PB9 Post-game Thread

[Qgqqqqq]

Hold on, what demands did you receive?
This is ages ago, but I don't remember any demands being made on either of our part - was there any text entered?

[Cornflakes]

Hold on, what demands did you receive?
This is ages ago, but I don't remember any demands being made on either of our part - was there any text entered?

No, he's right. Thinking back I do remember at least 2-3 times sending an offer with just him giving a resource or tech ... but not as a demand, rather hoping for an offer in return. IIRC I did not have any resource duplicates that you didn't have, but you had maybe Crab/Horse/SomeLuxury that I lacked. I do not know what something like that should be valued at cash price, so rather than name a price I offered for nothing to wait for a counter offer. Receiving none I assumed you were not interested in trading, not that you took those as an arrogant demand

I did the same to Commodore for Stone. Ask Stone for nothing, he responds with price (Communism, I think). I wait 10 turns or so until I was ready to construct Oxford and then made the trade. Ironically I never turned on research after building oxford

[Bigger]

Hold on, what demands did you receive?
This is ages ago, but I don't remember any demands being made on either of our part - was there any text entered?

I did the same to Commodore for Stone. Ask Stone for nothing, he responds with price (Communism, I think). I wait 10 turns or so until I was ready to construct Oxford and then made the trade. Ironically I never turned on research after building oxford

heh, I finished oxford 1 turn before you conceded.

[2metraninja]

Well, I guess "no talking" and community specific "folklore" have those fun effects as turning simple trade enquire in to a serious insult resulting in dogpile I remember scene from Star Wars (I think it was in it) where an alien says something which no one is sure if it is an offer for marriage or threat to cut someone's head

I wont put my life on this, but I am almost 100% sure there was a deal which was demanding city/cities from me, which is already unacceptable. For me at least it is normal to offer something on the table when you want trade. Always the one who initiates the deal must have a price in his mind and to offer it. If I think the price is too small, I will return you a deal which I think is more appropriate, but to receive trade with only me giving something, I can hardly think it is "Tell me the price you want for this"

Being a new here I tried to more look and listen than do bold (and arguably stupid) things. But I never could be sure how people treat this kind of deals and what power they have. Like I wanted to attack you while you were fighting Azza, as I knew where this will end, but then, I was told by a lurker that the seemingly innocent deal sheep for sheep or was it clam for clam, which I took lightly, actually means I agree to something like NAP with you.

Same with "future attack on someone" thing, which offers I think I did not only to Cf to attack Bigger, but to others too. Cant say or remember if someone else took it or not. Of course I was all the time with the impression it is allowed, as I had read in the rules that "it can specify which turn exactly he means" and thought it is what this means. A bit later on, when I was told it is illegal, I was told this is very easily circumnavigated by offering gpt deal in return for "attack Xxxxx" deal. For example you start with 10 gpt, then the next turn you offer 9 gpt, 8 gpt, and at some point the other accepts this gpt, so you know he got the idea and you are both planning to attack on the very same turn your victim. Neat, eh? A bit of going around the rule, but you can offer gpt for attack on someone else in AI diplomacy, right? Problem here was again I do not know if you were going to interpret it the same way I do and get what I mean. Where, on the other hand, another trade proposal, which I think was wide used in this game "10 turns peace + I declare war to Xxxxx" is of course illegal if we stick to the "only what can be offered to an AI" principle.

Another example of obscured "no talk to each other" and "only AI diplomacy" is when you offer "declare war to Xxxxx". Does this mean that you BOTH agree to declare war? Or it can be like you buy some stupid AI to declare war to other AI when you happily tech ahead? Or even if you are already in war with given Xxxxxx civ and you offer to Yyyyyyy "Declare war to Xxxxxx" for some hefty price, does this obliges you somehow to keep fighting with Xxxxxxx, or once Yyyyyyy attack Xxxxxx, you can happily sign peace with Xxxxxx and let those 2 stupid ba$tards kill each-other? Or does accepting "Declare war to Xxxxxx" deal means that beside declaring formally war in - game (having the red sign WAR with that civ), are you obliged to actually make any fights with Xxxxxxx? You declared war, you did what you were asked and payed for. Isnt it better for yourself to skip the fighting part if your opponents are fighting?

I for myself find that AI deals only have not less imperfections than full diplo. And I being human want to use my social skills in a game against other thinking and social humans.


I understand your reasons behind "dogpiles = punishing players for good play" Krill, but I think this is easier cured with full diplo allowed. We cant avoid the fact we are playing humans and everyone will attempt to win. So his/hers social and political and diplomatic and planning ahead skills to a test. If we want to simply test pure civ4-game mechanincs skills, tactics and strategies, I think this is best tested in duels, or in GoTM games style.

[Bigger]

cornflakes - I interpreted your one way deals the same way 2metra did - as a demand. I guess Commodore is a more clever code breaker than the 2 of us . I always just put some offer out there when I want to start negotiations.

2metra, people do trade sheep for sheep as an indication they have peaceful intentions, but its certainly nothing like a NAP. You should have attacked when you wanted too.

[Serdoa]

I for myself find that AI deals only have not less imperfections than full diplo. And I being human want to use my social skills in a game against other thinking and social humans.

I understand your reasons behind "dogpiles = punishing players for good play" Krill, but I think this is easier cured with full diplo allowed. We cant avoid the fact we are playing humans and everyone will attempt to win. So his/hers social and political and diplomatic and planning ahead skills to a test. If we want to simply test pure civ4-game mechanincs skills, tactics and strategies, I think this is best tested in duels, or in GoTM games style.

I think joining a community that has decided over nearly a hundred games of Civ4 and FFH2 that full diplo isn't working the way the want it and telling them that they are wrong because you personally want to have full diplomacy isn't really a great showing of your social skills.

But feel free to offer such a full diplomacy game. If you find enough people and have fun with it, who am I to tell you differently.

[Jowy]

We actually don't have enough data to determine if full diplomacy works or not. Most diplo games were very early games which had a ton of other problems, which are often wrongly attributed to diplomacy. Serdoa you're saying it like it's a fact that full diplo is bad, but it's not a fact. It's an opinion, and it's okay for 2M to have a differing opinion.

[SevenSpirits]

a community that has decided over nearly a hundred games of Civ4 and FFH2 that full diplo isn't working the way they want it

Serdoa you're saying it like it's a fact that full diplo is bad

No he's not.

[Old Harry]

I for myself find that AI deals only have not less imperfections than full diplo. And I being human want to use my social skills in a game against other thinking and social humans.

I think joining a community that has decided over nearly a hundred games of Civ4 and FFH2 that full diplo isn't working the way the want it and telling them that they are wrong because you personally want to have full diplomacy isn't really a great showing of your social skills.

Well that's a bit mean isn't it Serdoa? I don't understand what 2metra said to deserve that, the same as I didn't see snark where Bigger did. Aren't we allowed to have different opinions about what makes the game fun?

By the way there are a few full-diplo games going on at the moment - the Demogame, Erebus in the Balance PBEM XXVIII and PB14, so I'm sure you'll find another one eventually if you want to sign on 2metra.

[Fintourist]

Well, if I would have to read "you don't seem to have much experience" along with the claim "that players were just lacking meta-gaming skills" from a player who just lost the game (and according to my understanding was not in an especially strong position at any time during the game) I think I would be a lot more pissed off than Bigger was..