[no players] Six little newbies sitting on a tree...

[Krill]

So, I got a wider ranging question here. It's clear that the last thing that's going to Coeurva's mind is that he can achieve peace just by vacating Schilda. He is dead set on Charriu's actions being driven by some insane bloodlust, rather than very clear and contained goals. Similar thing happened in PB37, where Krill thought we were intent on warring for wars sake and would never give him peace, whereas, in the second war especially, we had a clear limited goal in kicking him out of an island city overhanging our core and bay of interest.

I think you have to look at this decision from the end of the first war, up until the retaking of the city (Mandrake, right?) In the same way, we have to look at the decisions Couer is facing now not just in the snap shot of the current turn, but in the build up to the current situation.

My question is this: can an attacker with limited goals ever hope the defender to figure out those goals under AI Diplo?

The crux comes down to capability. If someone is capable of completing a limited war successfully, and economically, they are usually able to do a lot more damage. So the question any defender has, is do they trust an attacker to just stop there? That involves a lot of knowledge and understanding about a person as a player, not just a complete understanding of the gamestate. How many of us can say we have all that knowledge in those instances, and the capacity to fully analyse that same knowledge.

If so, how can the defender? A vigorous attack to cause maximum discomfort and force a peace, after all, looks exactly like an attack simply meant to cause pain for pain's sake.

It also will usually look like an attack that will cause much more damage.

[Krill]

Regarding PB37 specifically...I don't see how any player just randomly gives up land. All the defensive measures that were taken to protect Mandrake were necessary to protect all of the island cities and also doubled up as effective offensive options to take all further island cities. All of the measures taken to attack Mandrake by Carthage also apply to effectively attacking the other island cities.

The only options available there, which are comparable to the question you ask, you can answer yourself: Under what circumstances, after the first war, would you have not researched Astronomy on a beeline? Under what circumstances would you not take reasonable options to defend your in-game holdings?

In PB40...settling such a...bare front city and cramming Henge into it, seems like a reasonable play if you are trying to force this response to attempt to capitalize on misplaced units. It's a gambit, it can work, but expecting to give up the city?! That just seems nonsensical. You want to isolate the attacking units, kill them piecemeal, heal up and then smash China. I'd argue that Couer was about 7 turns too fast on finishing Henge, 7 more turns of building units and he'd have been well placed to make this gambit work. Right now, giving up the city only makes sense if it's a decision between giving up the city and saving the units, but the moment he moves the units out, they are significantly more vulnerable to attack. If he had a method of retreat though, maybe? Depends how you value units then.

[Lewwyn]

Hi

I just noticed that the timer has run out for you. I think we are in the same timezone CEST if I'm not mistaken. On week days I have to work from 8 to 17 and can't play. So take your time, I won't be home until 18 o'clock.

Bye

Also received this PM. Kill this sanctimonious asshole. Timer was 11:30 when I played btw.

I'm a student during the holidays, and I'm much smarter than you, Charriu.

Ah, to be young again.

Coeurva is definitely misreading the situation. I think his devotion to one perception limits him for sure. But yeah those are the feels.

[Commodore]

I think charitably consigning this to youth is the right call. Charriu is, let's face it, a downright sweetheart, which makes the juxtaposition with Coeur's cartoon image of him as "spiteful sanctimonious idiot savant" all the more comical.

In an alternate reality where he built Henge in the Oracle city he's very near a shrine.

[Bacchus]

In PB40...settling such a...bare front city and cramming Henge into it, seems like a reasonable play if you are trying to force this response to attempt to capitalize on misplaced units. It's a gambit, it can work, but expecting to give up the city?! That just seems nonsensical.

So, yeah, you are right. Except that's not what Couerva did, and he was surprised and annoyed by the response, dealing with which, he thinks, loses him the game.

Going back to general considerations, I do kind of feel that you are right about the defender probably NEVER purposefully giving up territory under AI diplo, compensated by players trying to avoid situations where neighbours would be triggered into 'give this up or we both die' rages. Or not trying

Edit: Read the latest ramble. We really shouldn't let Coeurva play anymore, for his own sake. Jesus. And yeah, reality TV comment very funny.

[WilliamLP]

By the way, how do you guys feel about my posts in Coeurva's thread? Am I getting too close to helping him win the game? What I want to tell him is, spend less energy on criticizing how Charriu plays, and more in calculating how to win given the new circumstances. This is probably an impossible mission though - he's on full tilt.

Thinking, well I guess I'll stay out of it from here other than very neutral comments and questions. OT4E has figured out that his best role is something akin to a sports psychologist anyway.

Bacchus: I don't know, Charriu had an interesting idea trying to signal this by showing peace for Schilda in a trade window. Maybe cities in trade windows could be allowed, but for signalling only? But probably, inclined to go with, if it ain't broke...?

[Krill]

In PB40...settling such a...bare front city and cramming Henge into it, seems like a reasonable play if you are trying to force this response to attempt to capitalize on misplaced units. It's a gambit, it can work, but expecting to give up the city?! That just seems nonsensical.

So, yeah, you are right. Except that's not what Couerva did, and he was surprised and annoyed by the response, dealing with which, he thinks, loses him the game.

I acknowledge that one way of reading my post is as a criticism of Couers understanding of both people and general strategy. And it's probably the most accurate read imo. But it's no different than mistakes many players have made in not putting information together. The reaction is...less constrained but that's youth and naivety and, frankly, arrogance. But who am I to judge? Respect your opponents capabilities, and figure out what they can do to beat you. Then none of this happens.

Going back to general considerations, I do kind of feel that you are right about the defender probably NEVER purposefully giving up territory under AI diplo, compensated by players trying to avoid situations where neighbours would be triggered into 'give this up or we both die' rages. Or not trying

Maybe to lay a trap? Or to gain an immediate advantage that does not rely on a an opponent's "agreement"? But I figure this is a limit of AI Diplo, just as how we carve up land in a dogpile is based around forces on the ground at that time more than long term considerations. But that's a difference between giving up what is already mine, and what is already on the table for negotiation.

Edit: Read the latest ramble. We really shouldn't let Coeurva play anymore, for his own sake. Jesus. And yeah, reality TV comment very funny.

Life experience. Next game I play he can dedlurk and something will change.

[Krill]

In PB40...settling such a...bare front city and cramming Henge into it, seems like a reasonable play if you are trying to force this response to attempt to capitalize on misplaced units. It's a gambit, it can work, but expecting to give up the city?! That just seems nonsensical.

So, yeah, you are right. Except that's not what Couerva did, and he was surprised and annoyed by the response, dealing with which, he thinks, loses him the game.

I acknowledge that one way of reading my post is as a criticism of Couers understanding of both people and general strategy. And it's probably the most accurate read imo. But it's no different than mistakes many players have made in not putting information together. The reaction is...less constrained but that's youth and naivety and, frankly, arrogance. But who am I to judge? Respect your opponents capabilities, and figure out what they can do to beat you. Then none of this happens.

Going back to general considerations, I do kind of feel that you are right about the defender probably NEVER purposefully giving up territory under AI diplo, compensated by players trying to avoid situations where neighbours would be triggered into 'give this up or we both die' rages. Or not trying

Maybe to lay a trap? Or to gain an immediate advantage that does not rely on a an opponent's "agreement"? But I figure this is a limit of AI Diplo, just as how we carve up land in a dogpile is based around forces on the ground at that time more than long term considerations. But that's a difference between giving up what is already mine, and what is already on the table for negotiation.

Edit: Read the latest ramble. We really shouldn't let Coeurva play anymore, for his own sake. Jesus. And yeah, reality TV comment very funny.

Life experience. Next game I play he can dedlurk and something will change.

[Mardoc]

My question is this: can an attacker with limited goals ever hope the defender to figure out those goals under AI Diplo?

The crux comes down to capability. If someone is capable of completing a limited war successfully, and economically, they are usually able to do a lot more damage. So the question any defender has, is do they trust an attacker to just stop there? That involves a lot of knowledge and understanding about a person as a player, not just a complete understanding of the gamestate. How many of us can say we have all that knowledge in those instances, and the capacity to fully analyse that same knowledge.

Agreed - the real problem is that if you can break the frontier, you can take more than just the border cities and probably should.  So they have to assume you will.

Maybe there's a special case for truly indefensible pink dots.  But other than that, the only way is to take what you want and then offer peace, I think.

I have to admit, I'm having more sympathy for Coeurva the longer Charriu just sits his army there.  Coeurva is getting fortification bonus, more units, and soon he'll get the culture pop too.  It's not going to get any easier for Charriu - now's the time to take the army teleporting home and go hit someone else.

Edit: by the way how do you guys feel about my posts in Coeurva's thread? Am I getting too close to helping him win the game? What I want to tell him is, spend less energy on criticizing how Charriu plays, and more in calculating how to win given the new circumstances. This is probably an impossible mission though - dude's too used to being right to know when he's wrong.

I had the same temptation, but I came down on the same side as you: probably not quite kosher to tell him that now, even though it's super tempting and would be good for his mental equilibrium too if he could do it.

Even the very most basic bit: he needs to focus on giving Charriu tangible reasons to back off, rather than assuming that they're both in the same spot on the 'I know that he knows that I know...' iteration curve.  He's busy with a perspective of 'look, 10 turns from now you're going to be sitting outside my city still with more wasted hammers' and ignoring that Charriu is looking 1-2 turns in the future, seeing no units lost and deciding that he will stay at war one more turn and then consider the question again.

Given how Charriu is playing, Coeurva ought to be able to start picking off units at a favorable exchange rate, somewhere, but that would be less efficient than fortifying archers, so he's not doing it.

[Hollybombay]

So how would we rank everyone currently? Coeurva-shallow-magic-charriu-superdeath-rfs?

Very curious how this game is going to turn out if he decides to just whip and punish Charriu.