Re: Baalz' good player pledge
 

New nick for Burnsaber: Adrian!

Re: Baalz' good player pledge
 

I thought that the point of this thread was that some people think there is a point of at least keeping it respectable so that the game isn't unbalanced by your sudden forfeiture.

Re: Baalz' good player pledge
 

In my understanding, this is exactly why there is a pledge. The person will do everything in their power to cause as much damage as possible. Surely when you're down to your last few forces, the turns will be short.

You owe it to everyone to spend those 5-15minutes completing the turn.

Re: Baalz' good player pledge
 

But who do you cause damage to? It's easy if you're being invaded. Here's a couple imaginary examples where it's a bit different:

1) You're the intended victim of an early rush. Your expansion is severely curtailed, but you manage to win a big fight against your attacker. Your neighbors who in the meantime have been expanding like crazy, now take the opportunity to fight it out over your rusher's capitol, while you're left with 3 provinces, a feebleminded and crippled god, and no reason to take sides in the current fight.

2) You attack a neighbor in the mid-game, but it was a bad choice because he turns out to be a dominions kung-fu master and he totally decimates your forces. You then beg and plead with third party for help, and he turns out to be Chuck Norris, and wipes out the kung-fu master. But now you've only got your saviour Chuck Norris as a neighbor, and you're MA Agartha so it's not like you're going to be sneaking or teleporting anywhere. You're too puny for Chuck Norris to even consider wasting his time invading.

That's just a couple ideas off the top of my head. Burnsaber's crippled Oceania position in Faerun is another example.

Here's another aspect to consider too: as the losing side in a war, you sometimes know when you've been defeated. As far as you can see, your opponent has outperformed or outmaneuvered or just plain outwitted you, and there's nothing you know of that you can do to even touch him. It was a totally fair fight, you just lost. So, how far do you go? Do you pillage your homelands and raze your capitol's castle and lab, and poison the wells, etc? On the other hand, is it fair to hand the nation over to a replacement sub? Maybe the sub knows something you don't, and can even turn the war around. It could be that the "fairer" choice as far as winning is concerned would be to go AI. Personal note though: if I was the "winning" nation, I'd prefer to fight the sub and lose, rather than fight an AI and win. I need my strategy lessons pummeled into me! :)

Re: Baalz' good player pledge
 

Do as much damage as possible?

You know, there is a difference between resisting till the end, mustering your forces and trying to survive while you can... And just turtling in your castles and, say, sending black minions with bane venom charms without even trying to give a good fight.
There are different opinions about Burning Earth strategy; I think its rather unportsmanlike. Do your best to survive, make him bleed for every province he takes etc - but if you know you are dead, just die already and try to do better next time.
Others will disagree and say Burning Earth is very fun and fair. Who's right, who's wrong? I doubt there is one true answer.

Where was I...
Ahem, there are situations when going AI is a good thing to do. When you just know you dont have any tricks left (your God has died, your research is low, your enemies are well ahead of you), you can just as well let the AI handle your troops. AI doesnt mind micro-management, and he doesnt stale.

Re: Baalz' good player pledge
 

The latter is very important. Having no actual reason to play well people will be even more likely to stale. And even one or two stales can make AI more efficient in the situation (at least he recruits troops)

Re: Baalz' good player pledge
 

Scorched earth -> you (my invader) are not going to win -> someone else has to win -> for maximum effect the person in the lead is going to get everything I have left in the lab...
Furthering the lead the leading player is not exactly more fair than just going AI.


Anyway talking about fair or balanced (see vfb's point) or when you can't do anything makes little sense imo.
Especially in the situation that A feels like there's nothing he can do (and therefore a sub isn't found easily) it's only a conflict between three player interests.
Player A: I can't win this war so I can as well give up.
Player B: Hahaha, all these territories without resistance. It's really sad to see you leave A.
Player C: Keep playing A. You don't have to play to win. But if you stop now B will secure such a huge lead I can't win anymore. You completely ruin the game. Why should I keep playing if I can't win?


All I'd say is that it is more fun to play against human than against AI, and in that spirit I'll try to get a sub when I go out in future games.
I wont commit myself to finishing a game where I've nothing left to do, or that I find hard to handle, though.
I'll also refrain from attacks on staling neighbours unless I'm driving his invasion army out or he has freespawn.

Re: Baalz' good player pledge
 

Pledged

Re: Baalz' good player pledge
 

I pledge, although it's been my guide line all the time anyway.



Plus Beardaxe really saddens me *sniff*

Re: Baalz' good player pledge
 

I pledge.

On a point related to the practical concerns here (rather than the ethical ones, e.g. "what is a player's responsability?") this brings up the general problem with the A.I. Is there any way for players to get "under the hood" and mod it? I don't have the skills necessary, but a friend of mine teaches AI for games, and I just *might* be able to get him interested.