I think I now understand Cohen

[Zapmeister]

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.

[PvK]

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

[Zapmeister]

PvK said:
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.

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.

[Huzurdaddi]

In one game, I've encountered an SC and a nation-specific tactic to which I have no answer.

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

[Zapmeister]

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

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.

[Cainehill]

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

[Stossel]

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.

[Cainehill]

Zapmeister said:
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.

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.

[deccan]

Cainehill said:
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.

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.

[Zapmeister]

Cainehill said:
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.

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.