Game strategies: peaceful vs. aggressive and getting (un)lucky with your neighbours
Posted: Wed Jun 19, 2019 7:48 am
As a Longturn (so, multiplayer) ruleset meddler, I am being unable to solve a problem that has its core far beyond the games of Free(or any other)civ, but it is definitely emphasized in this game. Namely:
When starting a game, you choose your level of aggression and adjust your development path accordingly. If you are going to play peacefully, you will go for constructive tech that will allow your nation to grow stronger, more advanced, more efficient. You are going to build more settlers, eventually Granaries and keep only a bare minimum of defence. If you are going to play more aggressively, you are going to go for the military techs and build attack units.
Naturally, if an aggressive player meets a peaceful one, it is clear who will win, this is why nobody will - or should - ever play 100% peacefully. If two aggressive player meet, they will probably be very happy, maybe they will form a coalition or they will kill each other, but either way, this is what they signed up for.
The problem is that how your neighbours will play depends exclusively on luck. If you don't prepare heavy defences and end up with an aggressive neighbour, you're dead. However, if you spend resources to build defences, military units, build walls, build your cities on more defendable locations that yield less resources, and ended up with peaceful neighburs, you will also handicap yourself compared to other players who haven't been doing this, were going for maximum growth and, as a result, will end up more developed than you.
Someone may say that you are the one who should level the playing field and attack those players and gain resources from them, but, realistically, you can never know who they are or even if you do, it is more likely you won't be able to reach them.
So in other words, there are a few possible situations:
- if you prepare your defences and don't get attacked (don't have aggressive neighbours), you are at a loss
- if you DON'T prepare your defences and DO get attacked, well, you're at an even greater loss
Which of those two things will happen basically depends on luck.
So, when messing with rulesets, I'm looking for ways to not so much equalise the playground, but to remove or decrease as much as possible this element of luck. But I'm not sure if it's even possible or, to be honest, fair, because making peaceful players more easy to defend will then actually handicap aggressive players and the aggressive path will be completely unfeasible.
Do share your opinions and thoughts.
When starting a game, you choose your level of aggression and adjust your development path accordingly. If you are going to play peacefully, you will go for constructive tech that will allow your nation to grow stronger, more advanced, more efficient. You are going to build more settlers, eventually Granaries and keep only a bare minimum of defence. If you are going to play more aggressively, you are going to go for the military techs and build attack units.
Naturally, if an aggressive player meets a peaceful one, it is clear who will win, this is why nobody will - or should - ever play 100% peacefully. If two aggressive player meet, they will probably be very happy, maybe they will form a coalition or they will kill each other, but either way, this is what they signed up for.
The problem is that how your neighbours will play depends exclusively on luck. If you don't prepare heavy defences and end up with an aggressive neighbour, you're dead. However, if you spend resources to build defences, military units, build walls, build your cities on more defendable locations that yield less resources, and ended up with peaceful neighburs, you will also handicap yourself compared to other players who haven't been doing this, were going for maximum growth and, as a result, will end up more developed than you.
Someone may say that you are the one who should level the playing field and attack those players and gain resources from them, but, realistically, you can never know who they are or even if you do, it is more likely you won't be able to reach them.
So in other words, there are a few possible situations:
- if you prepare your defences and don't get attacked (don't have aggressive neighbours), you are at a loss
- if you DON'T prepare your defences and DO get attacked, well, you're at an even greater loss
Which of those two things will happen basically depends on luck.
So, when messing with rulesets, I'm looking for ways to not so much equalise the playground, but to remove or decrease as much as possible this element of luck. But I'm not sure if it's even possible or, to be honest, fair, because making peaceful players more easy to defend will then actually handicap aggressive players and the aggressive path will be completely unfeasible.
Do share your opinions and thoughts.