Quote:
Originally Posted by Squirrelloid
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Grijalva
Squirrelloid, how can I be "absolutely wrong" when I haven't posted any absolutes?
|
Hmm... lets take a look.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Grijalva
Everything you do should be in respect to yourself eventually winning, no matter how slim those odds might be.
|
Now, where's Waldo?
------------
And Nope. I have no problem with so-called 'vassalage'. Minor power want to throw in with the leading side? That's a triumph of diplomacy.
Yes, diplomacy is part of the game. If you do it well, people are more likely to stay allied with you even when you're winning, especially when they have no chance themselves. Neglect diplomacy at your peril. |
Hmm indeed, you may have me there, I should really re-read my posts. However, I'm not sure if "everything you do under specific conditions" is an absolute, the condition here being that you have slim odds of winning. Again, slim odds > zero odds. Whatever, I'll cop to that one if need be.
But I couldn't care less about how to phrase my sentiment, even if it is an absolute, I took the time to point out the obvious exceptions to you. It is starting a post with "you're absolutely wrong" that I disapprove of and was trying to make light of. Your call I guess...
Aaanyways, I myself wouldn't ban such vassalage-kingmaking from a game, players should have that choice, but I'm surprised that you hold such a move in high esteem. The "triumph" would be for the winner, not the kingmaker, who is the subject of this conversation.
So, yeah, if you can convince some chump (or chumpette) to help you conquer the world, that's a triumph for you....I kind of take that for granted though, just like diplomacy being "a part of the game"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Squirrelloid
A realistic assessment of most games would likely show that 50% of players (or more!) are not in contention to win by turn 40-50. Many of those players likely control decently-sized territories.
|
More like, 50% or more have been eliminated or have a
low chance of winning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Squirrelloid
-Luck is only a factor in any real sense between evenly matched opponents, and even then, its usually a rather small factor. Most opponents are not evenly matched.
-Player skill is a huge factor in nation performance, and its only rational to use conditioned expectations of victory chances based on demonstrated player skill.
-Overwhelming material advantages really are overwhelming. Only a gross imbalance in player skill can save a nation or set of nations with a large deficiency of material.
|
Again, you are restating the obvious; of course luck is a small factor (except when it isn't) but its a factor nonetheless.
Player skills matter?
Something that's overwhelming is actually overwhelming? Who's arguing with that?
Regardless, these are clear reasons why I would encourage smaller nations to pool their resources and fight the largest power. Of course, if in the end you don't win, you were just kingmaking for number 2, but at least you were
trying to make yourself king.
EDIT: I do totally agree with the vengeance thing though, I would just wait until it was truly hopeless before I focused my strategy on revenge over winning (they often go hand-in-hand anyways).