Page 1 of 1

Pitboss One: Endgame

PostPosted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 6:05 pm
by Overload
I talked to everyone about this already.

As the game administrator, I am starting a vote to end the game and name the point leader (Dyluck) the winner.

The main reason for this is that we want to start another Pitboss game - some friends from my work and other friends (like Brandon!) want to play in our next game and I think we would all love to get it going.

Please vote by replying in this thread.

The game is paused while this vote is active

PostPosted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 6:07 pm
by Overload
As a player I vote yes.

My Russian scientists and scholars have been running detailed predictions of the future and they have found conclusive evidence that there is no way for our great nation to surpass the Japanese in world influence by the time we predict the world will end.

PostPosted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:55 pm
by ThePumaman
As a beaten man, I vote yes.

The American people have proven to the world that they can stand the test of time, but my top advisors say there is no way we can catch up to the Japanese prowess. What's more, they fear of Japan's newly gained strategic advantage over our territory. Japan's shadow looms over America, and our people prefer a peaceful end.

Also, Samantha wants to play. Not sure if she'll have a computer good enough to run it, but we'll see when gametime comes.

I am ready to give it up

PostPosted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:51 am
by Studlybob
(after typing this I realized it was WAY more then I intended on typing, no need to read it all if you don't care. The important part is the first paragraph)

I'm ready to declare Dyluck the winner. I do enjoy the game but I'm afraid my fate is sealed. My plans sort of got ruined once I realized there was a turn limit to the game so I had to start acting desperate.

I feel good about the experience though. Once it got going it was a lot of fun. From here on the rest of the game would just be me sitting around getting my cities taken out one by one.

I am happy with how it turned out. I think I can go down as the ruler who made some really good decisions and some really horrible decisions. I went from being the very bottom of the barrel to being a couple turns away from 2nd place and then down to being essentially eliminated.

On a sour note, I feel like a jerk for the way I handled my last few turns. Giving all my cities away and screwing with the game was a horrible idea. Playing a game for 9 months (or however horribly long this game has gone on) and then having someone act like a jackass at the end is totally not cool and I apologize if I ruined the enjoyment of the game for anyone.

As far as the game went my biggest failure was not setting up on the new world fast enough. I eventually had to attack Greg because he would beat me in score once the turn limit was reached or in the space race. Had I had a bigger influence on the new world I could have weakened his influence there as well as had more cities to get my score up. It would have been smart of me to ally with another player who didn't just turn around and die on me too.

My biggest success was taking out the English so quickly and using their infrastructure/territory.

I think the lessons I learned (and hopefully others learned as well) are that having a lot of people in your cities, having great buildings, but completely ignoring military is bad in a human vs. human game. The other thing is that you have to be careful what you allow other people to get. If you give up too much just to get allies then your allies are just going to beat you in the end anyway. Letting someone else take huge chunks of territory and cities in a war is a very bad idea. You have to have a military, or at least be willing to go 100% military when the time is right. Not only is having no military bad because it leaves you open for attack, but if someone else starts a war that they're obviously going to win, you have to have a military that's ready to get into that war yourself and capture some cities. Otherwise one person takes all the territory of whoever they're beating and they grow way too strong. If the fight is close then it's usually so negative on the person going to war that getting a lot of territory is more balanced for what they had to give up. But in Civ and with humans vs. humans wars tend to be one very strong person taking out someone who is way weaker then them very quickly, not losing much as far as technology research and/or money due to war time but gaining all the advantage of taking new cities.

Lastly I hope that if we do another game we can give some serious consideration to turning off Tech Trading.

<Gets> I say this for 2 reasons mainly. 1 is that with tech trading the game can quickly get to the point where our game got to which is that 1 person dominates and then the rest of the game is a battle for second place. It is too easy to trade technology. What I mean is that there is too little loss to the person giving the tech away. Starting a defensive pack has huge risks/loss associated with it, giving up some important resource is a big loss to the person giving it away...etc etc. Trading a tech has no loss other then you have less of an advantage then you did before. It doesn't "hurt" you in anyway, it just helps another person. Usually it helps you both since you trade one tech for another tech, giving 2 or 3 people a huge advantage over everyone else and the game quickly gets out of hand. Everyone else has to trade tech just to keep up, and the game becomes all about who can setup the best tech trading relationship with someone else. It's not just the loss factor, it's that trading a tech is FAR and beyond the most valuable thing you can trade in the game outside of gifting someone a huge city or a ton of troops (which nobody really does anyway). It stands out too far away from the rest of the stuff in the game. Think about if you're going to start an alliance with someone. If you're trying to convince them the very first thing you think to do is give them a new tech they don't have. Just a tech or two make someone declare war on someone else. That is a huge impact on the game There is no real reason to even think about anything else for trading except as a throw in. Trading tech devalues all the other things you might trade. Would you ever trade a tech for anything but another tech or to get someone to attack someone else? How much fun would it be if you didn't have the option to trade tech but you still used the other things for trade. Wouldn't it be fun if people actually considered gifting units or cities? Gifting troops and cities would be the new most powerful trade bait in my opinion (other then copper or oil when one person doesn't have them). However gifting also carry huge loss for the person giving them up making it a much more specific and dangerous option. It's not something you do lightly as much of the tech trading is.

The second reason I think turning trading off would be a good idea is because it adds a TON of more strategy to the game. People have to make very specific choices in what they research since you can't just trade for everything else. If you decide to go up the military tree then you're very much devoting yourself to it since you can't just trade for all the other techs. I think it would be really cool because military minded people can use their forces as trade bait. If you go more for city building and some guy starts acting threatening towards you, you can always just "hire some mercenaries". Use all your great cities and the money you're making to make a deal with a military guy for units that you don't have the technology for. "I'll give you 300 gold for 10 SAM infantry". Most of the time you wouldn't even consider doing that because you can just try to trade for tech you want. How about "I'll give you my only oil since you don't have one if you make 20 helicopter units with it and gift them to me". The game has so many more levels too it once the big ugly beast of tech trading isn't a part of the game.

Mainly I just think that with a more level playing field as far as what you can trade the game becomes more competetive. If you take away the dominant thing in the game then all tier 2 stuff actually becomes valuable and interesting. I think the game we just finished would have been vastly different, and ultimately more competitive, had we had tech trading off.


That is the end of my diary.

PostPosted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 12:51 pm
by Dyluck
I vote yes, making it unanimous.

PostPosted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 12:52 pm
by Dyluck
Disabling Tech trading is an intriguing idea, though we should hear from all potential players of the next game.

PostPosted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 1:04 pm
by Overload
Okay, the game is officially over!

Good game everybody, I had a ton of fun these last 10 months playing the slowest game I have ever played in my life.

I will start a new thread for signups for our next game. As for tech trading, I definitely agree that we should try a game with it turned off. It is what a large majority of the seasoned players over at Civfanatics prefer and for similar reasons that Rob has given above. The main reason everybody cites is that it makes technology advance way too fast especially in large games. The CPU players have logic built in to them to prevent that from happening in single player, but multiplayer obviously does not have the same restrictions.

PostPosted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:28 pm
by ThePumaman
I agree with Tech Trading turned off. Could be fun.

Also, what's the <gets> tag?

The <gets> thing

PostPosted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 10:46 pm
by Studlybob
I was supposed to say "gets on his soap box" and "gets off his soap box". I was trying to point out that I know I was pontificating but was just bored and felt like typing.

Apparently Greg's site doesn't agree with my statement. Maybe it's some sort of HTML problem.