[qebab]

Originally Posted by Gio2k

Let's examine PA on a micro scale. Every hour the ticker goes planet by planet, executes orders (construction, production, military), moves fleets, calculates the battles at each planet. So in fact, PA is turn based.

We disagree here. The difference between PA and chess, is that in chess you wait for your turn, then execute your moves, and the initiative passes to the other player, and in PA, you, and everyone else do their moves simultaneously. You do not have to wait for your turn, it is your turn all the time. You do not have to wait for your galmate to finish arranging his fleet, or another alliance to finish their politics before the turn passes to you, you do it at the same time. This is exactly the same way as RTS games work, and to verify this, you can ask yourself the question; Would PA still be turn-based if ticks happened every millisecond instead of hour? If the answer to that is no, you are saying that the difference is ticklength, and you see that your argument is fundamentally flawed.

Originally Posted by Gio2k

But i am not only referring to the micro scale. On a macro scale, PA is also turn based. Each night alliances attack. One night alliance A hits alliance B. Next night alliance B will hit alliance A back. Next night Alliance C might join alliance A hitting alliance B, and so on and so forth. PA on a macro level is like a series of events which take place mostly between 3gmt and 7 gmt.

Again, we disagree. Alliance B does not have to wait until the next night, they can in fact hit right back once it is appearant that they are being targetted by alliance A - in fact, they can hit before alliance A if they managed to get a hint of what is happening. This would not happen in a turn-based game, in a turn-based game, alliance B would not know that they were being under attack until alliance A executed their attack, and would be unable to do anything about it before it was their turn to play.

Originally Posted by Gio2k

So in fact, there are several analogies with turn based games.
Even so, the point is not whether PA is turn based or not, but whether the same criteria that aplies to turn based games applies here. I play my fair share of turn based board games, and my point was that in games where you have 3 players competing for the win things are much more complicated.

I agree that it is more complicated once there are more than 2 contenders, but does that mean you should wait for other alliances to "finish their turn" before you do yours? As I have said already, it is your turn all the time. This is nothing like chess, or go at all. Do you not agree that PA is more similar to Hearts of Iron or Age of Empires than to Civilization-type games? If you disregard the ticklength, you see that it is exactly the same. Without knowing it from a programmers point of view, I imagine that RTS games are programmed the same way as PA, with just an infinitely shorter ticklength.

Originally Posted by Gio2k

When you have 2 players competing for the win and a third one who has the power to be kingmaker, things are much more complicated. When you have 2 players competing for the win and other players which don't really affect the end result, the stronger player will attack the second stronger player to ensure victory.
All rounds of PA where eX and 1up played fall imo in the last category. This round does not.

As I said already, yes, I agree that it is more complicated when you have 3 contenders. No, not all PA rounds where both eX and 1up have played have had only two contenders. Fact is, if Angels had played their cards right and actually done politics in round 15, they would have been a serious contender. Instead, they chose to go at eXilition alone, while eXilition changed their environment by getting support from other alliances. I am not saying that Angels were as good as eXilition in activity, or military, but I am saying that with the military we had, and the value advantage we had, it should have been well possible to win it. eXilition skewed it to their advantage by bringing other variables into the equation. Obviously none of the alliances playing this round have the competence in High Command that eXilition had, but it should not be an impossible task for them to actually change their environment into one that favors them.

One possible scenario is where you attack one of the two contenders in the top, and let the other one pull ahead while making some friends lower down the top 10. If your HC do not have the confidence in their own alliance to do moves like that, then I would dare to say that they do not think their own alliance good enough to win, and do not really deserve it. If they value a top 3 spot enough not to be able to gamble for the #1, then why do they consider themselves worthy of winning this round?