Prepoll Discussion: Redefining "Playing Ahead"

[Kuciwalker]

My idea is this:

For the purpose of determining trades, we let people (we may limit this to certain ministers) "play ahead". There would be special conditions on this: you could NOT end turn, move units, or do trades involving maps or communications. Discuss.

[jdd2007]

what would be the point of that?

*Glory to country through Strength and Honor!*

[Kuciwalker]

This way we can actually figure out if a tech whoring project will work, among other things.

[UnOrthOdOx]

Don't like it.

Any form of playing ahead is cheating IMO. What if they discovered a trade that is widely approved would not work? Saving us loads of cash in the process. That = unfair advanage = cheating.

[notyoueither]

Not a good idea.

The benefit of tech whoring is what can be gained. Massive sometimes.

The risk is that you will not get what you want and your opponents will be stronger.

It is a game. It must have risk, otherwise why don't we use reload cheating to avoid unfavourable results when we attack?

[OPD]

Originally posted by skywalker
For the purpose of determining trades, we let people (we may limit this to certain ministers) "play ahead".

Perhaps you could expand on what things ministers would be allowed to do?

If for example you mean, buy a tech and see whether we can make our money back or not, then I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with this.

[Kuciwalker]

OPD - that's EXACTLY what I mean. Right now we are pretty much in the dark on how much we can get back for our stuff. In real life you can say "If I gave you this, what would you give me?" to set up chains of trades, etc.

[Spiffor]

I think I'm the first to be concerned here.

Skywalker :
You're right when you say "playing ahead"'s definition needs more refinment. To me, playing ahead is doing anything on his computer hasn't been done by the President, or doesn't bind him.

Let's take an example (it's late, so I'm less and less understandable ). Imagine Uber says "Persian warrior goes West" during a turnchat. For some reason, the Prez didn't move the warrior immediately. Doing this on my computer won't be playing ahead.

Same thing goes for trades. If a trade is sure to be done (victorous poll / adamant decision of the FAM), then playing "ahead" will be allowed, because everything done binds the president to mimic it.

For example, with my latest tech-acquiring project. Once the poll about it (posted soon) has been accepted, I'll work on it on my computer, because we'll now have to follow it.
But, if I do this before, in order to see how much I could get, it would be playing ahead. Just imagine I realize Brits will not sell constrution for currency (which has a small chance to happen indeed). The plan is wasted, and Plan Gold is jeopardized. I'll just come back on the forum and say "forget about the project", and all risk would have been avoided. That would definitely be playing ahead.

[MrWhereItsAt]

WHAT?!

I thought that in the past, the FAM told us EXACTLY what trades were acceptable to a certain Civ. They then reported it to widespread approval. Does this not contradict what has been said here?

Y'see, I thought this was the bulk of the FAM's job - to sound out the other leaders on possible trades, and then report to the people before accepting any of them. If not, does the FAM only hope to enact all the decisions made here without knowing if they are acceptavle or not?

[Inverse Icarus]

techwhoring projects are risks. the risk is that greece (or whoever) wont buy a tech, or wont pay top dollar for it.

it's as much of a risk as a battle would be, and should be treated as such.

[Ninot]

good reasoning by all, makes me think

[adaMada]

I say that anyone should be able to open a trading box, plug some values in, and see if the Foreign Advisor says the AI'll take it. On the other hand, I don't think that anyone should be able to actually make the trade or end the turn... that lets people make accurate predictions as to what costs what, isn't really cheeting (If it wasn't a demo-game, we could all do it anyway), but also gives people planning trades some ballpark numbers.

Just my two cents...

-- adaMada

[Kuciwalker]

Of course they can see what the Advisor says. I'm saying that if we're performing a sequence of trades, we should be able to play out that sequence.

[Shiber]

This is all a very problematic issue.
We need to be able to play ahead to know what the AIs will pay for something which we intend to acquire. In real world trade this is possible so I don't see this as cheating. Furthermore, the AIs can make very accurate predictions as to what the other AIs might offer them but we cannot. Not allowing us to play ahead to see how much an AI would offer for something that we don't have would disadvantage us.
However, much like the force, there is a dark side to playing ahead. People might be tempted to abuse the ability to play ahead in ways such as determining the effect of a certain trade on an AI leader's attitude towards us.
In my opinion we should only allow ministers to play ahead, and they must swear not to abuse this ability. Abusive actions will of course be defined by a law which we can begin to discuss now.

Any comments? Or thoughts? Or thoughtful comments?

[DAVOUT]

I am not sure I understand ; at the end of the turnchat, the last move is entered, and the turn ends. If you start a new turn, you are playing ahead, full stop. Watever you do or see now will bring you informations that were not available at the end of the previous turn.
Why dont you try your trades before the last move of the previous turn ?

But we could have agreed, at the start of the game that we adopted another rythm consisting in ending the turnchat AFTER starting the next turn, and seeing the AI moves, but before making any human move.

In fact, a complete turn consist of human moves then AI moves, although it is presently artificially ended at the end of the human turn.

Do you follow me ?

[GePap]

I think it would be unfair for any minister to have a power others don't. Every ministers makes sugestions based on their knowledge, skills and intuitions. We follow their instructions because they have been given the responsibility, but responsibility also means being responsible if a plan fails. To let the FAM play ahead is to let the FAM shirk responsibility, while the IEM, or the SMAC, or the PWM are not allowed to do so.

I have another questions regarding saved games: I was not here a th beginning but I have though up of two ways to use the game that are not playing ahead that might or are cheating, and I was wondering if we have already taken decision on them: What about someone retiring from the game, and thus getting to see the entire map and histograph? What about someone going back to an old save, playing the game in a different way, and then comming to the forum to state that ad X been done and not Y, Z would have happened, and Z woul be better than were we are. Would we punish someone from doing that?

[Shiber]

Games are saved and posted at the end of the last turned that was played on the turnchat. However the turn is not ended so people who download the savegame can still engage in trade and diplomacy.
As for allowing the FAM and the FAM only to play ahead, I think they should still get approval of their plans before they are played by the president during the turnchat.

[Kloreep]

GePap, I'm 99% sure retiring is explicitly not allowed. After all, that would be revealing the map, which is definitely not allowed.

Your second example is more ambiguous (sp?) since it's technically only playing differently, not ahead, but I'd say it's not allowed, if only because you might reveal information useful to the current game. For example, what if you had, through some bizarre turn of events, established an embassy with Germany or Persia before the suspected battle between them and told us if they were at war then? We'd have a piece of information we shouldn't have.

Anyway, I agree that playing ahead in any form should not be allowed. Risk is an integral part of Civ.

[Trevman]

We shouldn't even think about it. There has already been some incidences with playing along, and now you want to play ahead!? No way, too risky.

[Spiffor]

Davout :
Actually, before doing any tech-whoring plan, you take a risk. The rational estimates you draw could be proven wrong.

Unlike adjusting the sliders and giving new build orders to cities, accepting (not to be confused with negociating) a trade is something you can't go back on, exactly like when you move a unit.
If I was playing ahead when designing a tech-whoring plan, I would say "oh rats, the Brits won't buy currency, despite my estimations ; I shall cancel the plan".
Doing so would be exactly the same as Uber sending some troops ahead "just to check", and adjust his strategies with information the others don't have (he doesn't do this, don't worry )

[MrWhereItsAt]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Davout :

If I was playing ahead when designing a tech-whoring plan, I would say "oh rats, the Brits won't buy currency, despite my estimations ; I shall cancel the plan".
Doing so would be exactly the same as Uber sending some troops ahead "just to check", and adjust his strategies with information the others don't have (he doesn't do this, don't worry )

But Spiffor - you DO open negotiations with the leaders in the course of researching trades, don't you? That is the only way that you would know who has which techs and would tell you how much some civs would be willing to trade for what we had to offer. Of course, you wouldn't end the turn or make a trade just to see what another civ offers you for what you just got - that is performing an action and is "playing ahead". But the until you actually accept anyhthing it's fine, right?

If you somehow estimate off the top of your head
1. what techs/gold other civs have
2. how much they will offer for some trade with us

then my hat is off to you. This is a seemingly impossible task, and I pity anyone who has to do this after you finish!

[Spiffor]

MWIA :
Sorry I was unclear. There is difference between negociating a trade, and accepting it.

But the until you actually accept anyhthing it's fine, right?

Absolutely : I never get the figures out of my head, I'm only haggling like crazy, until I reach the limit of AI acceptance, as indicated by the ingame foreign advisor. Then, I simply cancel the trade, after taking notes of the figures.

[MrWhereItsAt]

Thanks a bunch, Spiffor! It's as I thought. I wonder why no-one could clear up my confusion earlier?


/me thinks of Demo game citizens reading his posts and laughing their asses off.

[Captain]

SPiffor's way seemes ethical to me.
but remember we had someone do somehting with the map trades a while back? they actually did play ahead by selling mapmaking to countries that didn't have it, in order to see whether a mapwhoring project would work. that was playing ahead and shouldn't have been allowed. but it's in the past. we should definitely try to avoid doing so in the future.

[rush]

quote : Spiffor's techwhoring project

" The project says :
- buy Currency from the French for 278 gold + territory map
- sell Currency to the English for Construction + WM
- sell Construction to the Greeks for 174 gold + WM
- sell Literature to Germany for 31 gold + WM
- sell Polytheism to Russia for 17 gold + WM

Estimated treasury after the complete plan : 443 gold
Estimated treasury if we don't sell Literature and Polytheism : 395 gold "

Spiffor, how do you estimate that the Greeks will be paying us 174 gold + WM for Construction ? I mean, we don't even have Construction yet.

P.S. I have already voted "Yes" for the Plan.

[Kuciwalker]

Spiffor is just VERY GOOD at this. I want to make it easier to confirm these things.

[GodKing]

NO PLAYING AHEAD OF ANY KIND.

This game involves RISK. Any knowledge of what any possible future might hold is potentially dangerious in that it would reduce the risk. Fine, why stick you neck out......because that is part of the game, that is why. So please, do not look ahead.

[Shiber]

Spiffor's guess regarding Greece is probably based on the facts that Greece only has 174 gold and that AIs would pay much more than that for a tech.
Of course if they're researching currency and they're near completion then they wouldn't agree to pay as much, but that's one of the risks involved.

[Spiffor]

Rush :
Shiber is right. My estimations are based on the assumption that Construction's value is higher than the whole Greek treasury. For the Greeks, we have a safety, because we could sell them currency if they've almost completed research on constrction (ie, they value it much less).

BTW, even if I'm experienced in tech-whoring I might be wrong. There's a slight chance that this plan turns out to be a catastrophe. Exactly lmike our archer rush could have been our doom (ask Trip for his bad memories )

[rush]

Thanks Spiffor. I gotta practice this in my own Games.