Re: Fog of War Game Resolution

**da_Vinci** · 12-22-2009, 08:29 AM

Originally Posted by Niklas

Well, our side/alliance in this game had an agreement from the start that we would attempt to gain the upper hand, conquer the world, and then duke it out amongst ourselves until only 2 remained. I tend to agree with Exploit in that a full alliance "victory" is a rather cheesy way out. I'll definitely see Rusten as the sole winner of this game, after it's completed.

I suppose one way to ensure this kind of ending occurs (or at least to promote it) is to have domination and conquest (or only conquest) as the only active in-game victory conditions?

dV

**da_Vinci** · 12-22-2009, 08:38 AM

Rusten has to re do (or complete) his interrupted turn, I think I will not play before he does ... if I don't get back tonight before the turn flip, I'd suggest I play first next turn and the turns following? That would avoid a double move, just reposition who is first or second around the turn flips.

Alternatively, if someone is available to pause the game then unpause it to add about 1 or 2 two hours to the flip once everyone else has played, that should get me in comfortably.

dV

**Exploit** · 12-23-2009, 12:21 AM

Originally Posted by da_Vinci

I suppose one way to ensure this kind of ending occurs (or at least to promote it) is to have domination and conquest (or only conquest) as the only active in-game victory conditions?

dV

I think your misunderstanding the point. The point isn't that the other allowed victory conditions aren't desirable or that domination or conquest victories are the only victories that should be allowed. The point is that an "alliance win", greater than possibly two people in an actual permanent alliance, was not an actual victory condition in the game.

Rusten's diplomatic victory is valid. There often comes a point in multi-player games when you realize that you cannot win, at which point all you can do is play the role of king maker and choose who you want to win. Or as in my case you may make a faustian deal to sell your vote for peace or some other such thing gambling that it won't cost you the game.

For Rusten's allies to realize that they cannot beat him and say I cannot win but Rusten has been a strong ally all game therefore I think he deserves to win is a totally valid reason to vote for him. There are many valid reasons for voting for someone else to win the game. Even the reasoning that our alliance has crushed the other alliance and I do not want to fight my allies therefore I will vote for our strongest player to win is valid.

What is not valid is the reasoning that if I vote for my ally and he wins the game then I also win because he was my ally. The Rusten Alliance had excellent teamwork and loyalty and Rusten probably would not have won the game without their help therefore acknowledging their contribution to his victory is fine. To claim that the entire alliance won is objectionable and detrimental to the quality of future games in my opinion.

It's frustrating from my point of view to play with fanatically loyal players who are willing to sacrifice their own best interests to support an "alliance victory" condition that doesn't exist under the deluded reasoning that they win as long as someone in their alliance wins. That was the logic fallacy that ruined the ending of this game in my opinion. Loyalty is a virtue but understand the "official" victory conditions and play accordingly.

**Bernout** · 12-23-2009, 02:15 AM

Originally Posted by Exploit

What is not valid is the reasoning that if I vote for my ally and he wins the game then I also win because he was my ally. The Rusten Alliance had excellent teamwork and loyalty and Rusten probably would not have won the game without their help therefore acknowledging their contribution to his victory is fine. To claim that the entire alliance won is objectionable and detrimental to the quality of future games in my opinion.

It's frustrating from my point of view to play with fanatically loyal players who are willing to sacrifice their own best interests to support an "alliance victory" condition that doesn't exist under the deluded reasoning that they win as long as someone in their alliance wins. That was the logic fallacy that ruined the ending of this game in my opinion. Loyalty is a virtue but understand the "official" victory conditions and play accordingly.

I think you might be splitting hairs here. Voting for an ally as you mentioned can be done for any number of reasons. What people expect to get out of the game is also as varied as the players themselves. Just because someone is not the official victor is not really going to change anything in the larger scheme of things. Hopefully we all had some fun in the game and usually the ending of the game is the acknowledgement from everyone that it is time to move on.

The bottom line for PitSuc, assuming a diplomatic victory takes place as expected, is that Rusten will be the sole official winner for the game and the game will have ended as per the specified end game conditions.

Now, if you would have liked to see more of an effort to take Rusten down, then I think daV is on the right track when he talks about changing the end game conditions or at the very least the expectations of the players when the game is started. The PitSuc game is a classic example of this. We've modified the game structure with the hope of creating a more balanced and competitive game while at the same time hopefully bringing some new players into our ranks.

Bernout

**da_Vinci** · 12-23-2009, 04:25 AM

Originally Posted by Exploit

What is not valid is the reasoning that if I vote for my ally and he wins the game then I also win because he was my ally. The Rusten Alliance had excellent teamwork and loyalty and Rusten probably would not have won the game without their help therefore acknowledging their contribution to his victory is fine. To claim that the entire alliance won is objectionable and detrimental to the quality of future games in my opinion.

It's frustrating from my point of view to play with fanatically loyal players who are willing to sacrifice their own best interests to support an "alliance victory" condition that doesn't exist under the deluded reasoning that they win as long as someone in their alliance wins. That was the logic fallacy that ruined the ending of this game in my opinion. Loyalty is a virtue but understand the "official" victory conditions and play accordingly.

Its the "eye of the beholder" that has got you on this point.

You probably can't change how people choose to personally interpret the result of an "unoffical alliance" victory. In the game, there is one winnner. Officially, all others lost. If some want to interpret that as an unofficial co-victory, you can criticize it, but don't expect to change their minds.

And from your perspective, I see (and respect) your preference for a game where everyone does everything to promote their own official victory. So does it really matter if they vote for Rusten for the valid reasons you mention, or for the invalid one of co-victory? Either one deprives you of the opportunity to continue this game as a free-for-all, in equal measure, doesn't it?

What we need for Exploit is a game with this advertisement: "Are you tired of Pitboss games with premature resolution? With lame unofficial alliances and disingenuous "team victories"? Then come and join Exploit's Brutal Backstabbing Free-For-All King of the Hill Challenge." In part I jest, but an up front specification of that game goal may be the way to set up game conditions and recruit the kind of players that would make it a reality.

dV

**Ebenezer** · 12-23-2009, 04:44 AM

Maybe we need a purse. $10 per player, all proceeds to the winner.

Of course then I'd have to join less games, as I'm rather poor.

And that wouldn't necessarily stop people from conspiring to share the prize anyway, so it doesn't really work.

**Exploit** · 12-23-2009, 11:10 AM

Originally Posted by Bernout

Now, if you would have liked to see more of an effort to take Rusten down, then I think daV is on the right track when he talks about changing the end game conditions or at the very least the expectations of the players when the game is started.

I do not see how changing the end game conditions would have really changed much other than to needlessly drag the game on which is not my point however I do agree with changing the expectations of the players which is the point of my comments.

I am currently playing in several games with many of the players from this game and I expect to probably play in several more with them in the future therefore I either need to change my expectations or their expectations (or find some compromise in the middle).

As the situation currently stands, it's like playing a poker game and having several of your opponents pool their cards to make the best possible hand and declare victory. Sure it's possible that an individual player still might beat their combined hand but it is not very likely nor is it very fair.

I accept that I just may have to play against the odds if I want to play at all but I am hoping by clearly pointing out what is happening that I can at least sway the expectations of some players for future games. At a minimum, I hope to identify other non-card poolers so that we can join forces in future games to prioritize eliminating identified card poolers early in the game so that we at least, as individuals, have a better chance of winning the game.

**da_Vinci** · 12-23-2009, 11:59 AM

Originally Posted by Exploit

As the situation currently stands, it's like playing a poker game and having several of your opponents pool their cards to make the best possible hand and declare victory. Sure it's possible that an individual player still might beat their combined hand but it is not very likely nor is it very fair.

I accept that I just may have to play against the odds if I want to play at all but I am hoping by clearly pointing out what is happening that I can at least sway the expectations of some players for future games. At a minimum, I hope to identify other non-card poolers so that we can join forces in future games to prioritize eliminating identified card poolers early in the game so that we at least, as individuals, have a better chance of winning the game.

Maybe the best you can do is get a team of non-card poolers to defeat a team of card poolers, then finish the game as free-for-all after that. If the card pooler team wins the team on team phase, then would then presumably declare a "joint victory".

It seems inevitable that alliances are required for survival. Now if Rusten did not have the Diplo win on the horizon, it is possible that the game would proceed as follows: Eliminate Chinia, Aztecia, Babylon, and Turkey ... then realign the world to fight it out in the next game phase. So there is no guarantee that non-card poolers would ensure the survival of China (although some effort to prevent Rusten from being the one to eliminate those countries would be prudent).

Perhaps it comes down to having well definded objectives at the start of the game, in regard to alliances and endgame scenarios ... and in particular, having exit strategies to get out of alliances. It would be important up front to know whether diplomatic betrayal is considered a feature of a particular game, or whether it is assumed that it is not. Probably, the assumption that it is not has been the default view, judging from some reactions to betrayal seen in some games.

So I think it comes down to defining a game (from the start) that intends to play as a king-of-the-hill free-for-all, to a single player win, probably very late in the game, with shifting alliances and potentially with a license to backstab. One might expect that is the "default setting" for pitboss without having to state it, but clearly, in practice this group has been doing something different.

For the games you are already in, maybe you can find enough non-card poolers among the players to form them into an alliance to take over the world, then divide to fight it out?

dV

**Rusten** · 12-23-2009, 01:45 PM

Originally Posted by Niklas

Well, our side/alliance in this game had an agreement from the start that we would attempt to gain the upper hand, conquer the world, and then duke it out amongst ourselves until only 2 remained. I tend to agree with Exploit in that a full alliance "victory" is a rather cheesy way out. I'll definitely see Rusten as the sole winner of this game, after it's completed.

Originally Posted by Exploit

As the situation currently stands, it's like playing a poker game and having several of your opponents pool their cards to make the best possible hand and declare victory. Sure it's possible that an individual player still might beat their combined hand but it is not very likely nor is it very fair.

You would want us to play it out after conquering you guys?

I will have mechanized infantry, the Internet, and 40% of the world's population shortly. Add in Pentagon, charismatic, financial, kremlin, a whole bunch of other great wonders and awesome land shortly. If our alliance were to conquer the world and then duke it out it would not be unlikely that Carthage would win alone (rather it would be obvious).

However, I do not want to spend 100 hours on this. Maybe the game would be played out if the power amongst the alliance was more equal, but there's no way around the fact that I am biggest -- that's how this game turned out. Don't blame my allies for voting for me and say the game is "rigged" -- it's just a more practical solution that doesn't waste hundreds of hours.

I wish this wouldn't turn into such a drama. I had no intention of "cheating" you out of a ending, but with this increasing empire playing turns is like a part-time job. It's easier to say you want to play it out when you don't have hundreds (thousands? I lost count) of units and 50+ cities.

The only way to make it even the slightest exciting would be to have everyone DoW on me, but why would my allies want to do that? Surely they'd rather have me win and knowing they contributed than to help one of the long-term enemies win? Civ also favours defense so chances are I could reach space anyway, but just the thought of the time that would go into that sickens me. Somebody needs to host some PB games with less players and a smaller map.

So I guess you can somewhat blame yourself for letting me grow this big. If you'd sacifice some land in order to save Niklas and in turn let millcc, Dandridge, IanDC and Ronnie grow bigger then there would be more of an incentive to play it out to the end.

**Dandridge** · 12-23-2009, 02:41 PM

There is nothing cheesy how this game ends. For me it just looks like the personal winning of the game goes over everything else in Exploit's preferences. For many others it's just one goal among others.

In this game f.ex. the number one goal for me was (is) to beat the other alliance and get at least someone in our alliance to become the winner. That's quite enough.

And there have been many other challenging intermediate goals in-between. Most enjoyable is anyway to get challenged and to solve all those little puzzles that arise during one game.

**da_Vinci** · 12-23-2009, 02:48 PM

Originally Posted by Rusten

with this increasing empire playing turns is like a part-time job. It's easier to say you want to play it out when you don't have hundreds (thousands? I lost count) of units and 50+ cities.

At least a quarter thousand on my front alone ...

Originally Posted by Rusten

The only way to make it even the slightest [bit] exciting would be to have everyone DoW on me, but why would my allies want to do that?

That does raise the interminability factor ... when does it end? If they declare on you and beat you back, can they wipe you out? Or at some point are you needed to join the next alliance to beat on the new king of the hill?

If they can't beat you back, then what is the point of continuing? In this game (and maybe some others

), the time to stop the runaway train has already passed. It occurs to me that there is a lot of momentum in a game of Civ, and it may become irresistable before it becomes apparent.

For me this is a dispassionate discussion, with more relevance for the future than for the present game. I hope there is not a lot of drama in this ... seems we have had more than our share of drama in the Civ universe lately ...

dV

**da_Vinci** · 12-23-2009, 02:50 PM

Originally Posted by Ebenezer

Maybe we need a purse. $10 per player, all proceeds to the winner.

Of course then I'd have to join less games, as I'm rather poor.

And that wouldn't necessarily stop people from conspiring to share the prize anyway, so it doesn't really work.

I could save myself the trouble and just send checks to Rusten and Munro ...

dV

**Bernout** · 12-23-2009, 04:42 PM

Originally Posted by Rusten

I wish this wouldn't turn into such a drama. I had no intention of "cheating" you out of a ending, but with this increasing empire playing turns is like a part-time job. It's easier to say you want to play it out when you don't have hundreds (thousands? I lost count) of units and 50+ cities.

I don't see any drama here. We're basically discussing alliances and their role in a game. I could just as easily get a discussion started on crappy starting locations.

I appreciate Exploit coming in to sub for Munro this game and it's good to get other view points floating around and ideas for new games.

Bernout

**da_Vinci** · 12-23-2009, 05:01 PM

Originally Posted by Bernout

I appreciate Exploit coming in to sub for Munro this game and it's good to get other view points floating around and ideas for new games.

I second the thanks to Exploit for coming in for Munro, and I enjoyed his input and out-of-the-box thinking (if we were not so behind in techs, we might have had a chance to unleash some of his novelties

). I'd like to see him stick around, which is why I think this discussion of engame expectations is worthwhile for the future.

It seems the discussion has already borne fruit: Morgan's offering of "No Prize for Second" seems designed to fit Exploit's preferred endgame scenario (perhaps "Titans of Treachery" would be a better title, with backstabbing encouraged ...)

dV

**Exploit** · 12-24-2009, 08:06 PM

It was not my intention to cause any drama nor am I disputing the logic that Rusten's victory is practically inevitable at this point therefore giving him a diplomatic victory instead of extending the game indefinitely makes sense. As I mentioned previously, my points are intended more for future games then the current game.

I am new to this gaming group and to online civilization in general however I have played lots of civilization and similar multiplayer-conquer-the-world games within my personal circle of friends. While this support-the-alliance-to-the-end mentality seems to be common to this gaming group and several other online Civ gaming groups (most of which are comprised of the same members as this group), it is a totally new phenomenon for me.

One of the first things I did when I took over Munro's position was to approach most of Rusten's allies and make the case that Rusten was growing too powerful and that if they continued to support him then even if our alliance was wiped out they would still lose but that if they joined together with us then they would still have excellent chances to win. My logic was accurate and obvious so I expected to enter into diplomatic negotiations over concessions, instead the universal response was to the effect "Rusten has been my ally for a long time and as long as he wins we win". I really was shocked by the responses as I have never encountered this type of thinking in this style of game in over 30 years of game play. I am totally at a loss as to how to even begin negotiations with someone who has that attitude.

While the mentality seems abnormal to me for this type of game, I am doing my best to adapt both my expectations and my tactics to compensate. As previously mentioned, part of my adaptation is to explain my expectations in this forum and try to sway more people in this gaming group towards a style of play that I am more familiar with.

My favorite part of the game is the diplomatic interactions with other players (which are minimal in stagnant alliances) which is why I went looking for an online civ group to begin with. Based upon what I am reading between the lines, I get the feeling that this gaming group really hasn't explored the art of tough negotiations extensively. There seems to be a mentality that fluid alliances means betrayal and treachery which is the least effective negotiating tool that I can think of. The true art is in negotiating a series of win/win deals with various parties and keeping those deals but resulting in a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts.

Thread Tools

Display