[OT] The Art of Winning Games

[Cyrien]

Yep. In one of the games I am currently playing I am evil and in trouble. I have tons of things to colonize but can't due to diplomatic troubles on the other side with a bunch of other players due to treaty violations on my part mostly.

In another I am about to get into trouble because of being the good guy and the need to uphold my treaty obligations even to an empire that it will be a struggle to support against the attackers.

[geoschmo]

I play every game to win. Not that I mind losing, I certainly do my share of it, but I play every game, and from the begining to the end of every game to win.

I have no objection to breaking a treaty or even pulling a sneak attack on a current ally. I can't remember once ever making a deal with another player in a game and promising anything other then to do my best to work with him to win. If I have, I probably shouldn't have because I likely would have turned on them if I felt it suited my purposes at the time.

Allies are only good if they are helping me to win. If an ally is strong enough and doing a good job he is helping me win and he will stay my ally. If he is weak, or I find another ally that can help me more to win I will switch allies. Or if my ally becomes too strong, I may switch, if I think it will help me to win.

I always assume every ally is planning on doing the same to me. I expect every turn they may turn on me if I am no longer serving their purposes. So I try to stay strong and suit their purposes. I want them to think always I am stronger than them, but not so much stronger that I am a threat to them. Only strong enough that I am more usefull as an ally then as an enemy.

I don't like sharing too much with my allies, because everything I give him is something he will use against me eventually. I know this because everything they give me I will use agaisnt them eventually.

I want my enemies and my allies weak. I want my allies only strong enough so that together we are stronger then my enemies.

And I don't keep track of who has broken treaties with me in past games. I have enough trouble keeping track of my enemies and allies in the game, I don't need to waste effort keeping track of who was my enemy in a previous game.

I don't mind losing, but I can't not try to win, or I don't enjoy playing. Even in a role play game, I will role play and try to win. Afterall, who can concieve of a race of beings that wishes to be exterminated? It may be possible, but I doubt they would survive to achieve spaceflight. And if they did, I wouldn't want to role play them.

All of this may not make me a very good ally, and probably costs me a few games. But I prefer it this way. I think it makes things more interesting.



Geoschmo

[Slynky]

Some VERY good points, Geo. But I know (I think) you like multi-player games a lot . For THAT dimension.

I would add (or disagree with) some points (humbly):

If I were your ally and I were weaker than you AND the game was a "one victor" game, I think you'd be better off sharing your tech with me and letting me do my best to help you to a final victory. You see, when I'm in a game where it's Last man standing and I can see that I am the weakest in the alliance, my goal is to help the others win. And, I think, they have a better chance of winning WITH my "pathetic" help than having to spend "energy" and time taking me out just to get my planets or colonies. After all, if I have the same tech, I can build the same ships as you and help defend warp points that you attack through, or spend time on producing minerals (etc.) and gifting them to you, or getting that opener you can't spend the EB time on while you are on the offensive. In fact there are MANY things a weak ally can do to help. In my opinion, though weak, I'm more useful as a weak ally than the time it takes to remove me. I could be wrong (and naive) as I rarely spend time thinking about "removing" a weak ally.

Though I may be in an alliance where I have no chance of of being the Last man standing, I gain my extra game satisfaction by helping my alliance as best as I can to "their" victory. In games like that, I would hope and expect my allies to understand this and understand it's better in the long run to "keep" me than spend the time to "throw" me away.

I do the same for any ally I have a partnership with. And I like knowing (hoping) that any partner I have knows this about me and trusts me implicitely.

[Cyrien]

Heh. When I roleplay I don't think about it in terms of winning or losing but in meeting the goals of the race. If I can reach and maintain those goals then I consider myself to have won.

One race may lend itself very well to conquest and eliminating everyone else. Another may be for peace across the galaxy.

It makes for some interesting goals and greatly different gameplay game to game. If I stuck to the same basic stuff each game I would rapidly get bored. So I have to change things around for myself in each game.

[geoschmo]

Slynky, I don't think anything you said contradicts what I said, except maybe the Last sentance. Noone should trust me implicitly. They can trust me, but always keep an eye on me. That's what I am doing to them.

In your example about the waeker ally, you would still be helping me to win, so I would likely keep you around. The only difference is being the weaker empire myself I would always be keeping an eye out for an opportunity. Since my objective is to win, and I can't win if I am knocked out of the game I will continue being the best ally I can be for you. In the hopes that at some point our common enemy will be weakend or destroyed and I can then turn on you and end up winning. This point may come at some time before you think the common enemy has been defeated. It will be the point at which I think the best opportunity exsists for me to turn the tables.

[Slynky]

Originally posted by geoschmo:
Slynky, I don't think anything you said contradicts what I said, except maybe the Last sentance. Noone should trust me implicitly. They can trust me, but always keep an eye on me. That's what I am doing to them.

In your example about the waeker ally, you would still be helping me to win, so I would likely keep you around. The only difference is being the weaker empire myself I would always be keeping an eye out for an opportunity. Since my objective is to win, and I can't win if I am knocked out of the game I will continue being the best ally I can be for you. In the hopes that at some point our common enemy will be weakend or destroyed and I can then turn on you and end up winning. This point may come at some time before you think the common enemy has been defeated. It will be the point at which I think the best opportunity exsists for me to turn the tables.

Well said! Only difference again (LOL) is this: In the course of "our" alliance sweeping over the enemy, I usually recognize who has done the most in that effort and I decide who in "our" alliance has helped our alliance earn the impending victory. And I won't go against them.

It DOES come with problems, though, and that is this: Let's say the alliance that has vanquished (mostly) all the other enemies on the map consists of 4 players...as the strongest member of the alliance, a person has to worry about the other 3 deciding it is NOW a game between the remaing 4 and the "lessor" 3 may decide to "even" things out by ganging up on the stongest member. Therefore, what you have said makes much sense. And I agree with you. As for my part, I wouldn't join in but I know (and expect, since it is a Last man standing affair) others to consider that approach. I would always stand with the person being "ganged up" upon.

But of all the various discussions about gaminess, I don't consider what I have listed in that Category. When alliance victory is at hand, it's only natural for one to be concerned about who among the winning alliance will be the Last man standing.

Hope that makes sense...

[Baron Grazic]

Note to Self :- Remember to become Geo's enemy in the next game, and not his ally, so I won't have to watch my back.

[ December 12, 2003, 03:14: Message edited by: Baron Grazic ]