I think I now understand Cohen

[The Panther]

I have to agree with Cainehill (gasp!) on this one.

In Schmork's Ye Olde Game, here is the exact house rules:
'good clean fun: no quitters, no house rules, 48h-quick'

So, I build up, biding my time until I am ready to take out Cainehill (Caelum). I enlist my neighbor, Kinky Imp as Marignon, with whom I have had an agreement all game, to help me in this. Marignon casts his gaze northward, seeing splendid provinces in his eyes for the taking. I even agree to attack first, draw Cainehill's arimes towards me and let my ally attack two turns later to smack Cainehill in the behind.

So, guess what happens? The very move my 'ally' is supposed to attack our mutual enemy, he suddenly quits without ANY warning at all. He sends an in-game message to me, saying he was sorry. He also sends me some gold and gems, as if this makes up for his sudden quitting. Of course, the next turn I receive a message from the AI saying it has decided to eliminate my sorry a$$. So it invades me along my totally unprotected border with a bunch of knights of the chalice under command of his prophet casting mass bless.

Meanwhile, Cainehill is not any easy pushover by any stretch of the imagination. And my nice, well planned 2 on 1 becomes a chaotic 1 on 2.

So, don't get me started on this deal about people who join 'no quitters' games and then quit. I am just not in the mood for it!

[Zapmeister]

The Panther said:
So, guess what happens? The very move my 'ally' is supposed to attack our mutual enemy, he suddenly quits without ANY warning at all. He sends an in-game message to me, saying he was sorry.

Fair enough, but that's not what I'm doing.

[archaeolept]

actually worse, given that you've previously threatened to "throw the game", first to storm, and now, for instance if you follow Lintman's horrible advice, maybe to someone else.

frankly, we all invest a lot of time in these games for some entertainment, and because the game is so fascinating. to have it end w/ someone, say, throwing the game or giving all their stuff to another player who is already a top contender or such like, would be horrible. i'd likely just quit and know whom not to play w/ in future games.

[Zapmeister]

archaeolept said:
actually worse, given that you've previously threatened to "throw the game", first to storm, and now, for instance if you follow Lintman's horrible advice, maybe to someone else.

You think the kingmaker threat is unethical? A lot of folks disagree but either way don't worry, you'll not find yourself in any more games with me.

[archaeolept]

yes. threatening to "throw a game" is piss poor sportsmanship. its like a child's temper tantrum.

being a "kingmaker" is a different thing entirely. in such a case you can perhaps parlay a minor position to one's own advantage by drawing the attention of numerous suitors for your support.

you instead said you would throw the game to storm if other players didn't agree to have things go your way. I find it very amusing that even so you were unable to strengthen your position.

[Zapmeister]

archaeolept said:
yes. threatening to "throw a game" is piss poor sportsmanship. its like a child's temper tantrum.

It's also a bog-standard tactic in boardgames and Online games alike - I'm surprised you haven't encountered it before (if you haven't).

But this thread wasn't supposed to be about the kingmaker tactic, it was about the extent of the obligation to play on when you're not having fun.

[archaeolept]

yes. threatening to throw a game is a common tactic amongst children and bad players everywhere

[Zapmeister]

archaeolept said:
you instead said you would throw the game to storm if other players didn't agree to have things go your way.

Now this is quite untrue. When I threatened you, I was facing 4:1 nations against me. I was obviously history if I didn't succeed. This isn't the childish desire to have everything one's own way, it's the only tactic available to survive.

[Stormbinder]

Zapmeister said:

You think the kingmaker threat is unethical? A lot of folks disagree but either way don't worry, you'll not find yourself in any more games with me.

Personally I think kingmaker threat was ethical. After all simular situations happened histrically quite often, so personally don't have much problems with it. It is just that I didn't want to benefit from that situation either, that's why I played active shuttle diplomacy between Archaeolept and Zapmeister, to avoid having the victory in this game thrown on my laps back than.


But going AI while being one of the largest nations in "no quiters" game is a different matter, IMO. However it looks to me that Zap is likely to reconsider his decision, in which case I would certanly appreciate it.


Regards,
Stormbinder

[The Panther]

I admit that I don't see anything wrong with playing to the bitter end for the sole purpose of trying to inflict just as MUCH pain as possible on whomever is taking you down. It is a perfectly legit strategy, saying, in essence, you may kill me this game, but next game you will think twice before attacking me! Scorched earth policy? Heck yeah! It sure worked for the Russians in WW2.

I also think it is excellent strategy to send money and gems and artifacts to a neighbor who says he will attack the guy who is killing you, for maybe it is enough to save your own sorry behind.

I definitely feel that arch is overracting here and didn't read the LintMan's post very closely. Lint did not say he would give stuff to the leading contender on the other side of the board and 'throw' the game. He said he would give stuff to other people fighting your enemy. After all, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

I would certainly do the exact same thing.