KingMaker - let the Ascension War commence!

[Rathar]

As a player not in the game and thus hopefully not biased it has been my experience in the moderate amount of MP games I've had that new players are treated with a clean slate. All bets are off, etc etc.

I have seen one turn grace periods for new players to get their feet wet pretty commonly but I have never heard anyone suggest in any game (and I read a LOT of games even if I am not in them) or forum topic that treaties mandatorily carry over from player to player. For subs, yes of course but new players, never.

On the other hand I have seen many many games where the new player is treated as a completely different person and all treaties and such became null and void.

Shrug, my .02 cents

[Foodstamp]

To Jim.

Turtles can poke their heads out.

You were given one of the largest armies in the game that had back to back wars with two other nations right before you subbed.

My "turtling" had Helheim within the top 5 in nearly every stat including provinces and gem income when you hit the scene. Just because I had a large numbers of fortresses doesn't mean I did not play aggressive as well; I would have had to play aggressive to lead in provinces for a hefty chunk of the game and still be within the top five for provinces when you took over.

I am sorry that you seem so unhappy with what you were stuck with, but Helheim hardly had 0 chance of winning when you got it. I won't go into details because I don't want to give away specifics of your position, but you had some pretty powerful options no matter which way you planned to go.

[JimMorrison]

Originally Posted by Xietor

...The "penalty" for being a treaty breaker is you may find it difficult in future games to get a treaty with anyone if no one trusts your word...

Thus, the only part that struck me as really odd about your announcement, was your point on this odd secrecy. Yes, the community is reputation based - as long as we know who it is that is doing what to whom.


And Foodstamp, I'm not trying to badmouth you, or say you are a bad player. I'm sure that for most people, taking on a nation of the size that Helheim was, at this stage of the game, is a huge undertaking. I'm sure that most of the things you had set up, made some sense, or had some purpose. Unfortunately, to me, a lot of that purpose was not visible, and it was a daunting task trying to organize things to my own liking, and move some commanders around a bit. My main problem with the position really, was the diplomatic dead-end that resulted from an allied EA Tir + MA Agartha + LA Agartha to the north. Once I had sniffed that out, I began to move forces south to invade Marignon, and then I had war declared on me by Numero Uno. Helheim had an incredible gem income, some awesome indie mages, and a burgeoning Blood economy (that I nearly doubled in scope, for a brief couple of turns) - and was certainly not a lemon. But it was more of a blitzing build, and I do feel that (likely because you were starting to lose interest in the game, not because of any deficiency on your part) you rested for too long, and that while there were tools available to cash in on that time spent, the 1-2 blow of the 2v1 war declaration, and then the first Armageddon totally tanking the entire economy, says to me that the nation just waited too long to get growing again. You did awesomely though, I for one am jealous by your early-mid game performance in this game.

[Zeldor]

Games simply don't state obvious things. NAP is between nation A and B. The fact that Obama is becoming a new president does not mean that all previous pacts that Bush signed are no longer viable. Even common sense would suggest that continuation of all previous agreement is obvious. If new players wants to change relations with someone he can do so, according to rules from previous agreements [so simply wait X turns from NAPX and attack then].

[Rathar]

I personally agree with you Zeldor and wish it were that way. It's been my experience that it's rarely so however.

[DonCorazon]

it's pretty frustrating to build a strategy on an ally and then, for RL or whatever reasons, have them bail and have a new sub totally reverse course on you. It happens I know but the traditional approach I have seen is for subs to honor existing pacts for at least a few turns and then decide whether to renew or not.

[Rathar]

Traditional yes, Mandatory no.

Treaties often do get reconfirmed due to the strategic realities of a games situation but if a new player changes direction people will think it a bit cheesy but nowhere near as cheesy as if the old player broke treaties in the same manner.

I posit that this is because we expect new players to be well, different.

And yeah, man does it suck to have your "Trusted" ally go poof.

[atul]

Xietor, given that we have different view of our nations' current disposition towards each other (at war? We haven't fought a single battle in 10+ turns, the border has stayed the same! I'd call that a truce without standing treaties), I feel that your insistence on anonymous _permanent_ substitute is ridiculous. Where can I go to straighten out these misunderstood diplomacy things?

I really appreciate the effort you went through to organize and manage this game. Seriously, thanks. But this curve ball you've thrown is (again) a bit hard to swallow.

I'm with Micah and Zeldor on the sub issue. Some continuity should be expected, of course a new player is free to do what he wants but the honoring of treaties (even if it's just the cancellation period of NAPs) should be the baseline, not "get out of the jail free" card.

[DrPraetorious]

You can contact him in-game. If he decides he wants to correspond with you out of game, he'll give you an e-mail address.

[atul]

Of course I can. This situation is not the end of the world, never mind few Armageddons here and there.

Just saying, zeroing status quo, not providing means for hasty communication when there are big armies at the both sides of the border and assuming everything is as it should be is plain silly.