Re: Death of I
 

Congrats on holding out so long Rath http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif Very much welcome for the scenario - it turned out to be a lot of fun. I'll let you know when the next interesting one is about to start.

Re: Death of I
 

Tuper contacted me, he was surprised I had been in the game, apparently he didn't ask to be subbed. I turned back over the reigns to him.

Re: Death of I
 

Yes, sorry, that was my fault. I interpreted his statements about giving up dom2 (and being fed up with this game in particular) together with some staling to mean he was finished. But subbing was not really in vane, he would have staled that turn otherwise.

Re: Death of I
 

so how are the artefacts?

Re: Death of I
 

NP, was happy to do it.

Re: Death of I
 

so, upon discussions w/ quantum, it appears that not only was this a 6 vs 1 gangbang, but that the decision was earlier made to throw the game to ironhawk. That's one way to play, but not a style I am interested in supporting. after this turn i plan on staling my way out of the game, though i shall not resign.

I fairly enjoyed the scenario, and the long war though. Ulm really sucks, but the gate stone is w/out doubt rather overpowered for especially the early game... so it kinda balanced. The war itself, after a serious amount of reorganization, generally went as well as could be expected - I've mostly crushed the minor powers (not the jots yet - well played btw morkilus), but have overall been mostly at a stalemate w/ quantum (though the dark hand of Ironhawk's ctis was of course behind it as well). Caine was the only player not to join against me, and I'd like to thank him for that.

But when the two major adversaries, who were each basically comparable to me in gems and magic, which are the two major determinations of power in this game, make a deal such that one shall expand unchecked, and that even when QM is acknowledging that IH will win, he says he cannot do anything about it - this is in essence the notion of "throwing the game". While i've enjoyed the game so far, I'm not interested in participating in such a charade.

games aren't primarily about winning; they're at least as much about playing well, and playing honorably. I don't especially feel that *.* has done either - anyone can amass a huge army if completely unchecked; or, rather, actively campaigned for by the other major player. But if he feels that's what a win is, then that's his prerogative.

perhaps w/ a giant vacuum where I am, the dynamics will cause there to be a real game now between qm and ih, rather than the sham game it turns out we've been having so far.

Re: Death of I
 

If that's the case, color me disgusted, especially as it seems that the jerrymandering, er, diplomacy that decided the game took place largely on IRC. Thus disadvantaging all the players who thought it was a normal game with diplo happening via PMs and in game messages as opposed to chatting away interminably.

Especially considering that, unlike other games where spying and espionage might be used to discover hidden / secret alliances, there's essentially no way for players to figure it out unless they also started living on irc.

Re: Death of I
 

From the perspective of a player that is simply surprised to be still kicking, I was surprised that archaeolept wanted to give up the game because of an alliance. I was one of the first players to try to organize against Ulm, but my decision was based upon the score graphs (of which he was a clear leader) and the fate of several smaller nations on which I was spying. Isn't this normal multiplayer behavior? And why is conducting diplomacy on IRC considered disgusting behavior?

Re: Death of I
 

no, the alliance was not it - i could hold out against a regular alliance. But it turns out, secretly, behind the scenes, the two other major powers were also in collusion.

also, mork, due to your inexperience, you likely give far too much weight to certain of the graphs. the two major determiners of power, outside the early game, are gems and research, of which taken together qm ih and I were all fairly close - so, part of the question is, which of the experienced players were encouraging you to think that?

an alliance which works solely to the benefit of the "secret partner", and where the other major player seems to have undertaken to front the other's interest, forsaking his own... that's throwing the game, w/ the sole purpose I would guess, just to deny me a chance - now, denying me a chance is ok, but working for another's interest is against the spirit of the game (see "throwing", as per above).

Its clearly not worth my time playing such a game. Reminds we of the old "stacked deck" norfleet days...

Re: Death of I
 

I'm getting more and more fond of the "team" games, where there's publicly known alliances from the get go - much more straightforward, not to mention fun.

Re: Death of I
 

yah - they have their own problems though; namely, highly organized trading routines - player one takes high scales and feeds all the cash to teammate w/ the insane uber-bless, for instance.

Re: Death of I
 

So you do the alliances randomly, after pretenders are uploaded, making it a lot rougher to do that min-maxing : after all, what happens if _all_ your team has horrible scale uber-blesses and can't afford to buy any troops? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Actually, I'd love to see a "no-trade" option in Dom3 to prevent this - maybe "sending items good, money bad" options.

Re: Death of I
 

A new total random no diplomacy game would be cool too i think. I hate Diplomacy in Dominions too since i always think it needs the least skill. In order to keep it easy and short i prefer to do my diplomacy if i have to do it in IRC instead though because this is quicker and more reliable than via PMs.

What about a new Random no Diplomacy game with 7 or 8 players?
This way every player could get the choice to pick one of 2 nations. The host would offer the nations semirandom then by selecting them sane, i.e. not offering two similiar nations which are both considered weak but rather 2 different nations to each player that they have lots of choices.

Like player a would get the choice between Abysia and Caelum, player b between Machaka and Ermor, player c between Ryleh and Jotunheim etc. .
So the chance is smaller that you get assigned a nation you really dislike and with 8 players the game isn't that large neither and no diplomacy.

In the last random game i played it was on orania with 15 players and i was unlucky enough to get assigned Mictlan.
If a sane host would offer 2 nations for each of the 7 or 8 participating players such a cruel assignment could be avoided.
Such a game i would find interesting enough to break my intention to not play any more longterm games till dom3.

Re: Death of I
 

A bidding arrangement might be better (more so if Dom3 supported it to allow people to give up pretender points in a bid) : Instead of someone potentially getting a choice of Mictlan or Tien Chi, everyone puts in 3 bids towards nations, the first bid is worth most, but whichever bid takes subtracts points from their pretender total.

Heh. Taken to an extreme : someone is the only bidder on Ulm, they might _gain_ extra pretender creation points, while Marignon, Jotuns, etc, all lost points.

Re: Death of I
 

I would just like to say, saying that it was 'decided to throw the game to Ironhawk' is a gross misrepresentation of what happened. So, perhaps you will indulge me a quick description of events from my point of view...

As I was finishing the Marignon war I realized I was in a very precarious position, the biggest target for the two most powerful nations, but also threatening enough for minor nations to gang me. Both arch and Ironhawk were pressuring me to their sides, arch with spies, Ironhawk saying he was already prepared for an invasion. So there were a lot of reasons to choose to attack arch:

1. If I didn't, Ironhawk would be attacking right away, and I was not prepared for a war instantly.

2. Boron had already committed to suicideing vs. arch, if I let him go it alone I would end up with a big open border with arch in the north.

3. I hate fighting C'tis.

4. Arch seemed the bigger threat to winning at the time.

So once I was committed to this course of action, it was only natural that I should try to enlist as many allies as possible, and I must admit the number exceeded my expectations. But once they had joined the war, it pretty much precluded me pulling out without effectively backstabbing them.

So now fast forward to when most of my allies are dead, dying or distracted. Now I could probably pull out without to much repercussions there, but there are other factors:

1. If I stopped attacking Arch and just sat and did nothing, the game would get very boring, and I would still lose. If I instead switched sides and attacked Ironhawk, I was fairly sure he would consider that backstabbing.

2. Even at this point, I think switching sides would probably be 'throwing the game to Arch' as much as the reverse is 'throwing the game to Ironhawk'.

3. I hate fighting C'tis.

So I was stuck in a very tough spot diplomatically, no matter what I did I would be insulting Ironhawk or Arch. I very much agree with Caine and Boron that it is unfortunate diplo seems to overshadow the rest of the game, and cause so much animosity. Of all the long term games I have been in were the diplo turned sour (and I have been in a lot of those) this one is probably the worst since there is no one player like stormbinder that can be pointed to as the cause of discord.

Anyway, since as far as I can see there is not anyone still having much fun in this game, I propose we simply stop here and call it a tie among surviving players or some such.

Re: Death of I
 

I really can't figure out why there should be any animosity. It's a free-for-all as the game was set up, so why can't players do whatever they want in the context of the game? Having to make meta-decisions about diplomacy because you might "insult" other players is more gamey than arrow-catchers.

Diplomacy is part of the game as it is set up. There are RAND and team games for those that don't like it. You can spend your gaming time strategizing and scripting your troops, or you can spend it attempting to coax players onto your side... both are part of the game as I understand it.

I'm irritated the game had to break down because of feelings, and hoped it could go to its own conclusion without accusations and stomping off in self-righteousness. But if nobody's having fun, I'm all for spending time elsewhere as well.

Maybe in the future, easier win conditions could offset stalemates and hurt feelings. I can't even imagine how the CoW game is going to end... I'm guessing Dom3 will come out and everyone will simultaenously quit http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif

Re: Death of I
 

Yeah this viewpoint is one-sided and completely unfair. The truth of the matter was a simple crisis of diplomacy. There came a time when my nation was ready for serious war. The targets were either Man or Pan. Pan was my first choice since he had explicitly told me he was going to invade me over the issue of the Treelords. BUT during my prepartions to pre-emptivly attack Pan, Ulm attacked him instead. Knowing then that if I too were to attack Pan that he would quickly be crushed and I would rapidly find myself with a long front facing a very powerful Ulm I was still unready to face... I chose the second option and attacked Man. After the Man conflict was completed I decided to use the attention-vacuum caused by the two major super-powers fighting in order to try and tackle Ermor.

As fighting in the Ermor war progressed favorably I began to look forward to the future. What would happen when Ermor was finished? Clearly I would have to attack a superpower, but which one? I chose to eventually attack Ulm as the bigger threat, given that he seemed to be succesfully waging war against not one but five nations. Additionally, if Ulm were to be defeated, the resulting geographic layout of Pan provinces would favor my eventual invasion of them. So, two turns ago, I made the final decision and began to support the Panish war effort with intelligence and material.

Diplomacy
 

"No Diplomacy" is like playing the AI. Since "Unlimited Diplomacy" invariably causes problems and hard feelings (in games, offices, and nations), how about "Limited Diplomacy"?

- Limited Diplomacy Levels -

Level 0: No diplomacy. Public nondiplomatic messages allowed.

Level 1: No private diplomacy. Public declarations allowed (but not required): Unilateral declarations of war, unilateral declarations of peace, requests for trade at a fixed rate. Conditions allowed on war/peace declarations: Anything that does not involve a 3rd party.
Examples:
"I will send 6 water gems to anyone who sends me an Ice Sword. Should I receive too many, I will return the excess."
"I will declare war on Ulm unless his troops leave Province 120, and he gives me 200 gold in reparations."
"My people love the citizens of Soulgate Ermor, and would be content with our present borders for the next 16 months if Ermor will also pledge to peace."

...Of course, that causes a lot of public messaging, but it shouldn't be too much trouble.

Level 2: Private diplomacy allowed. However, no politics involving a 3rd party are allowed. In other words - no alliances, no mutual protection agreements, no discussion of other nations, implict or explicit. Trading is unrestricted.


Level 1 and level 2 are the same, except level 2 allows secret deals and directed trading. Still - since all deals are required to be fully unilateral, with no mention of any third party - there should not be any hard feelings, questions of ganging up, accusations of unfairness, soiled honor, or anything else; so long as everyone (with the exception of, at most, one person) in the game is trusted not to grossly violate explicit rules.

Re: Diplomacy
 

<quantum_mechani> well, I would have just withdrawn from the game myself but I figured ironhawk would get unstoppable soon enough, and I'm enjoying our war a fair amount
<archae> like i said, a rigged game
...
<quantum_mechani> you have to understand I am in a very awkward situation, whatever I do I'm slighting either you or iron
<archae> lol
<archae> you've thrown the game
<archae> i don't need any other rationalisations
<archae> games aren't primarily about winning
<archae> they're about how well you play, and about honour
<quantum_mechani> yeah, that's exaxtly it, and I see no honourable way out
<quantum_mechani> if I go iron's way I'm throwing the game

Re: Diplomacy
 

What is missing in that quote is a set of quotation marks around 'throwing the game' in the last line (not that I am saying the quote is incorrect, only that it would have clearified my intended meaning). IIRC, the gist of that and the next few lines was if I allied with Ironhawk you would call it thowing the game, if I switched to an alliance with you Iron would very likely consider it backstabbing.

Re: Diplomacy
 

This is the situation of the game: Whoever QM sides with will win the game and whoever he fights will lose. But I do not understand why there is so much angst about it? QM is simply the King Maker. He is a powerful nation which cannot win on its own but can still effect the game enough to influence which other nation will win. It is a very common MP phenomenon that we should all be familiar with by now.

How can anyone gainsay his decisions about what to do with his empire? It's his to run as he sees fit. Any claims of collusion were clearly refuted when he laid his cards on the table. So he's just making the choice based on chance, preference, and diplomatic standing. All of which are completely legitimate.

Re: Diplomacy
 

Ok, since the debate seems to have calmed down somewhat I would like to discuss how to move forward with this game. First and foremost, do people want to continue? Once we decide whether or not to continue then we can vote on how to call the game.

My vote is not to continue. I say that with a great deal of sadness cause I worked really hard in this game, did well, and was having a lot of fun. And while, technically speaking, we could get a replacement for Ulm... IMO, arch and the Ulmish wars were too central to the history of the game to just swap someone else in. Just doesnt seem right, you know?

Re: Diplomacy
 

Well, speaking from left field and as someone who wasn't involved in the 'controversy"..

I attacked Ulm because they were clearly winning and with Mork cutting off all possibilities of growth I had no choice unless it was to involuntarily cede my provinces to them.

From my non irc (Don't trust it, never will, seems irrational yes but there ya go) vision it truly seems like what happens when one player gets huge, all the others jump on em. This tends to make the one feel picked on, and well, tis the case!! But necessary imho. My actions would have remained the same. (cept I would've figured out how to keep my army alive and then I'D be the evil empire mwah hah hah cough..) In any game of any type.

There is collusion and there are deals which smell of collusion but thats why we have descriptors in english that mean the same in the end but imply different things.

That said, I have no comment or clue about any collusion but I will say that in most any game with a balance of power situation being possible it frequently falls to one player who will NOT win to decide who does. My gaming group calls this the grovel phase..

After much blathering my point is: Work it out if workoutable, if not, end it, declare everyone winners and make another game with the things you learned.

How many of these things actually get to the end with one controlling all anyways? It usually becomes very obvious or pointless in my limited experience.

One last bit and this points no fingers, really. No really, damn it. Taking your ball and going home is lame. Cards you are dealt with suck? Play em and lose, think outside the box, offer bribes, take compromising photos and blackmail em, get in the next hand and take them to the cleaners.

Too much wisdom this late at night on insomnia drugs that don't seem to work..!

Rathar

P.S. Still looking forward to the next game!

P.s.s Stupid marble warriored, swords of sharpnessed orgevinemen!! Especially since same was within my capabilities and I overlooked it... Next time!

/rubs hands greedily and pets his cat

Rathar Kalinger

Oh, one last point. The use of the IRC channel was pretty heavily promoted in this thread so one should not be surprised that it was used. I already mentioned my feelings about IRC but in a RP sort of way I try hard to use only the ingame message system, 2 turn delay and all, no way to make certain that is the only way to go but tis the only way one should expect me to use. Seems more "natural" in these artificial envoronments. Think English east indies co. fighting the Frence rival company for nearly a year after peace had been declared due to the length of time it took for the news to percolate!

Re: Diplomacy
 

ehh, i haven't w/drawn. my plan is to hide my forces in my castles, let QM take all of my lands, and wait for each castle to be eventually beseiged. Possibly everyone gets so bored they stop playing, in which case I emerge and conquer the world.

Re: Diplomacy
 

I'm done with it as far as having fun is concerned. If anyone wants me to continue playing, I will though, out of principle. I'm not trying to blame anyone, but it looks like the game is ruined anyway.

I feel no need to play when somebody uses meta-strategies like this. I'd rather play against the AI, at least then I can take a turn more than once every two days, and quit playing without feeling like a heel.

Re: Diplomacy
 

lol - how is what QM and IH done not a "meta-strategy"? Mine is purely in response to theirs - Quantum has been pretty clear for a while, heck, even before the real war started, that IH would be almost impossible to stop - Quant, by making himself subservient to a player he freely acknowledged was close to unstoppable, and IH for encouraging and welcoming this "strategy", were responsible for the death of this game. Clearly, such actions are bull****. I'm perfectly capable of fighting against a larger coalition, as I've been doing, but when there is a secret compact that, whatever the "intentions" basically throws the game to the acknowledged (by the other major power and experienced player) leader, then I've got to ask what the point is in playing such a futile exercise?

My strategy is the only one that seems to me valid for the current circumstances. I did not ask for the game to be halted - IH did that on his own initiative w/out any discussion w/ his fellow players. I'm happy to continue playing, but my strategy is my own. why I should play in such a rigged game, and then also be forced not to follow my own strategy in the matter; well, that's absurd.

clearly the only way to upset a game throwing is to try and make the one throwing the game reconsider his options -in this case, by allowing him to grab enough of my territory that he would then be capable of defeating IH straight out.

did nothing, grew, and waited until there was an absurd preponderance of force. that's hard work? ha.

Re: Diplomacy
 

No, its not. What IH has done is to work diplomatically for the win from turn 1. And now you see your chance for victory disappearing because all my diplomatic work has paid off. Well, I am sorry that all your hard work has been in vain, arch. But the truth is that the game developed into a King Maker situation and I beat you to it. Fair and square. You lose. If you cannot see that through your own self-righteousness then that is your problem.

But - you are in luck! I have grown tired of pandering to your ridiculous collusion arguments and decided to bow out of this game. Enjoy your victory!!! Big time congrats on the win!!!!

Re: Diplomacy
 

lol pandering. I've had to endure your sputtering B.S., self-serving distortions, and outright lies all game - fine, if you can't deal w/ looking for a fair ie. interesting fight. But no way in hell does my strategy have to follow how you would want it to be. Clearly, w/ quantum acting as if he were sworn to subservience, the best way to break your "unholy alliance" is to offer quantum enough to tempt him into going solely for the win - ie. by leaving my territories undefended. Then the possibility remains that, following a great armageddon war, i might be able to squeak up the middle, however unlikely that may be.

That's why you want to bow out - the threat of actually having to fight for something after all. I haven't withdrawn - feel free to win if you can.

Re: Diplomacy
 

I can't believe you are so sore because I stole the win from you via diplomacy. Why can't you see how poor of a sport you're being?

Re: Diplomacy
 

what the [censored] - i'm pissed at the [censored] you've spewed all game towards me. I already offered to decline any win earlier in discussion w/ quant, if he were willing to not throw the game to you. I don't give a [censored] about winning; i do give a [censored] about playing well, and playing fair, and not having to listen to your crap.

Enough
 

Ok, we all know I'm not a mod, but perhaps it would be best to end this thread here.

Re: Enough
 

And possibly the game as well, all things considered.