PBEM 24 Thread for Gifted Lurkers

[SevenSpirits]

When I tested the map, they did not pillage unless they'd just killed a unit on that same tile. Maybe I just got ridiculously lucky?

Edit: It seems they only pillage when they start the turn on the tile, and don't target fishing nets from afar. This means (given the number of subs and water tiles) that there's about a 1.3% chance that any given seafood net in the inner sea will be pillaged on a given turn. Unless of course you leave a unit on the tile, that's like pouring blood into the water.

[Bobchillingworth]

Yeah, maybe animal AI would have been for the best. I don't know what all of the different scripts do, so I chose one which I thought would just have them patrol & sinks boats in visual range. I wouldn't have any great objection if the only change were to adjust the AI so that it still sinks boats but leaves improvements alone. Not that I do or should have any official say in what the players do with the map at this point.



Also I appreciate your post in the Organizing Thread, Seven. I know that the map isn't perfect and that you had some concerns about it, but I think that editing away parts of a map dozens of turns into a game is a bad line to cross. I don't expect to get accepted as a map maker for any BTS games after this, though

[Bobchillingworth]

Ah well, I won't add anything else to the Organizing thread, because I don't want to make this game about me.



Anyway, I think this is all fairly ridiculous. There's nothing "gamebreaking" about the subs. They rarely will pillage, WB are cheap, and there really aren't that many inland sea food resources anyway. TT is going to lose because he's not very good at BTS and has played a mediocre game, not because his stupid jungle-infested city lost a couple fishing nets and has a very low chance of having them pillaged again in the future. If you remove the subs, you fundamentally change the map, and I cannot see the difference between doing so and a player refusing to play further many turns into a game until someone will edit the map to move a strategic resource closer to their lands, or delete an offending mountain chain which slows their expansion.

[novice]

Wouldn't a more likely controversy have been when the first player's loaded galley was sunk? Getting a net pillaged is at least a cheaper way to discover the subs.

[Bobchillingworth]

Yeah. I actually thought that might add an interesting element to the map as well- if a player gets their galley sunk (trying to reach the rich, blocked-off center area most likely), once they reason out what happened, they'd move more carefully in the future and have the option to conceal the dangers from the other players to set them up for their own nasty surprises. Or maybe they could bitch and pretend like losing a galley or WB or whatever is a game-ending blow

[Bobchillingworth]

Subs which enter borders will make the inland sea unusable - who would ever use it with the chances of being hit and the inability to even see where the subs are? There is no guarantees safe haven from them.

Ports, dammit! You can stick the fucking ships in your fucking ports! Or forts! Whichever, as long as you don't end turn in open waters. You can move galleons or even galleys through the inner sea, you just can't do so while avoiding all of the land-based choke points altogether, which was the entire point. You need to actually use tactics and engage with the terrain if you want to attack somebody! Like the players asked for! Aughhh! Plus they're all acting now like jetting about the inner sea was crucial for all their plans, when none of them has displayed the least interest in it until now. To be clear, the subs don't keep anybody from doing anything except skipping the land bridges with galleons, and rarely maybe occasionally possibly threatening a small number of seafood resources. I'm also entirely confounded why the players give the impression that they'd be totally fine if I had used something like 9-move destroyers instead, sinking their boats from the fog & bombarding their defenses, but invisible units are sooo much worse.


I should probably stop lurking this game. But I did want to post my one-sided "rebuttals" here in case any spoiled lurker passes by and wonders "wtf was Bob thinking".

[T-hawk]

This means (given the number of subs and water tiles) that there's about a 1.3% chance that any given seafood net in the inner sea will be pillaged on a given turn.

But the probabilities are not independent turn to turn. Now that those two subs are near TT, would anything cause them to leave? They're likely to stick around TT more or less permanently, so he gets to use no seafood while some other player does.

Bob, what you say doesn't work for galleys, they move only two spaces and you can't build cities two tiles apart. But anyway, it's obvious that none of the players thought of working ship movement port-to-port, and neither did I and probably any other lurkers. If you want the players to jump through that particular hoop, do you want to at least take a stab at telling them of the existence of that hoop?

[SevenSpirits]

But the probabilities are not independent turn to turn. Now that those two subs are near TT, would anything cause them to leave? They're likely to stick around TT more or less permanently, so he gets to use no seafood while some other player does.

The subs have a crazy move speed compared to the size of the sea. Their average location is going to drift away from there really fast. Even a sub right next to TT's clam has a <2% chance of moving to it and extremely high odds of moving away and reducing that chance.

[Bobchillingworth]

Bob, what you say doesn't work for galleys, they move only two spaces and you can't build cities two tiles apart. But anyway, it's obvious that none of the players thought of working ship movement port-to-port, and neither did I and probably any other lurkers. If you want the players to jump through that particular hoop, do you want to at least take a stab at telling them of the existence of that hoop?

Well, it's a moot point, but if you look at the map I posted, players should be able to use the lakes / small sea between the E/W land bridges to safely move units between parts of the Inland Sea even using galleys. With the right placement of forts / ports, boats should be able to reach most tiles on the map. Tactics! Obviously it's simpler to move galleons around.

It would be difficult /impossible to sail galleys up all along the inner coast to attack another player, but again that's intentional.


I couldn't tell them about any of the solutions I see, because that's spoilers.


Of course the players wouldn't have immediately seen the need, but they're building at least the ports anyway because the terrain encourages them to, and the forts are easy to add whenever. I had hoped that they would understand the score once the first minor boat was sunk. I didn't anticipate hissy fits and mass hysteria.

[T-hawk]

The subs have a crazy move speed compared to the size of the sea. Their average location is going to drift away from there really fast.

This is correct. While hacking, I put in some submarines belonging to TT in order to watch the barb subs move around. Yeah, they did clear away pretty quickly.

Well, it's a moot point, but if you look at the map I posted, players should be able to use the lakes / small sea between the E/W land bridges to safely move units between parts of the Inland Sea even using galleys. With the right placement of forts / ports, boats should be able to reach most tiles on the map.

This is true... and also sounds hideously micromanagey, time-consuming (both real and game), very failure prone when your attention inevitably lapses for the one turn that you're playing in a rush, and altogether un-fun. I've been in the same boat (har) as a scenario designer, having crafted a map that players found more frustrating than fun, Adventure 45 being the chief example. Ultimately you have to accept that for the players, their perception is reality. It's not a commentary on your skills as a designer. Even Michael Jordan missed plenty of shots.

That all said, I will agree with you that TT overreacted in threatening to ragequit. Enduring some barbarian submarines is a lesser evil than blowing up a game entirely.