Re: Olympia and Game Theory (LONG)

From: morrow@newton.texel.com (John Morrow)

Date: Thu, 26 Oct 1995 00:00:00 +0000

rcb@kaiwan009.kaiwan.com (Robert Christopher Butchko) writes:
>As much as it pains me to voice agreement with anything Mr. Desjardins
>says, I must agree that the AOO-faery lock was 1) a strategy 2) not
>without risk 3) which worked.

The AOO took minimal risks going into Faery.  First, I'm sure they had
ample access to elfstones once they started clearing out interior
locations on Provinia (and then started getting them from people
bumped off in Faery).  Second, it was a trivial matter to discover
that controlled units could pass through Faery on patrol or for trade
with impunity with no elfstone (since changed).  So essentially their
only threat was from other players.  Since many other players spent
the early part of the game travelling and since few other alliances
have the sheer force of numbers that the AOO has, the odds of another
player threatening them was and is minimal.  In short, I don't buy
assertion (2).

>If they had met competition for control of faery, they could have been
>thwarted or severely reduced in force.

What competition?  They started building as close to Imperial City as
they could which gave them a huge production lead over the groups that
decided to sail to other lands.  By the time the other groups got to
the other lands, started to build up, and then got around to sending
a force into Faery to look around, it was too late.

>They could have found that
>faery was not valuable (if those damn elfstones didn't open gateways,
p>how much use would faery be with intermittent and unpredictable
>ingress/egress?), or they could have found it too hard to hold.  (If
>the game favors the attacker, why hasn't faery fallen?  Proposed
>answer: lack of resolve or skill on the part of those who would attack.)

My primary complaint about Faery is that it *is* valuable and that
becomes quite clear the moment you start fiddling with it.  As for
being hard to hold, the advantage they have is that Faery has hidden
entry and exit points which benefit the person with the best maps
which is, no doubt, the person who controls Faery.  An invading army
could stop write next to the AOO Chateau in Faery and not even know
it.  Next turn, an army pops in and wipes them out from nowhere.

As for a general answer of why the AOO isn't attacked in general:
(A) Many other players don't like to attack without provocation and,
    to their credit, the AOO has provided very little of that.
(B) I would guess that the AOO is the largest alliance in the game and
    they dominate simply by virtue of numbers.  Building an alliance
    to challenge them is a formidible task likely to fail.
(C) The dominant position that the AOO currently commands has allowed
    them to outproduce what smaller factions might be able to produce
    sperately -- the economics of size.
(D) The AOO has gotten a lot of places first and gotten to resources
    other players will never get -- control artifacts that control
    4-6 units, beasts, elfstones, etc.  You need interior locations
    to get those and there are (as you point out) very few of them
    left.

In short, it may have little to do with skill or resolve and a great
deal to do with practical matters.  My alliance tried attacking the
AOO -- unprovoked -- with our entire army exactly because we did see
them firming up control of Faery.  We were wiped out while doing only
minor damage to the large army we ran into.  Certainly not a lack
of resolve.  A lack of skill?  Perhaps it was foolhardy for a small
alliance to attack the AOO but we scouted, visioned, and researched
to the best of our ability and were still hit with a surprise force.
I'm not sure what more you can expect.

>The faery interstate has given the AOO access to easy pickings everywhere.
>Many players, yours truly included, have gone to very remote areas
>to find that the AOO have already looted the lairs and such.

Yes.  That is exactly my complaint.  No frontiers.  Anyone still claim
Faery isn't too powerful?  Good.  Nuke it or put big-time restrictions
on it for game 2.

>   Another factor in AOO success is that it is, honestly, very big,
>and, somehow, well-disciplined.  I don't suppose that was easy at all,
>although, in a game, the small burghers are probably more willing to
>turn a blind eye to the "evil ones" than may be true in "real" life.

I've had more than one AOOer tell me that had they known how it would
go, they wouldn't have joined.  I get the feeling that it is somewhat
like the mob.  Once you are in, you don't get out... :-)

>   Congrats, AOO, faery worked, and the risk paid off.  Now, let's all
>get over it and do what we can with the rest of the game.

That, to me, is like saying, "Congrats, AOO, for controlling every
land location in the game.  The risks paid off.  Now, let's all get
over it and fight over who can make the most pots next month."  There
is no "rest of the game".  No more mages.  They will be blasted.  No
more frontiers.  They've all been looted.  No more challengers.  An
army will pop out of Faery and smite them.  In short, they have a
lock on the game for all the reasons you've milled over.  In short,
they have won.  The game is their's to lose and I don't think they
are silly enough to throw it for everyone.

>   Quick gripes: Everyone who complains about sequential ordering
>of hidden location IDs- what else should Rich have done?  Should we
>be required to search every province with a small chance of even
>being told something might be there, or is there a less obvious way
>of getting such knowledge.  Should search work better, or is there
>another solution to sequence?

Yes.  It should take a very long time to find all the hidden
locations.  They aren't meant to be pinatas but something you have to
spend time to find and clean out.  But interior locations are yet
another joke for the large alliance.  Monsters?  Just find out how
many men you need for a 100% victory using the handy combat simulator
and clean them out like dust-bunnies under a couch.

>   Final opinion: Beasts should not be able to attack or defend
>structures in any way.  Breed beasts should require religion.  The
>castle defense bonus should be raised _far_ above that of a good
>helm and strong armor.

Beasts are broken.  Yet another advantage for those who got there
first.

In short, Olympia has a major problem for an open-ended game.  The
players that started first did get an advantage and it is a big one.
And if it gets better, it will only be because the exiting players
have become too bored to run their positions optimally or are making
mistakes on purpose.

John Morrow

References

Re: Olympia and Game Theory (LONG)
srt@sun-dimas.aero.org (Scott Turner)
Wed, 18 Oct 1995 00:00:00 +0000
Re: Olympia and Game Theory (LONG)
desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins)
Tue, 24 Oct 1995 00:00:00 +0000
Re: Olympia and Game Theory (LONG)
rcb@kaiwan009.kaiwan.com (Robert Christopher Butchko)
Wed, 25 Oct 1995 00:00:00 +0000

Referenced By

Re: Olympia and Game Theory (LONG)
srt@sun-dimas.aero.org (Scott Turner)
Wed, 18 Oct 1995 00:00:00 +0000
Re: Olympia and Game Theory (LONG)
desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins)
Tue, 24 Oct 1995 00:00:00 +0000
Re: Olympia and Game Theory (LONG)
rcb@kaiwan009.kaiwan.com (Robert Christopher Butchko)
Wed, 25 Oct 1995 00:00:00 +0000