The MA (dogpile) question

[ProPain]

Erik, amongst others doesnt like the effects of MA's in human vs human games. I really dont see the problem with getting MA's, dogpiling them, renewing them within 20 turns or any other creative use of the instrument.

IMO using MA's isnt as easy as it seems. Especially in the early game it requires scarce resources:
- you need writing. A high priced tech takes substantial research or gold to get this
- you need embassies. In my experience the IA isnt fond of founding embassies on high levels. SO you have to build em yourself. Especially in the beginning of the game you need substantial gold for that.
- you need to pay em. When you go to war with an opponent and want to MA all AI you need deep pockets. This gets even worse when your opponent makes peace with an AI before the MA ends. Renewing that MA is more expensive than the 1st one. In my game against anarres I was able to keep 2 MA's running but at a cost of 30gpt. Dogpiling all AI against anarres just wasnt an option.

I think these rules confining MA use not necessary and make the game less fun.

Reactions plz.

[anarres]

Well it's no secret I agree with you PP, but I think if someone wants to suggest extra rules in their game then that is fine. If no agreement can be made before the game then you can't play each other.

Of course once a game is underway you can't impose new rules on someone, so I guess the important thing is to ask for any special rules before the game begins.

[Aggie]

I think that getting MA-dogpiles and MA-boomerangs (the human that was dogpiled turns the situation around) is a way to play a pbem. Whenever I don't make agreements with my opponent I conclude that I'm entitled to use them.

However, I myself like another type of CIV which I find more interesting. So I happily play with a restriction. I would go even further in some games and agree upon peaceful games with the intend to try to outproduce/outresearch the opponent.

[ERIKK]

Well, you all know my point by now. I can agree with any kind of game...
- I used the MA thing against aggie, killer and anarres
- It has been used against me by anarres (my first game) and Killer

I will play all styles but I mostly like games without be scared all the time that suddenly the world is against and you can be hit from multiple sides by ai's that you have trades with and were polite or gracious one turn ago...

Lets see how the Yndy style unfolds, maybe such a thing will be become the standard once! ;)

[Skyfish]

What I dont like about the MA thing is the randomness of it all : there is no way to predict how an AI will react so there is no "strategy" in playing MAs, you could pay them loads of money one turn for an MA then your opponent somehow turns it around but you dont know how or you can offer more money than anyone but because of a "hidden" factor in the programming or even a an RNG factor you can not turn those MAs around...
So in short it's too unpredictable and gives too much weight to chance.

[yndy]

The main issue for which I tried to avoid the MAs dogpile rule is to avoid a situation where I'm suddenly in war with everybody without me having any option to respond sooner than 5 or 6 turns. It would cost a lot of money to pull a thing like this but I feel that even if the game is a turn-based one you still need to allow the other to react in the next turn and not 6 turns later.

That's why I asked both Erikk and anarres about the one MA per turn rule.

The duration request I made both with Erikk and anarres refers to a related issue: When the other human signs and alliance with an AI against me he enters in a commitment with the AI. I can turn the AI back after a time lag. But the first human can turn it back again in one turn (at a higher price). And I have to wait another lag to make peace again. Regardless if I have more money than the other human, he can still turn the AI against me and there's nothing I can do.

I'm eager to see how the rules I suggested work-out.

[Gothmog]

I'm with PP and anarres on this one too, whatever is agreed to before the game is fine but I prefer no rules to start with and negotiations during the game. To me that's a level playing field. Of course I haven't actually finished a PBEM game yet...

Seems to me that most of the rules I hear about tend to favor a 'farmers gambit' type playstyle. That is one way to play but not the only way, nor the only fun way.

The civ you choose and the map options will make a difference in how any rules affect your game. Obviously Pangea is more susceptable to a dogpile, expansionist should get a boost from huts early, lots of barbs also makes a farmers gambit play differently, commercial allows you to have more cash on hand and more gpt, etc. etc. etc.