Re: I think I now understand Cohen
 

Machaka, Zencradle, none http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Well, I have Conjuration 9, Construction 9, Evocation 3 and about 6 in everything else. About 3rd in gem income, I think. I hold the Chalice, the Gate Stone and the Hammer of the Forge Lord. What else do you want to know?

Re: I think I now understand Cohen
 

Zap, you were overly aggressive, made a play for a huge chunk of territory too early, and got yourself in a war w/ 3 other nations as a result. you are still very strong, even if the derivatives are against you. having machaka go AI would certainly be a bit of a mess in this game - why not just try for an honorable defense? Storm has a couple vicious SC's, and raiders. you can probably respond in a similar fashion, I would think - you certainly still have a large gem income.

But i understand how a war going poorly can be very disheartening, and this game takes so much effort w/ a big war, that its not that hard to lose the will to continue. I'd suggest just bulldogging through it, and see what happens. start going defensive - storm does not have huge armies w/ which to control his territories either.

Re: I think I now understand Cohen
 

Mmm, I'm not arguing that I haven't made mistakes. I do argue, however, that people's perception (based on the score graphs) that I'm in a strong position is incorrect.

If you're going backwards with no way to arrest that backslide (and I've been trying unsuccessfully to do exactly that for some time now) then it doesn't matter how many provinces you're about to lose. It just changes the amount of un-fun time it's going to take to lose them.

Because, as Cainehill put it, it's not a boatload of fun.

I cannot respond in similar fashion. I don't have SCs as tough as his, and I don't have the Vans, or any equivalent.

If there's anyone willing to do this, or perhaps even with the ability to turn the position around, I'd love to hear from them.

Re: I think I now understand Cohen
 

I thought you had tartarian titans? Those with a wraith sword, jade armour, skullcap, flying boots, luck pendant and lightning ring should fatigue out an air queen even if they don't break her mirror images.

Re: I think I now understand Cohen
 

Righto, I can try that. Unless you want to http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: I think I now understand Cohen
 

Speaking of obligation, I missed somewhat in your original post.

What about your obligation to not join a game that explicitly asks for "No Quitters" if you're going to quit? You're not having any success, so therefor you're not having any fun, so therefor you want to quit.

Tell me - is the first time you've ever run into a situation where you can't seem to do anything??? I mean - I've been through it in a couple dozen games, probably. I wouldn't think it was the first time for you either.

So - you joined a game that asked for players who were willing to play through to the bitter end, figuring you'd only keep playing as long as you're doing well enough. Bravisimo. (Applause gremlin)

This is the sort of thing that makes me wish we could have a sticky topic, maybe just one post, with the names of people who quit, especially after voluntarily undertaking an obligation not to do so in a given game.

What's so hard to understand about, "please don't join if you're going to quit"?

And frankly, Machaka has any number of things that should work well against Vans and even air queens, depending on immunities and MR.

Vans don't fight very well when blind. Nor when entangled. They're quite vulnerable to blade wind, which Machaka can get casters for pretty easily. Likewise, Machaka can get casters for Charm without too much difficulty. And casters for their own Ghost Riders, and Call of the Wild for stealth armies, etc, etc.

Albeit I guess you are possibly discovering why I think Mad Castling isn't the problem, raiders having too great an advantage is. You can never ever catch them in the province they're in, save for air trapeze, teleport, etc, which mostly pit a couple of casters against an army, and which are screwed if the raiders are over your fort.

There really, REALLY ought to be a chance for one army to catch another - as any juggler can tell you, there is no such thing as simultaneity.

Re: I think I now understand Cohen
 

I've just been reading bugthreads and whatnot where it looks like a major demoralizing (for me) event in this game has been reported. The SC I've had the most trouble with should have routed and died through lack of retreat space, but instead fought on to victory.

I'm just thinking what a huge difference it would have made to my morale if that battle had resolved as it should have, under the common understanding of how the rout rules work.

Re: I think I now understand Cohen
 

Zap - I'm not an MP guy, but why not go for my friend's and I's time-honored board-game tradition when faced with certain defeat in games like Risk, etc: Sacrifice your nation in a kamikaze effort to use everything you have to take down/thwart your nemesis:
- scorched earth tactics on the territory that you're losing to him. (ie: pop killer rituals on high-pop provinces, bane venom charms on scouts, etc)
- stop fighting your other enemies, withdraw all your forces for use to fight your nemesis.
- send gold, gems, artifacts, & intelligence to any players that might also be fighting your nemesis or that have the best chance to defeat him.

The idea here is fourfold:
1) maybe you get revenge by helping take down the player that sunk you. Revenge is good.
2) the revenge motive can make a game just as or possibly even more fun/interesting than trying to win, so playing a losing game isn't such a drag.
3) These kamikaze tactics will also likely result in the game ending for you *sooner* rather than dragging on longer, so you will be free of the game without needing to go AI and disappoint anyone.
4) if in future games people know you will do this when sinking, they may not be so willing to mess with you. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif

win-win-win-win, IMHO. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif

Re: I think I now understand Cohen
 

Sure. My understanding was that the rule was to prevent people from quitting as soon as the going got tough, not to prevent people from quitting when they feel totally defeated. I'm not the first nation to go AI in this game (if I do) although I would be the largest. But as I've argued elsewhere, counting provinces doesn't translate into winning chances.

It's not. I do try to tough out the bad times, because I take the point that you can't always be a winner, and some un-fun time when you're losing is the price to pay for the fun-time when you're winning. My position here is not that I'm losing, it's that I've lost, and I see a big difference there. Stronger players than I may be able to turn the position around, but that's not the point.

Nothing, if it's that clear. But as I said, I'm not the first player to quit this game (if I do).

Re: I think I now understand Cohen
 

omg i've lost pretenders left and right due to bizarre rout rules. that's just part of the game as presently constituted. We don't know why she didn't rout - it looks to me like you're just trying to come up w/ some rationalization, talking about how a battle "should have" resolved...

no one i play with understands how routing really works in all situations; as such, there is no "common understanding". Perhaps in that situation, her 30 morale prevented the rout.

hopefully you can find someone to sub for you if you so much hate playing.

and no other player has quit w/out being totally defeated. Arcos quit w/, what, one or two territories left? same pretty well w/ the jots. You are still a major player - certainly stronger than rlyeh or marignon.