PBEM26 PostGame Thread

[yuris125]

But I can see why they did it. While Regoarrarr and Pindicator were allied, they literally had no chances of winning. The path to victory becomes 1) Break up the alliance then 2) Get really really lucky. Well, 1) wasn't happening, and I can see that being immensely frustrating. Why don't those guys understand that only one of them can win? Playing this as 2 v 1 v 1 v 1 is just incredibly unfair. Voting one of them the winner is a statement: look, see what I've been trying to tell you these last 50 turns? Only one of you can win. So there! It's the cheesy diplo victory equivalent of putting up a good defense against someone going for domination.

QFT

I hope the way I'm holding on to my last 2 cities in PBEM20 shows that I'm generally not inclined to ragequit games I have no chance of winning

You make a very good point about diplo games being good ways for new people to make friends and become more integrated into the RB community. While I definitely see the appeal of a CTON or no-diplo game and plan on doing more of them in the future, I think it is important that we continue to hold full diplo games here: I've gotten to know everyone here better for it, and that is probably what I will remember this game most for. So when I see the vets talk more and more disparagingly about diplo games, I can understand the reasoning, but I hope RB doesn't do away with the diplo game entirely. It is good for the growth of this site and for helping new people feel more comfortable about participating here more. I plan on doing more in the future, and I will continue to act in my civ's best interests, just as I hope everyone else I play against will continue to do the same.

I think slightly limited diplo I proposed in my thread could work. Players can talk and exchange information (including screenshots), but they can only sign deals which are possible in single player. So no border agreements, no NAPs, and definitely no game-long alliances. I feel the normal full diplo revolves around NAPs too much, so this limitation could actually make diplo more fun

[scooter]

I hate to jump in on a post-game discussion for a game I didn't really follow until recently, but Seven made a great post here (though I disagree with several things) and I think I have a good enough grasp of this game to comment on it.

People often have really skewed mental models of who's winning and by how much, and this can cause them to act in ways that seem irrationally spiteful to others, even though in reality the players are just grasping at the one distant glimmer of hope they can imagine.

Nailed this. I've been guilty of this myself too... When you're playing a game and watching a demographic screen get out of control it's easy to hit the panic button and try to swing some deal that seems illogical to an omniscient lurker but seems like your only choice. Completely agree with this and everything you said before it.

This game is a bit different IMO. Voting for someone else to literally win obviously decreases your chances of winning.* That's some real spite! But I can see why they did it. While Regoarrarr and Pindicator were allied, they literally had no chances of winning. The path to victory becomes 1) Break up the alliance then 2) Get really really lucky. Well, 1) wasn't happening, and I can see that being immensely frustrating. Why don't those guys understand that only one of them can win? Playing this as 2 v 1 v 1 v 1 is just incredibly unfair. Voting one of them the winner is a statement: look, see what I've been trying to tell you these last 50 turns? Only one of you can win. So there! It's the cheesy diplo victory equivalent of putting up a good defense against someone going for domination.

I actually disagree with the bolded part completely. Some of the complaints talk as if the top two players just up and decided to ally and split the world... but that's not realy an accurate depiction of what happened here. What really happened was two players allied early on and as a result swung several mutually beneficial deals which, combined with their individual strong play, put them in the top two positions. So it's unfair that they rode their alliance out to a strong position? Or is it fair that they put the effort into it and reaped the rewards? And is it just unlucky/unfair to the guys left out or is it their fault they didn't try harder to crack the alliance? Regoarrar clearly had many reasons he could've turned on Pindicator because of things Pindicator did, but none of the other players really tried hard to talk him into it. I saw that Gaspar (I think) floated the idea when the Berserker extortion happened, but it was just that - a rough idea that wasn't heavily pressed. I think with better effort that team could've made a really convincing case that Regoarrar could trust them more than Pindicator, but (correct me if I'm wrong)... they never really tried. So I just don't see how the ending situation was unfair.

Here's another way to look at it. Rego threw the game to Pindicator by not being willing to call off the alliance. He also forced the other players into a painful slog of a game with no chances of winning. Is that really better than throwing the game to Pindicator by AP vote (when he's already very likely to win) and saving everyone some time? I'm not sure I would have done that but it doesn't seem like a shocking development to me and I don't see it as a particularly egregious violation of Playing To Win, as these things go.

I'm not sure how the two even compare. I think you're using the phrase "threw the game" a bit too loosely here. Maybe he hurt his chances of winning, but his chances of winning were still pretty solid. The other example of ending with an AP vote is not only a far more extreme version of "throwing the game" - but it's just ending it without the agreement of all players and picking an arbitrary winner. I've played in several games where we called it a game early, but in all of those games we chose not to do so until it was unaninimous. And even then, we agreed on a draw when it was appropriate (PBEM3/PBEM14) and picked a winner when it was appropriate (PBEM7). The reason for this is like I said in the lurker thread - if you sign up for a game, you agree to finish it. Ending it just because you get bored is not particularly fair, much more so than being on the wrong side of an alliance because other players outplayed you.

My point is this. Yes, several players were in a lousy situation that they weren't enjoying that much, but it wasn't because they were ripped off, but because they got outplayed... in which case ending the game out of spite is pretty uncool for Regoarrar and no comparisons really change that fact.

[scooter]

As for the comments about diplo games vs no diplo games... I recognize and agree that the current state of full diplo NTT games are kinda broken. I have no interest in ever playing another game where the diplo is on the insane scale PBEM14 was. No coincidence that I haven't joined another diplo game since then...

That said, I agree with Pindicator's comments about the benefits of diplo. I've gotten to know a lot of members much better from diplo conversations that devolved into idle chats and I do enjoy that. On a different tack - I think PBEM20 (tech trading on and all trading allowed but no communication allowed) and PB7 (no diplo except in a central thread) are both examples of different approaches that can work well without turning every PBEM into a CTON.

[Commodore]

As for the comments about diplo games vs no diplo games... I recognize and agree that the current state of full diplo NTT games are kinda broken. I have no interest in ever playing another game where the diplo is on the insane scale PBEM14 was. No coincidence that I haven't joined another diplo game since then...

That said, I agree with Pindicator's comments about the benefits of diplo. I've gotten to know a lot of members much better from diplo conversations that devolved into idle chats and I do enjoy that. On a different tack - I think PBEM20 (tech trading on and all trading allowed but no communication allowed) and PB7 (no diplo except in a central thread) are both examples of different approaches that can work well without turning every PBEM into a CTON.

+1 this, particularly the PBEM 20 model. Obviously, it often comes down to time, too though...Gaspar is kind of burned out from 14 too, but for me I enjoy diplo at times but I just cannot sink in the time for it, so I chat, go with gut, and often enough really miss it with erroneous assumptions.

Oh, the other thing is, and I think Noble Helium can attest to this one too: All potential teammates, Gaspar is always right about people and generally prophetic about their behaviors. Stop being Trojans and listen to Cassie. I am officially, as he said, a silly bastard for not listening to him, although even if I had I'm not sure what could have been done. Maybe working a little harder at cracking the alliance via Pin, but that's generally not something that works well...

[SIZE="1"]Worked in 19 except that GES had handed over the reigns by that point...sigh...[/SIZE]

[regoarrarr]

I find it somewhat amusing (and frustrating because I don't think it was a great game for me) that we are STILL rehashing the end of PB4

I do appreciate the similarities between the end-games and do understand where Gaspadore and Yuri are coming from when they voted for Pindicator at the end. I'm more annoyed with Pindicator for floating the vote in the first place.

I actually disagree with the bolded part completely. Some of the complaints talk as if the top two players just up and decided to ally and split the world... but that's not realy an accurate depiction of what happened here. What really happened was two players allied early on and as a result swung several mutually beneficial deals which, combined with their individual strong play, put them in the top two positions. So it's unfair that they rode their alliance out to a strong position? Or is it fair that they put the effort into it and reaped the rewards? And is it just unlucky/unfair to the guys left out or is it their fault they didn't try harder to crack the alliance?

Thanks Scooter - I agree with this a lot. I tried to make this point earlier upthread when there was talk of "#1 an #2 deciding to gang up on the rest of the world" - the alliance was one of the main REASONS that we were #1 and #2. And even back 20-30 turns ago, Pindicator floated the idea to me of, if I wanted to, dissolving our alliance, but at that time I was having the most fun working with him and didn't want to "cheat on him"

Is that really better than throwing the game to Pindicator by AP vote (when he's already very likely to win)

I don't know how much you were following the game Seven - and I grant that I may not have all the information, but I DEFINITELY would not classify Pindicator, in the modern war between us, as "very likely to win". I'd say I had at least a 40% chance, if not better. (Again, I may be overstating my own chances, due to either hubris or just not knowing all the facts)

[SevenSpirits]

I should clarify that the part of my post after "But I can see why they did it." was meant to be from the limited perspective of Gaspadore and Yuri, and protests as to its correctness should be referred to the first part of the post.

I said at the end that I don't see the diplo victory as a particularly egregious violation of playing to win, and I stand by that. That doesn't mean I condone it though. Realistically, Civ as we play it here (at the very least, in diplo games where we honor our agreements) has serious problems in this area which show up time and time again, and the fact that they take the form of an AP victory in this case is not a big difference to me.

[Gaspar]

I said at the end that I don't see the diplo victory as a particularly egregious violation of playing to win, and I stand by that. That doesn't mean I condone it though. Realistically, Civ as we play it here (at the very least, in diplo games where we honor our agreements) has serious problems in this area which show up time and time again, and the fact that they take the form of an AP victory in this case is not a big difference to me.

This.

What, fundamentally is the difference between a 100 turn NAP you refuse to break with a player you cannot catch peacefully and voting them winner? Either way, you've decided to tie your hands in such a way as to be unable to impact the outcome. Like I said, this is why I don't play intend to play live diplo games anymore.*

[SIZE="1"]*Of course, I'll probably not play any regular games either after 29 since I've finally accepted I'm just good enough to lose in sad fashion.[/SIZE]

[regoarrarr]

This.

What, fundamentally is the difference between a 100 turn NAP you refuse to break with a player you cannot catch peacefully and voting them winner? Either way, you've decided to tie your hands in such a way as to be unable to impact the outcome. Like I said, this is why I don't play intend to play live diplo games anymore.*

Again, I was not under the belief that Pindicator would have steamrolled me in our "duel" after you and yuri were gone. Now, having looked through some of his late-game screens, perhaps I was deluding myself. But that was not the case during the game.

I do understand and agree with your quote above, had I felt I couldn't beat him otherwise.

[pindicator]

[SIZE="1"]*Of course, I'll probably not play any regular games either after 29 since I've finally accepted I'm just good enough to lose in sad fashion.[/SIZE]

I hope you can find some fun in future games, Gaspar. You are a ton of fun to lurk, especially your back and forth with Noble in 29. Sometimes I need to reassess what my goal is: for example in 23...

(pbem23 spoiler)

I'm just playing for fun now. I know I'm going to get creamed eventually, by Yuri or mackoti or seven. But until then I'm going to try to be a pain in someone's side and that is fun for me.

So I hope you can find things in these games that are fun for you too, because I love reading your threads.

Edit: Thanks for the heads up, Noble!

Again, I was not under the belief that Pindicator would have steamrolled me in our "duel" after you and yuri were gone. Now, having looked through some of his late-game screens, perhaps I was deluding myself. But that was not the case during the game.

I do understand and agree with your quote above, had I felt I couldn't beat him otherwise.

Yeah, that last golden age really kicked things into overdrive. I'm still wondering how I passed you so quickly, but I'm guessing I had more infrastructure down since I was emphasizing hammers so hard. Anyway, I hope we can rematch / team up for the future.

Or maybe we need to play a duel to settle this?

[mackoti]

Perhaps i dont understand civ too good and diplomacy,but how could Rego consider working with Pindicator after bersekersers episode?