Crossposting this from the HoF thread, as its the clearest statement to date from WL on what happened in the game which sparked this discussion:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Wraithlord
I covered all the angles and you didn't stand a chance to win. I am willing to share my turn files with anyone who wants to verify that. I have had no nefarious cabal with any player to win the game, nor have I persuaded, threatened, mind controlled or did in any other way influenced my allies actions. I gave a fair warning before attacking his VPs. Yes, my ally went ahead and helped me of his own volition, so what?- I don't condemn him for this, quite the opposite, had I been in a similar situation: hating nation A enough and wanting to help nation B enough then I'd probably find a way to help . Be it by sending all my gems, or items, or armies or whatever I can to make sure I influence the end result.
|
Aristander's actions go back to the initial discussion on beneficial, who the agent is for which an action needs to be considered beneficial, and what appropriate play goals are when you determine victory is not within your grasp. Ie, WLs defense of Aristander's actions mirrors my comments regarding the player ought do things beneficial for himself as a player, and thus personal preference in game outcome is a very relevant factor.
This is most important because it means the initial discussion is exactly on target as to why that game ended that way, and provides suitable justification for why such actions can be warranted.
I'm actually dismayed that many people posting here believe that a player's opinion on which nation they feel should win the game is not a valid motivation to act upon. (Obviously such an opinion should be based on the play of a particular game, but in the situation where you're at war with one contender and allied with the other, that's a clear case for an in-game motivation to prefer one winner over another).
I'm also dismayed that people are against the idea of Kingmaking, since its unavoidable in a diplomatic game. Something as simple as agreeing to ally with one nation against another at the right time can be kingmaking.
(Consider a game with nations A,B,C, A>B>C, but B+C>A. C is in a kingmaking position because they could side with either A or B and determine the victor of that conflict and thus that game. According to the logic of many posters here, siding with A against B would be 'unacceptable' since it only makes A's win more certain. But if we add some more depth to the example, and find that A was a staunch ally of C all game while B was an enemy, it seems unreasonable to decide that C is compelled to ally with B to prolong its own not-lost-yet status. And if B+C>A -> B wins, and A+C>B -> A wins, and A>B -> A wins, then C has no choice which is not a kingmaking play, and so is neither permitted to ally nor fail to ally according to the logic which says kingmaking is bad play).
Basically, Kingmaking is an essential element in the play of games where diplomacy *of any degree* is permitted. It occurs in games that only involve trade. It occurs whenever a third party can be persuaded to make one of two choices, and at least one choice materially effects the outcome of the game. The game doesn't even need to allow communication - the history of a player's actions in the game send a message to his opponents and based on those actions another player might favor or disfavor that player for victory, and might take actions which further that occurrence.
The take-home lesson here is making strong allies early in a game leads to a much improved chance of winning the game because you can expect those allies to make kingmaking plays in your favor should you look to be capable of winning and they do not. I fail to see why playing the diplomatic game well is not equally as valid as fighting out a mega war.