIRC at one point Speaker had a "hunch" that you should start building more military units. And as a reply to that, when the war did happen, you were glad you had the "hunch".
Also Turn 19 I would have had copper, if the map maker had placed one near my starting position like he did for everyone else.

Anyways, past is the past, I'm not going to dig any deeper into that In fact let's do the opposite. We are starting up a new PB for next year. Consider yourself formally challenged to a rematch! More fun to settle disputes in-game than bickering on the boards. We are intent on having the game be less taxing on free time as well. I think a more chilled but still semi-serious PB would be to your taste.

[superjm]

I think what SHOULD happen is that there is a dogpile on the leader. What I think generally happens is that people take out the players that are behind. An exception is when there's no clear leader.

I think it's hard to set up dogpiles on the top teams in games without diplomacy.

I tend to think that from a pure "play to win" standpoint, trying to take out your weakest opponent is always the correct move, especially if you are behind. After all, if you're playing to win, then you're always playing to improve your own position. If war is necessary, going for the weakest opponent is generally the easiest path to improvement.

Regarding the topic in question, I don't really think there's many things a player with no hope of winning *should* do. If they're in an unwinnable situation, then they can play the game as they see fit, whether it be choosing to play kingmaker for the stronger players, fortifying your own position to make the lives of other players miserable, or just plain giving up. Of course, blatant abuse of game mechanics to disproportionately help another player (ie gifting tons of cities and units as an act of forfeiting) isn't desirable and only makes you look like a sore loser, which can affect how other players treat you in future games. So one should consider carefully how they play in these situations. My point is, games like these stop being fun when communities try to dictate that players should "play a certain way" in a given situation just because that's what's most comfortable. (Not saying anything specific about RB, just speaking in general). Civ 4, from my experience, is a very flexible game that allows a host of different play styles and which can be approached from several different angles and strategies, all with advantages are drawbacks. This fact doesn't change just because you're losing.

[T-hawk]

After all, if you're playing to win, then you're always playing to improve your own position. If war is necessary, going for the weakest opponent is generally the easiest path to improvement.

This thread is more about, what do you do when YOU are that weakest opponent?

[superjm]

After all, if you're playing to win, then you're always playing to improve your own position. If war is necessary, going for the weakest opponent is generally the easiest path to improvement.

This thread is more about, what do you do when YOU are that weakest opponent?

Hey now, having no chance of winning doesn't necessarily mean that you are also the weakest opponent. Can't discount one of your opponents being more screwed than you are.

[Qgqqqqq]

Um how exactly was the PB2 map unbalanced?
Jowy, I think Sulla/speaker were talking solely about their descion to go worker first.

[Thoth]

One of the greatest sources of acrimony in PBEM and pitboss games has been the behavior of players who, rightly or wrongly, perceived themselves as having no chance at winning the game. If several other players want to keep the game going, the "no-chance" player usually feels obligated to continue devoting a considerable amount of time and effort to the losing cause. There seem to be several options, none of which is really satisfactory:

Maybe part of the pre-game rules discussion should include this topic? I don't think there's an easy answer, but it might help if players knew at the start of the game what they were committing themselves to.

I've played a couple of "Kobyashi Maru" scenarios over the last year or so.

Some of my own making, some inherited.

My attitude in that situation is "dig in and make the bastards pay". You're going to lose. But at least do what you can to make sure it isn't easy to take down the little guy. You'll still get taken out, but you may very well have the chance for a tactical victory or two along the way. And in the meantime you gain some valuable MP combat experience.

And if someone decides you are an easy target because you are in last, then you make it your mission to mess with them. Not because they might win, but because they messed with you.

-Take pleasure in little victories and goals you make for yourself.

-Delude yourself.

Ayup.

Set some in game goals for yourself to keep up your interest (like say annoying the folks who poached a city from you...or recapturing said city).

Skip the delusion, you aren't going to win. But have a bit of fun along the way. And do your bit to make the bastards pay.

And *do* take the time to figure out how you got outplayed.