From: pmwg1641@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Peter M. White)
Subject: Re: Civilization: article in The Gen ARRGH!
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 04:15:44 GMT

Bruce_Harper@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Harper) writes:

>I tend to agree with your assessment of the article, but for a different
>reason.  I have never seen a CIVILIZATION or ADVANCED CIVILIZATION game in
>which both Asia and Assyria have been chosen. 

>In other words, this could only arise in a 4-player game, which I think are
>rare in any case (I might be wrong).  Then I think the analysis in the
>previous
>posting applies, but I doubt that 99% of games even get to that point, as if
>one player takes Assyria no will take Asia, and vice versa.

My personal experience, unfortunately, mostly is of 3, 4 and 5 player
games.  I have seen Asia, Assyria, and Babylon silmultaneously played
many times, and I have even played each of the nations out myself.
I therefore can assure you that, though perhaps a very atypical scenario,
it is more than merely of theorectical import.  However, due to the
strong geographic restrictions of the situation, a fairly rigorous
analysis is, in fact, possible.  It would mostly entail considerations
of when are optimal moments to attack Asia, and/or push into Babylon
in light what are plausibly achievable goals for Assyria.  The Asia &
Babylon are largely straightforward play in the first 4-5 turns, much
more so than the other nations IMHO, which is why I believe specific
analysis can be made.  

I found the articles conclusion, Assyria is superior to Asia,
particularly startling, since my own experience tells me the ooposite.
The difference in scores at the end of the AST are often unimportant.
I probably shy away from Assyria too much; I always choose Asia
over Assyria when I want one of them and I suspect things *might*
become crowded in that corner.  Playing Asia with Assyria around
is not bad, especially if Crete is not around, but playing Assyria
squeezed in back there is an unnecessary challenge.

In summary, I would say the problems with the article are:
	1)  Choice of a very atypical scenario (which will consequently
	    yields little insight into more general play).
	2)  Shoddy analysis.
	3)  A blatantly false conclusion.

I consider #3 to be quite separate sin.  I look at it from a scientific
viewpoint: if one doesn't know the truth, it is okay to guess and be
wrong, but don't claim to really know the answer. 

>On the question of whether anyone at Avalon Hill reads the articles before
>they
>are published - they do, but they may not know how to play the game.

(Now, I really shudder when I think about those highly technical
articles, such as for 3R.)

>The
>ADVANCED CIVILIZATION Gamer's Guide benefitted (or suffered, for those who
>didn't like it) from being edited by the designer of the game.

The rulebook is quite apologetic about that.  It is true that it is
dangerous and a bit strange to have "the Book" on a game written before
most people have even played it at all.  Personally, I am very pleased
with how it was done.  Any complaints about the Gamer's Guide?  Since
I do not subscribe to The General, I was thrilled that it largely
saved me the trouble of hunting for the analysis in the mag each month.
As I mentioned in the previous posting, I was very impressed with the
quality of these articles.


--Peter

Newsgroups: rec.games.board