From: pmwg1641@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Peter M. White)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Civilization: article in The Gen  ARRGH!
Keywords: civilization
Date: 8 Oct 92 21:48:24 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana


I just saw the new The General mag on the stand today, and I was so excited
when I found an article about Civilization in it.  After all, the
series of articles that came with Adv. Civ. were all quite excellent,
unlike the often dismal articles of yesteryear.  Only, surprise!,
this one has to be THE WORST ever.

What is the problem with it?  The article is simply *wrong* from the premise.

Quick rehash:  The article starts by pointing out the historical
difficulties faced by the Assyrian nation, and how in Civilization
they are also threatened with being squashed by two strong neighbors.
[All is well, so far; Assyria and Crete are, in my opinion, The most
demanding positions to play.]  Next, the article suggests that it
best to try and shove into Asia for breathing room since Babylon
has relatively naturally defined borders.  [Mostly true.  A well
played Babylon will give low yields in a fight.  But there are three
city spots on the Assyrian-Babylonian border; Assyria *might* be
able to grab up to two of them.  Also, Assyria could potentially cut
the Babylonians off from the sea, securing another city spot and some
coast.]  Then the author explains how Asia either loses its strategic
route into Asia Minor or is vulnerable to immediate attack.  [Wrong!!!]
And then useless analysis is provided on what Assyria should do when
Asia does not start with the correct and unmentionEd first movement.

Let me elaborate with a diagram:

----------------------------------------------------------------
***************    |    | 2       / 1     |
*****************  |    |   A    /        |
***OCEAN***********     |       /     B   |
***************************    / \        /
******************************/1  \-------
*****************************      \2
****************************   C    |  D 
**********************

              Asia Minor


(The map has been abstracted unartistically, with unimportant data
not included.)

We are concerned with first movement on the first turn (after population
growth).  Asia moves first, with two tokens at its optimal start
postion A.  Then Assyria, with two tokens, from start position B.
Position C is of paramount importance strategically, since it is
the shortest route into Asia Minor.

The article seems to believe that Asia must either split its forces,
give up its jump start into Asia, or march all its men into C
where one will starve.  These conclusions are only
justified if Asia fails to make, it is not contradictory in this
case, the most safe and aggressive move: one token to C & one
token to B (where the Assyrian tokens are).  This move is
the safest because only a fool would fight on a 1-spot in the
first 2-3 moves under *any* circumstances.  Personally, I think
that doing so is usually too costly until turn 5.  What about
those Assyrian tokens in B?  They will move out of the way, into
D.  Why not fight?  Because, until the advent of metalworking,
fighting on a 1-spot results in the "attackers" losses being
at least as great as the "defenders"; and, since the population
is growing exponentially initially, *any* losses sustained will
benefit your more distant opponents far more than any strategic
advantage gained for yourself.  1-spots are, in fact, the safest
locations for your tokens during the first few turns.  Moving
into B may look aggressive, but it is really more a case of
the best defense, in my opinion.

The article is fundamentally erroneous, unless the author believes
Assyria should actually attack the aforementioned spot C with one
Asian token in it.  Go ahead...if you don't mind the snickering
from Babylon, Crete, and Thrace for the rest of the game.

There is an old article in The General that had the same fallacy
about Asia.  It took the form of the "Asian Decapitation".
Basically, if Asian leaves a token behind in its start position,
Assyria attacks it at no loss to himself.  Very effective, but
Asia has no reason to give such an opportunity.  Also, the article
mentioned how not Decapitating could be used to gain trade
concessions.  Would never work with the gamers I know: "I promised
you trade concessions?!?  We have been peaceful neighbors for,
what...(pointing to the AST) 2000 years.  I think that debt is
paid off and forgotten by now."

Do people at Avalon Hill who play the game read these articles
before publishing them in The General?  Perhaps, I am being too
harsh on the article.  I did learn to play with basic Civ from
Jeff Suchard, who wrote the article on the optimal order for
buying 11 civilization cards (made obselete by Adv Civ), so I am
used to seeing rigorous analysis.  But doesn't it seem strange
to have Even a short, one page article in The General about
how to handle a scenario that a good player should hope to never
see (unless he likes poor opponents)?  It is not merely that
the article is analyzing how to exploit an opponents mistake,
but incorrectly claims that Assyria is always superior
to Asia to play, when usually the exact opposite is true.


--Peter

______________________________________________________________________________
						|
     "Guards!  Let me draw their fire!"		|	p-white@uiuc.edu
		   --Scapegoat,_Marshal Law_	|
______________________________________________________________________________
Newsgroups: rec.games.board