Epic Forty-one: Balance of Power

[Kylearan]

nt

[Justus_II]

Originally posted by bihary@May 17 2004, 02:34 PM
Also, thanx for pointing out that score is an averaged quantity, it is not easy to change it very fast, so its continuous monitoring is very important. The only way score does change very fast is when a civ gets eliminated. A power's accumulated score stays more or less in line with the others', even if she gets a serious beating. But when she dies, it goes down to zero.

I may need to double-check, I think the "eliminated civ's score is zero" is true in C3C 1.15, but I know in PTW their accumulated score remained, gradually diminishing as more turns of non-existance averaged in against their turns of existence. That was dropped from C3C, but added back in with one of the patches, but I don't remember which one, whether it was 1.15 or 1.20, or 1.22, or 1.23453 or whatever we are now at. Anyway, I will try to double-check tonight, as it may make a difference for a civ on the verge of extinction as you near the end of an age.

[Griselda]

In 1.15, a "dead" civ's score is no longer shown on the histogram screen, but in 1.20, it's back. This is a 1.15 Epic, and even if it wasn't we decided to give dead civs a score of 0 to encourage people to keep as many civs as possible in the game.

-Griselda

[Sirian]

we decided to give dead civs a score of 0 to encourage people to keep as many civs as possible in the game.

That's going to be a problem. I suggest not zeroing the score. (If that means running the event on the latest patch, or postponing this event until a suitable patch is available, I'd do that.)

I managed to keep all the civs in the game in Epic 36, but there were some players who could not, and some like Kylearan who could have but chose not to because of the extremity of some of the moves involved in doing that.

Players who luck out and don't have their balancing work undone by untimely AI-on-AI wars may coast, while others will have to take extreme measures to intervene, if that is even possible. That's the nature of this scenario, but the zero score for eliminated civs will only further magnify the impact of the dice.


- Sirian

[Charis]

Well you hit on the one item we discussed at greatest length. In the end, we thought that if
this variant was worth doing at all, it needed that incentive to keep civs alive. Does this potentially increase the effect of the dice? Yes. Could one game have a very untimely AI-on-AI war? Yes. Could someone uncomfortable with a higher potential variability in the score end up frustrated? Yes. Will other people who have a brutal time keeping a weak civ alive but succeeding enjoy it? Yes :P
Do keep in mind that the difference in practice will be one score out of six being counted as a zero instead of that one being a very small number (just survived, vs wiped out).

For those willing to try, I do think it will be a fun game, and will help answer a very old question - to what extent can the player influence the course of history for other civs, not just his own.

Charis

[Kylearan]

Will other people who have a brutal time keeping a weak civ alive but succeeding enjoy it?

That depends. The only problem I have with this is that keeping a weak civ alive most probably will lead to what in my mind is an exploit: Forming a ring of units around the dying civ's last city so that the other warring civs won't be able to reach it. (Why call this an exploit? Because that's clearly a situation the AI is unable to recognize as an aggression against it, like parking a scout on a resource, and hence is unable to respond to in a meaningful way.)

That will only be a problem for late in the game, though, because if a civ perishes early, there's not much difference between zero and nearly zero score. And if an AI is about to die later in the game, you have other means of stopping the aggressor, like attacking him yourself - so I guess I'll try to stick to that for added challenge and have to live with other results achieved through blockades.

-Kylearan

[Jabah]

Interesting concept.

I think that giving cities to an AI should be ban, it will be a too 'easy' way to :
- reduce your score
- improve an AI score
- make a weak AI survive (without really getting involved in the situation/protection)

What are your opinions on that subject ?

Jabah

[Justus_II]

I'd have to agree with Jabah. Propping up a weak AI with resources or tech deals seems to be part of the spirit, but giving them 4 'secure' cities in your backyard would seem too easy. In fact, you could go on a conquering spree, then 'redistribute the wealth' as you see fit, in plenty of time to let the scores equalize before the next era. I think the intent is to influence their development, not play real estate broker.

Besides, historically, I certainly couldn't picture the English telling the Ottomans, "hey, your empire is crumbling, why don't you all move to Ireland?"

[Sir Bugsy]

I was thinking that playing Robin Hood, might be one of the best ways to do well in this variant. If you can take from the rich, but can't give to the poor; that plan would be out.

Edit - cross-posted with Justus. I can see his point. I suppose we would need to have some definition here. How about gifting a civ back one of their own cities? Say Istabul was captured. Could you go grab it and give it back to Osman?

[Justus_II]

Originally posted by Sir Bugsy@May 18 2004, 11:39 AM
Edit - cross-posted with Justus. I can see his point. I suppose we would need to have some definition here. How about gifting a civ back one of their own cities? Say Istabul was captured. Could you go grab it and give it back to Osman?

Now that would make some sense, kind of like the 'peacekeepers' coming in to re-establish the pre-war boundaries. I like that idea, but I'll leave it to the experts to see if it would be good or bad for the scenario. It does seem in keeping with the spirit, though.