Re: First inkling that you’ve won/lost an MP
 

It's rather stupid not to care about it.

Re: First inkling that you’ve won/lost an MP
 

I think that attitude "others will take care of it" attitude is quite common. When most of people are like that and you are even very strong, but not strongest, you can as well go AI and join new game, instead of wasting time.

Re: First inkling that you’ve won/lost an MP
 

I like to think of them as weak kings, afraid, ignorant or both, of what lies beyond their kingdom. They believe that no harm will come to them and their people if they do not interfere with the outside world, and that total harmony is achieved by isolation. In reality they are of course doomed if no one can wake them from their slumber.

The mental picture I get is of king Theoden, sitting on his throne and rotting away.

Re: First inkling that you\'ve won/lost an MP
 

It's not always stupidity (ano's idea), or fear or weakness (Dedas's idea), or apathy (Zeldor's idea).

Here's a situation for you:

In the far west of the world, the nations of Arco and Ulm lived beside each other in peace, tending to their equal kingdoms of 15 provinces each. Until the 28 month, that is ... a vast wave of elephants poured over the borders!

Ulm's finest general was slain. The Ulmish army was crushed. A group of sages was squished inside their library while they studied. The slaughter went on for a few more months, and the elephants gathered at the Ulmish capitol.

But then ... a Prince of Death dropped from the sky! The elephants fled in terror. But the stealthy Ulmish army had taken all the surrounding lands in the same turn, and the elephants were all destroyed.

Ulm battled back to the original border, but then was stymied by Arco magic, and at the end of the third year, they had reached a stalemate.

In the first month of the fourth year, messengers from other nations arrived, telling of impending doom, for Vanheim had overrun most of the east. The messengers tell them it's only logical that they stop fighting, because otherwise Vanheim will win.

....

So, what do you think Ulm and Arco would do? I've *never* seen them stop fighting. They don't care about Vanheim. They don't care about the east. If it had just been a couple of border skirmishes, then maybe ... but man, that thing at the library? Unforgivable!

Re: First inkling that you\'ve won/lost an MP
 

And that's what I said. Those people don't care for victory, only for the own rage. I don't understand that and I was one of them, I would definitely do everything to sign a peace treaty.
However, if I had 15 provinces at the late game, probably, I should have gone to AI earlier.

Re: First inkling that you\'ve won/lost an MP
 

Ha ha ha http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif Sorry, please don't get bogged down in the details. It's a hypothetical situation.

And how is going AI any better than continuing your little war? What if you and your opponent are having tremendous fun with the war in the west?

I agree that's it's annoying when you're one of the nations from 'the east' in my example. But you've got to make do with the allies you have, not the allies you wish you have.

Re: First inkling that you’ve won/lost an MP
 

A variant of this I've seen in many games is the strong but not strongest nations ignoring victory conditions and prefering to play very long term hoping that "someone" will stop the first one.

Globals like Strands of Arcane Power, Forge of the Ancients, tartarians, artefacts etc... may be decisive in a normal victory game ending at turn 100+ but if the game is with VP, province or dominion victory all this is useless if the ennemy can win around turn 50 or before, and to stop someone in this kind of games good levels in alteration, evocation, thaumaturgy or even a big army of normal troops worth far more than going for endgame enchantment, conjuration or construction. As well, fighting the weakest nations is only usefull if you have time to use their capitol income for victory.

The extreme example was in a 50/150 province victory game with ten players we played this year. I was playing Atlantis with an awake Dagon and short term scales, and simply took as many indies provinces I could. I had the biggest army but the first in research had three time my level, and Niefelheim had rushed 2 weak neighbours and so owned 3 capitols. Anyway all this was useless as I reached 50 provinces in turn 26 because they only started to attack me when I was at 45, and I won the turn after, attacking as many ennemy provinces I could.

I've made the same kind of error in a longest game with VPs victory last year. I was playing Arco and was first in provinces and income and second in research iirc but was far from most VPs. I could have researched thaum 9 for astral travel to gateway my troops on some far away undefended VPs but instead prefered to go for conjuration 9 and invested a lot to developp death and prepare a tartarian factory... And Pangea won before my first tartarian was sent to the front.

Re: First inkling that you\'ve won/lost an MP
 

ano:

Being small in late game can be quite fun, you can get some action, cooperate with someone bigger. The worst thing is to be in the middle with real chance to win, but there are many people in the ssame position and they all need to cooperate to get the first guy down. Some people are even so stupid to team with the strongest guy. And well... they get absolutely nothing from that. The other hard case are people that join new game just to hurt someone, because they got beaten by him in a different game. The join, suicide and start early war, taking both of them down.

Re: First inkling that you\'ve won/lost an MP
 

vfb:
Well, that's my attitude)) I get no fun if I see no chance to win. If someone does then it's up to him to decide what to do;)
As for me, it's practically better to work on mistakes and prepare to another fight a bit better (however, games are often lost due to starting unluck)

Zeldor:
I agree.

Re: First inkling that you\'ve won/lost an MP
 

What I meant was that I sometimes like to think (read: role play) that there is such a reason behind the passiveness of a player. In reality there could be lots of reasons of course. If some of them make I good story I role play them as well.

In-game (not real) grudges between players makes a good game for me as well, as it adds atmosphere. Although if I have ambitions for world domination I try to not get involved in them. That usually means I'm pretending to look down on them.

Sometimes I just let myself go with imagined fury for the wrongs that player x or y has done to my nation and swear revenge matter the costs. I like to think that my people are with me on that and that the whole religion around me (I'm a pretender God right) is rapidly declining into a everyones quest for personal vengeance on the wrong doers.

If you do it with well it is much more entertaining than just winning a computer game.