Is this gamey?

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by Slynky:
If the game is "Last man standing", I will form alliances and make sure everyone understands that when I make agreements with them. I also realize that, perhaps, if one of "us" makes it to be the Last man standing, and we have to "part our ways" and duke it out, I know I (all of us) contributed to the winner...enabling him to beat us.

This is how I treat it as well. Personally for me a non-team game is a waste of time if there is no winner. That doesn't mean I have a compulsion to always be the winner. Quite the opposite actually. To me a person who insists on team victory is one that cannot abide the thought of not being able to win and therefore must change the rules and declare themselves "co-winners". I myself have no problem coming in second, or third, or even Last. (It's a good thing too considering my record. )But I want to know where I place.

What I have done in several games that have seemed to drag on is agree to stage an artifical ending. Like a showdown at the OK corral my allies and I will gather our remaining forces in a central location and have at one another until only one is remaining. Other times we have simply called the game and declared one person the winner. Of course in those cases my allies are like-minded individuals not obsesed with not losing. But almost without exception it is at a point in the game when the eventual winner is pretty much understood. The only question remaining is how long till they can erradicate the others in the game.

Geoschmo

[Grandpa Kim]

Posted by Geoschmo:

...a point in the game when the eventual winner is pretty much understood...

And therein lies the truth about "team" victories. I have never seen a partnership where the partners are reasonably equal in strength. One member always seem to be way out in front of the rest, and he is the true victor. Even though its never stated, everyone knows this and its just the BMOC being gracious (and he probably has a monster empire that is a b**** to manage and doesn't want to go through the laborious end game.

[Joachim]

[quote]Originally posted by geoschmo:
Everytime I get in a game and first person I meet wants to set up a cooperative tech trading schedule the only thing that is going through my mind is, "But I am going to have to kill you eventually. Why do I want to make you stronger?"

Is this gamey? As a Newb it seems to be the very standard must do early strategy (unless specifically ruled out). If you dont trade someone else will - but I guess that is not much of a justification. But it is hard seeing two other empires obviously doing a research plan and trade and hence getting double (or triple for the tri-partite pacts) your tech.

Oops - sorry Geo about the quote thing - thought i did it right... just doesn't look like the others.

[ July 29, 2003, 06:32: Message edited by: Joachim ]

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by Grandpa Kim:
And therein lies the truth about "team" victories. I have never seen a partnership where the partners are reasonably equal in strength. One member always seem to be way out in front of the rest, and he is the true victor. Even though its never stated, everyone knows this and its just the BMOC being gracious (and he probably has a monster empire that is a b**** to manage and doesn't want to go through the laborious end game.

You hit the nail on the head here Gpa. The problem as I see it is by giving the little hangers on the title of co-winner you elminate the incentive for them to eventually band together and take out the BMOC, or die trying. This severly limits the oppotunities for REAL diplomacy in the game. I don't consider the "Yes boss, whatever you say boss." stuff that goes on between the big guy and his lackeys as diplomacy.

While you say even though it's never stated everybody knows who the winner is, I honestly feel if it were stated openly the BMOC would have a much harder time recruiting his minions and keeping them loyal. Compare these two statements:

"Join me in a powerful alliance. We will defeat the other empires and rule the galaxy together."

or

"Join me in a powerful alliance. You will help me to defeat the other empires and I will rule the galaxy. As long as you don't go agasint me I won't destroy you and I will always know your assistance was an important part of my success and will think highly of you for it."

You might still get a few to join with the second, more honest statement, but likely not as many.

And the other question is would the BMOC have gotten as big as he did without the early absolute alliances and complete tech trading that goes on with the understanding of a team victory? Maybe, but it's doubtful in most cases.

Geoschmo

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by Joachim:
Is this gamey? As a Newb it seems to be the very standard must do early strategy (unless specifically ruled out). If you dont trade someone else will - but I guess that is not much of a justification. But it is hard seeing two other empires obviously doing a research plan and trade and hence getting double (or triple for the tri-partite pacts) your tech.

I don't have a problem with a little wheeling and dealing. But when it gets to the point where you have two or three empires and one is researching ships, one is researching weapons and one is researching shields and all trading what each of them gets, I have a problem.

First of all it's incredibly tedious and boring to me to do this. Secondly as I said before it takes the real diplomacy out of the game for me, which is one of my favorite parts. Of course I pay a price for my lack of conformity. It is not uncommon at all for me to be seriously behind in tech by turn 40 in a game. But that is my "reward" for playing the game on my terms.

One option, and one that has become fairly common, is to outright ban tech gifts and trading. This to me is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. As I do think a little trading can add spice to the game. It's just taken to the extreme it gets to be what I would call gamey. Of course that's a totaly subjective definition and not much use to anyone.

Geoschmo

[Roanon]

Originally posted by geoschmo:
I don't have a problem with a little wheeling and dealing. But when it gets to the point where you have two or three empires and one is researching ships, one is researching weapons and one is researching shields and all trading what each of them gets, I have a problem.

First of all it's incredibly tedious and boring to me to do this. Secondly as I said before it takes the real diplomacy out of the game for me, which is one of my favorite parts.

I totally agree. And not only takes diplomacy out of the game, but also strategy and variety - no need to ponder what to research next if you have everything covered by your allies.

Of course I pay a price for my lack of conformity. It is not uncommon at all for me to be seriously behind in tech by turn 40 in a game.

Other method: I don't join any game with tech trading enabled. Ship tech trading is worse enough, but at least not that easy. I don't think that is limiting the game too much.

[ July 29, 2003, 14:15: Message edited by: Roanon ]

[PvK]

The problem is, analysis is so powerful and easy that limiting to ship trading doesn't slow it down all that much, except for the techs which can't be put on a ship.

PvK