I think I now understand Cohen
 

Like some others, I've been critical of the behaviour, attributed mainly to Cohen, of going AI as soon as a the slightest setback is encountered in a game. Recently, in a couple of games, I've been strongly tempted to do the same myself although I like to think that the motivating circumstances are more significant than a slight setback.

In one game, I've encountered an SC and a nation-specific tactic to which I have no answer. I've looked for an answer, taken advice etc but had no success whatever and in light of that, see my winning chances in the game as zero. Perhaps, if I were a stronger player and knew of these things beforehand and was able to prepare (probably by madcastling) then I'd be OK, but that's not really the point.

The point that is irking me is that my plan to go AI is being viewed as unethical by the game's administrator (and my nemesis in the game). When the game started, he explicitly said that he didn't want players that would drop when the going got tough. My view is that the situation is more than tough, it's hopeless, and that it serves no purpose to force a player to play on in those circumstances.

I think Cohen has been here before me, and I failed to properly appreciate the situation. My apologies to Cohen, if that's the case.

Re: I think I now understand Cohen
 

So why not play, but in a way that involves minimal time? Don't micromanage, just do things in broad strokes, and limit your time to say ten minutes per turn.

PvK

Re: I think I now understand Cohen
 

I think this sort of thing would/could fuel a very interesting discussion on hard counters vs. soft counters. I'd expect a game like dominions to be a really soft counter game, but there are many strategies which require very hard counters.

To anyone who may not be familiar with the terms, a hard counter is something like a rock-paper-scissors game where paper ALWAYS counters rock. A hard counter in a computer game is along the same lines but is usually modified to almost always, like a 95%-99% chance of success.

A soft counter would be a unit/spell/item that grants an advantage for one player but not an outright victory.

Re: I think I now understand Cohen
 

Well, yes, I could even just connect and click the "End Turn" button every day. I kinda assume that my opponent would get more challenge from the AI, though.

Re: I think I now understand Cohen
 

Unethical??? Who's running the game, Stormbinder?

'Lame' would be a more appropriate adjective, especially if you have alliances / treaties and go AI. People get burned by that.

*shrug* I can understand wanting to quit in a blitz game - it's no fun to have your turn done in 1-5 minutes while everyone else is taking half an hour, while you have to stay near the computer just in case everyone gets done with their turns quickly.

If you're one of the smallest / weakest nations left, and don't have alliances and treaties, it probably doesn't do too much harm to quit and go AI - it certainly beats the behavior of those who simply stop bothering to do their turns.

Otherwise, you're shafting the other players in the game, not just your nemesis, kinda like quiting a game of risk or monopoly. The big bad probably gets to gobble up the AI run nation quicker than it would have against you.

No, it's not necessarily a boat load of fun, continuing when you're getting your boat kicked, but then again, it doesn't have to take an hour a turn. Also, you can try different things out, riskier / experimental than you normally would. Or try diplomacy and alliance against the nemesis.

But, please - don't apologize to Cohen. He quits when he is still one of the leading nations in the game, at least on one occasion he was _the_ top nation, according to the graphs. He also quits after making a kamakaze run against another player - he causes boatloads of damage to the other player's nation, finally gets repulsed, and takes his toys and goes home. All his own doing.

Re: I think I now understand Cohen
 

Ahem, mind giving the details? The turn? What's going on? Would love to hear the details!

Re: I think I now understand Cohen
 

Yeah I agree. Once you realize that you're no longer in the running to win the game, you can still take the opportunity to try out all sorts of interesting weird things, or play kingmaker by hurting someone else's chances to win and so forth.

Re: I think I now understand Cohen
 

This is the key to the whole thing. I do still have a lot of territory. However, I'm incapable of defending it. My nemesis may gobble it a little more quickly against the AI, but not a whole lot more quickly. Nonetheless, I acknowledge that I wouldn't be doing the other players any favours by doing this.

But there's another issue. As you say, it's not a "boatload of fun" playing positions like this. Where does my obligation to spend not-fun-time in order to protect other people's fun-time start and end? Some such obligation exists, I would say, but it may be that I can't play as well as the AI in the time I'm obliged to give.

Re: I think I now understand Cohen
 

The turn is 48, the SC is a defense 35 air queen (oh and a mega-tough Allfather has just shown up as well) the tactic is Vanheim's Van-based infiltration and raiding, backed up by ghost riders. I can't even scratch the AQ, and I'm not madcastled.

If anyone's interested in playing this position, please speak up. That would be the ideal solution, for me.

Re: I think I now understand Cohen
 

That's not really the details. What nation are you? What map? What strong points do you have?

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.

Re: I think I now understand Cohen
 

Yes, I can see that my comment must have sounded like I was making excuses for losing. That was not my intention. I played badly and, as a result, I've lost. No question about that.

And yes, I plan to withdraw from Dom altogether, over the next few weeks.

Re: I think I now understand Cohen
 

*sigh* Yes, I am running the game and I am that terrible SC/raiding nation in question. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image.../firedevil.gif

Zapmeister's description of the situation is true and accurate.


I am extremely tempted to add my own bit of advice regarding how to deal with me to what was already mentioned here, but I understand that it would be like shooting myself in the leg. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif I promise Zap I'll tell you what I would try to do in your place, but it'll have to be until after the game. I did send few small bits of advice to you in PMs over the Last several days.


As for my own nation - I only have 1 real army though which I put together 1 turn ago. And I only have 2 SCs (AQs), in addition to vans, who are good raiders but not up to par agaisnt real SC. I do have one kickass AQ prophet though, who is real ***** to kill. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif



As Zapmesiter said, the problem is that if huge Machaka Empire would go AI at this point (turn 47) I could overun most of it in 1 turn, with my raiders, summons and teleporting SCs. And I would hate to win the game in this way. I imagine all other players would not like as well.




Meanwhile I can only say that I agree with what was saod by Archae, Graeme and Cain(gasp! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/shock.gif), both in tactical and global points of view.


In Zapmeister's defense I can say that it must be very frustrating for him to play against such raiding tactic, when enemy strike and retreat into shadow. And he also correct, I am not sure myself how my AQ have survived this Last turn big battle, after she was the only one commander left in the castle. I have few theories why it would happen, most likely this was due to that battle being castle defense. Or it could be a bug indeed. I even posted about it myself earlier today (look at the pinned Dom2's FAQ on the top of the first page, I've added some corrections to it today, routing mechanism is one of them).


And btw I also lost my banelord to you due to routing wierdness Last turn (he was scripted to hold 5 turns, since I was expecting your Ghost riders attack, and he was supposed to retreat once you kill the regular troops, which he didn't http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/confused.gif). Although to be honest banelord and that AQ SC are not in the same wieght Category of course.


Regards,
Stormbinder

Re: I think I now understand Cohen
 

I have to agree with Cainehill (gasp!) on this one.

In Schmork's Ye Olde Game, here is the exact house rules:
'good clean fun: no quitters, no house rules, 48h-quick'

So, I build up, biding my time until I am ready to take out Cainehill (Caelum). I enlist my neighbor, Kinky Imp as Marignon, with whom I have had an agreement all game, to help me in this. Marignon casts his gaze northward, seeing splendid provinces in his eyes for the taking. I even agree to attack first, draw Cainehill's arimes towards me and let my ally attack two turns later to smack Cainehill in the behind.

So, guess what happens? The very move my 'ally' is supposed to attack our mutual enemy, he suddenly quits without ANY warning at all. He sends an in-game message to me, saying he was sorry. He also sends me some gold and gems, as if this makes up for his sudden quitting. Of course, the next turn I receive a message from the AI saying it has decided to eliminate my sorry a$$. So it invades me along my totally unprotected border with a bunch of knights of the chalice under command of his prophet casting mass bless.

Meanwhile, Cainehill is not any easy pushover by any stretch of the imagination. And my nice, well planned 2 on 1 becomes a chaotic 1 on 2.

So, don't get me started on this deal about people who join 'no quitters' games and then quit. I am just not in the mood for it!

Re: I think I now understand Cohen
 

Fair enough, but that's not what I'm doing.

Re: I think I now understand Cohen
 

actually worse, given that you've previously threatened to "throw the game", first to storm, and now, for instance if you follow Lintman's horrible advice, maybe to someone else.

frankly, we all invest a lot of time in these games for some entertainment, and because the game is so fascinating. to have it end w/ someone, say, throwing the game or giving all their stuff to another player who is already a top contender or such like, would be horrible. i'd likely just quit and know whom not to play w/ in future games.

Re: I think I now understand Cohen
 

You think the kingmaker threat is unethical? A lot of folks disagree but either way don't worry, you'll not find yourself in any more games with me.

Re: I think I now understand Cohen
 

yes. threatening to "throw a game" is piss poor sportsmanship. its like a child's temper tantrum.

being a "kingmaker" is a different thing entirely. in such a case you can perhaps parlay a minor position to one's own advantage by drawing the attention of numerous suitors for your support.

you instead said you would throw the game to storm if other players didn't agree to have things go your way. I find it very amusing that even so you were unable to strengthen your position. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: I think I now understand Cohen
 

It's also a bog-standard tactic in boardgames and Online games alike - I'm surprised you haven't encountered it before (if you haven't).

But this thread wasn't supposed to be about the kingmaker tactic, it was about the extent of the obligation to play on when you're not having fun.

Re: I think I now understand Cohen
 

Personally I think kingmaker threat was ethical. After all simular situations happened histrically quite often, so personally don't have much problems with it. It is just that I didn't want to benefit from that situation either, that's why I played active shuttle diplomacy between Archaeolept and Zapmeister, to avoid having the victory in this game thrown on my laps back than. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif


But going AI while being one of the largest nations in "no quiters" game is a different matter, IMO. However it looks to me that Zap is likely to reconsider his decision, in which case I would certanly appreciate it.


Regards,
Stormbinder

Re: I think I now understand Cohen
 

yes. threatening to throw a game is a common tactic amongst children and bad players everywhere

Re: I think I now understand Cohen
 

I admit that I don't see anything wrong with playing to the bitter end for the sole purpose of trying to inflict just as MUCH pain as possible on whomever is taking you down. It is a perfectly legit strategy, saying, in essence, you may kill me this game, but next game you will think twice before attacking me! Scorched earth policy? Heck yeah! It sure worked for the Russians in WW2.

I also think it is excellent strategy to send money and gems and artifacts to a neighbor who says he will attack the guy who is killing you, for maybe it is enough to save your own sorry behind.

I definitely feel that arch is overracting here and didn't read the LintMan's post very closely. Lint did not say he would give stuff to the leading contender on the other side of the board and 'throw' the game. He said he would give stuff to other people fighting your enemy. After all, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

I would certainly do the exact same thing.

Re: I think I now understand Cohen
 

Now this is quite untrue. When I threatened you, I was facing 4:1 nations against me. I was obviously history if I didn't succeed. This isn't the childish desire to have everything one's own way, it's the only tactic available to survive.

Re: I think I now understand Cohen
 

Quitting at this point for Zapmeister, as in, actually turning AI, is just a formality.

It's obvious he's not enthused about his chances anymore, and you can't force him to have motivation.

If he doesn't turn AI but logs onto the server, hits Machaka and then immediately ends his turn, he has really also quit.

IMO, the damage is already done.

In his eyes, it doesn't matter if he has 2 or 20 left since he feels helpless (and even if there is a way for him to beat his opponent, he doesn't know it) so he's really doing exactly the same thing as those other nations. And technically, those other nations would have to be held at fault too because they did in fact quit.

Re: I think I now understand Cohen
 

WTF are you talking about panther? are you in this game? are you privy to the private Messages wherein these threats were made? Zapmeister was clear that if I attacked him in any way, as would have been in keeping w/ my word to the much weaker Marignon whom Zap had attacked, that Zap would completely abandon his front against Storm such that Storm would merely walk in. His words themselves were to "throw the game".

Lint's advice in this situation was grotesque, as he was encouraging this childish behaviour. Fighting to the end to inflict maximum damage on an opponent is completely different from throwing a game. one is honorable, the other is not.

As is so often the case in these situations, Zap can dish it out but he sure as hell can't take it.

Re: I think I now understand Cohen
 

Arch, do you understand English very well? Tell me one single thing in the above post which is childish and immature. I still think you did not actually read the words as written. The above advice was excellent!

I said nothing at all about whatever the heck is going on inside the game mentioned at the start of this thread. NOT ONE WORD! I even feel that you did not read my post either.

I merely pointed out that you skimmed a post and overracted. There is nothing written is the above post that I would not also do. And probably 95% of the other players in this game too. If any of these strategies are considered unethical, I would surely like to know this.

One thing I would never do is lay down and die to HELP a guy who is overruning me. But I suspect there are people who will do this, maybe for a future vague favor. I happen to not be one of them.

Re: I think I now understand Cohen
 

I don't think calling names is very productive Archae.

Frankly I never used such tactic myself in any of my games, but I don't see it as being too unethical, especially when there are no other choices left to avoid disastorious 1 vs 4 war, including 2 major powers. As I said, it happend historicaly, and quite often. In particular in european history very often 3rd countires (large and small) played two major competing countries against each other to pursue their own goals, using similar "kingmaking" tactics and threats, often successefuly.

The fact that I din't want to take advantage of it and worked to avoid it doesn't mean that I consider it unethical.


Note that it is very different from current situation though. Threating to give your items or territory to your rival to avoid disastorious 4 vs 1 war is one thing. Going AI while being one of the largest nation, especailly in the game with specific "no quiters, everybody stick to the end, no matter sweet one or bitter one" rules to which you have agreed and which everybody honored, is totally different. Let's not confuse these two things together.

Regards,
Stormbinder

Re: I think I now understand Cohen
 

Panther I have not once in this thread, other than in my response to you, responded in any way to lintman's post. I have only been discussing zap, and his actions, and his threats. How my supposed skimming of a post i never mentioned, or my overreaction to a post i never reacted to, got into your head I do not know.

Re: I think I now understand Cohen
 

storm, there is no historical analogy for throwing a game: ie. vacating a front, sending national treasuries; all in order to make good the threat to do so. I don't even know where to begin in saying how wrongheaded the claim of historical validation is.

Re: I think I now understand Cohen
 

Sure there are. Countries and rulers went to the great lengths to ensure screwing of their arch-enemy when faced with certain defeats. And usually the only way to get such revenge would be to help the rival or the enemy of your enemy. Just think about it Archae - how else could you possibly get revenge from "beyond the grave"?!? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/evil.gif


What more, people do it left in right in dominion, sending gems/items to your enemy's rivals when faced with cerain defeat, as they indicated even here on this thread. Hell, in our game Cohen did it when you have defeated him, by sending all his gems/items to Pangeya. Was I happy about it? No, since Pangeya is my neigbor and one of my rivals. But I think it was up to Cohen what to do with his national treasury. Other players do this often as well, it is a pretty common thing in Dom2.


But we have to separate threatening to send gems/item and threatening to go AI while having one of the largest empires in the world. They are totally different, and I made clear that I agree that the 2nd situation is indeed unethical, especially in the game with rules such as ours.

Just my two cents.

Re: I think I now understand Cohen
 

storm, do not elide the question. please give me a specific historical analogy for an action such as Zap was threatening to do. ie. names, places, etc.

since, in fact if anything you were the arch-enemy, as I had not been in any conflict at all, your claim of historical basis is especially weak.

As well, no one, least of all me, claimed that sending gems and items is not a legitimate and/or common tactic; or that there was something wrong w/ sending the remnants of your wealth to an ally when you are about to lose. Neither of these is appropriate to the present situation. Cohen had relatively few resources at the end, and he did not send until he had truly been defeated.

Zap did not threaten to send "some gems" or whatever. He threatened to throw the game such that you would receive his whole empire; which is even now one of the largest and most powerful in the game. You yourself said that that was not how you wished to win. It is not "name calling" to say that such behaviour is unsportsmanlike, childish, or petulant. It is every bit as bad as threatening to go AI: both do great damage to the game. In fact, throwing a game does the greater harm.

Re: I think I now understand Cohen
 

Historically, I think it's damn rare, to say the least, for a nation to say "If you attack me, I'm giving all my gold, weapons and ships to so-and-so so they can destroy you".

They used their weapons and ships in battle themselves. The gold, they may have given to another nation as an inducement to the other to ally with them, but they did _NOT_ say, "If you attack me, I'm giving so-and-so all my gold so they can conquer the world."

There's a difference between sending gifts to someone who may avenge you ("France may destroy me in the month to come; in case they do, here is the location of weapon stashes in the mountains, and the information about their plans that my spies have gathered...") and de facto threatening suicide by promising to give all your resources to someone else in retaliation.

Germany didn't send all their gold to Japan when it was obvious they were going to lose. The Confederates didn't threaten to give everything to England and France if the Union didn't back off.

I do think Arch over-reacted to Lintman's post, which was _NOT_ advocating throwing the game, but frankly, threatening to throw the game is a bit of a childish tantrum. I expect I would have attacked with a vengeance, forcing him to decide whether or not to _really_ send everything over and totally throw the game away, and then avoided playing with the person again.

Re: I think I now understand Cohen
 

again, I never responded to lintman's post in the first place. that supposed over-reaction on my part to Lintman was an invention on Panther's part. I'm only talking about Zap, and his earlier threat to throw the game. Lintman did not enter into it.

"and then avoided playing with the person again. "
yes. no doubt that is the best strategy, though not always easy in public games.

Edit: ahh, i see I did mention lintman. i said his advice was horrible, but horrible as advice for someone who threatens to throw a game, in that it encourages his excessive responses. the context is that of zapmeister already threatening to throw the game away, and then later instead to go AI: we would all be happy if he were to tenaciously defend his holdings.

Re: I think I now understand Cohen
 

That's not what happened in our game Cain. Not in the 1st situation that happen 6 turns ago, and to which me and Arcahe are refering to. Regarding 2nd sitution (which was described by Zap and which is the topic for this discussion) we are actually in agreement.

Again that's not what happned in our game 6 or so turns ago. As far as I know Zap was treatening to use all his resourses for himself, not give them to somebody else.

Bad example Cain. In fact they did. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/redface.gif Didn't they send a lot of their strategic materials, including large reserves of uranium oxide (over 1000 pounds), "heavy water", blueprints for ballistic V2 missles and for jet fighters and other strategic materials with thier latest reseach regarding development of atomic bomb via U2 submarines to Japan? That's as close to sending "magic gems and unique artifacts" as you can get in real world. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif

And all that despite the fact that there was never much love lost between Germany and Japan, despite them being allies in Axis. Germany badly wanted Japan to attack Soviets from the East, while Japans did not want any of that after Khalhing Goll mess. The Japan wanted military assistance from advanced Germany's military technology and scientists, which Hotler refused to give it since he didn't trust japanese. Nevertheless, when Germany was faced with the certain defeat by the end of WW2 they tried to screw their enemies one Last time by sending these boats to Japan and hoping they will revenge them.


Anyway, it's all beside the point. I was arguing that threating the country to make his own rival the "king" is a somewhat valid and historically proven tactic. Zap have pushed it harder than the most, true, but that by itself does not make it unethical, in my opinion. But vialating "no quiters rule" in such way does, IMHO.


Answering Archae: I agree that in both situations I would end up as a winner. And yes, I did not want to win the game in such manner, neither back than not now, and that's why I worked hard to avoid it, both back than and now, as you know. But just because the results of such actions are similar(meaning I end up as a winner) does not mean that the actions themself are the same, since both the situations back than and now, as well as what Zap have threatened to do is very different.


But anyway, enough about it. Time to hit the bed for me. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/yawn.gif

Re: I think I now understand Cohen
 

Thx for the apologies, I appreciated.

About Cainehill saying I went AI in a game where I was ruling, true, in that turn I was still the biggest, but with 5 or 6 Nations against ... how long I will be still ruling? 1-2 turns ?

Re: I think I now understand Cohen
 

I've not played Machaka in MP before, so Zap, if it's not too late, I'll take this off your hands if you like.

Mark

Re: I think I now understand Cohen
 

Excellent! The perfect solution - thanks Mark.
I'll PM the password to you now.

Re: I think I now understand Cohen
 

For what it's worth, Black Sorcerers casting Bane Fire should kill an Airqueen quite well, regardless of her defense.

Also for what it's worth, I would not join a game that said "no quitters" without taking my commitment very seriously. Like it or not, joining an MP game implies some sort of commitment to the other players. Usually it is a general commitment, such as "I will not cheat and I will try to play the game to the best of my ability." In this case, that commitment was explicit, and backing out of the commitment is pretty much a breach of contract. There is no legal penalty for the breach of contract, but there is definitely loss of face and respect within your community.

Having said that, it looks like you found a good solution.

Re: I think I now understand Cohen
 

Air Queens has usually at least 9 Mirror Images, so on 1 banefire out of 9 will hit the target.

You should need Incinerate, or Soul Slay, or however 100% precision spells that target a single person, not an area even of 1.

Re: I think I now understand Cohen
 

Then might I suggest said Black Sorcerers (or normal Sorcerers) with a Skull Staff, Spell Focus Amulet, and scripted to cast Disintegrate?

Incinerate is conceivable, too, for a Black Sorcerer with a Skull of Fire or a random in fire, or even casting Phoenix Power.

Re: I think I now understand Cohen
 

Are you sure about it Cohen?

From general logic perspective spells that target single person should be fooled by Mirror Images, reducing chances to hit to 1/n, where n is number of mirror images (2*airschool+1), while area effect spells such as Fireball, etc should completely ignore Mirror Image defense.


At least this is the way it works in D&D, and IMHO it makes sense. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif