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.