The politics of losing

#11 September 14th, 2010, 02:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squirrelloid

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grijalva

I'm totally against king-making just because you "want to see 'player A' win and not 'player B'". Everything you do should be in respect to yourself eventually winning, no matter how slim those odds might be. However, I think the odds are never quite as slim as they seem.

True, big empires can gain a lot of momentum in this game and it can often seem hopeless, but every turn has a good deal of luck involved and real cooperation between allies can be devastating.

So in your scenario, I would say try to affect a balance of power (support #2) until you can build yourself up enough or the two big dogs bleed each other dry.

You're absolutely wrong, there are definitely times you have no hope of winning. To pick an extreme example, you're dying to an opponent. Its sufficiently against you that there is no hope of recovery. (I can show you plenty of trn files that look like that, btw, so this definitely occurs). So what do you do? Clearly not play to win.

Squirrelloid, how can I be "absolutely wrong" when I haven't posted any absolutes?

First of all, I think its pretty obvious that there can be a point at which any game is unwinnable, anyone who has lost a game knows that. I take that for granted and don't think it needs to be restated. So no thanks on the trn files

But if you look at my post, you'll see that I basically emphasize two things:

1. people tend to underestimate their chances

2. I think people should always play to win on the macro level (big empires an such). --But let me just clarify, that if you're at the point of no return (ie, last provinces/cities being conquered by unstoppable opponent[s]), then yes you can't play to win...its impossible.

I also said to play to win "no matter how slim the odds," but there is a big difference between very slim odds of winning and zero odds.

I should point out that this is my style and I understand playing by other motivations.

There are perhaps fine lines between what is and isn't king-making at that unwinnable point of a losing game, like if you're talking about..say...giving away the chalice to your conuerer's rival when you're last province/fort is about to be taken...of course that situation is your call and I would totally do that. Sure, its not playing to win, exactly, so maybe that's technically kingmaking, but I would prefer to call it simple revenge or vengeful death throes

The sort of kingmaking I dislike is when someone who is a minor power decides to become a vassal (calling it an alliance) of the winning player, even when the rest of the players have banded up against him. I would bet we're in agreement on that.