MP Game - Artifact Game - running 48hr qh

[quantum_mechani]

OG_Gleep said:
Tuper contacted me, he was surprised I had been in the game, apparently he didn't ask to be subbed. I turned back over the reigns to him.

Yes, sorry, that was my fault. I interpreted his statements about giving up dom2 (and being fed up with this game in particular) together with some staling to mean he was finished. But subbing was not really in vane, he would have staled that turn otherwise.

[shovah]

so how are the artefacts?

[OG_Gleep]

NP, was happy to do it.

[archaeolept]

so, upon discussions w/ quantum, it appears that not only was this a 6 vs 1 gangbang, but that the decision was earlier made to throw the game to ironhawk. That's one way to play, but not a style I am interested in supporting. after this turn i plan on staling my way out of the game, though i shall not resign.

I fairly enjoyed the scenario, and the long war though. Ulm really sucks, but the gate stone is w/out doubt rather overpowered for especially the early game... so it kinda balanced. The war itself, after a serious amount of reorganization, generally went as well as could be expected - I've mostly crushed the minor powers (not the jots yet - well played btw morkilus), but have overall been mostly at a stalemate w/ quantum (though the dark hand of Ironhawk's ctis was of course behind it as well). Caine was the only player not to join against me, and I'd like to thank him for that.

But when the two major adversaries, who were each basically comparable to me in gems and magic, which are the two major determinations of power in this game, make a deal such that one shall expand unchecked, and that even when QM is acknowledging that IH will win, he says he cannot do anything about it - this is in essence the notion of "throwing the game". While i've enjoyed the game so far, I'm not interested in participating in such a charade.

games aren't primarily about winning; they're at least as much about playing well, and playing honorably. I don't especially feel that *.* has done either - anyone can amass a huge army if completely unchecked; or, rather, actively campaigned for by the other major player. But if he feels that's what a win is, then that's his prerogative.

perhaps w/ a giant vacuum where I am, the dynamics will cause there to be a real game now between qm and ih, rather than the sham game it turns out we've been having so far.

[Cainehill]

If that's the case, color me disgusted, especially as it seems that the jerrymandering, er, diplomacy that decided the game took place largely on IRC. Thus disadvantaging all the players who thought it was a normal game with diplo happening via PMs and in game messages as opposed to chatting away interminably.

Especially considering that, unlike other games where spying and espionage might be used to discover hidden / secret alliances, there's essentially no way for players to figure it out unless they also started living on irc.

[Morkilus]

Cainehill said:

If that's the case, color me disgusted, especially as it seems that the jerrymandering, er, diplomacy that decided the game took place largely on IRC. Thus disadvantaging all the players who thought it was a normal game with diplo happening via PMs and in game messages as opposed to chatting away interminably.

From the perspective of a player that is simply surprised to be still kicking, I was surprised that archaeolept wanted to give up the game because of an alliance. I was one of the first players to try to organize against Ulm, but my decision was based upon the score graphs (of which he was a clear leader) and the fate of several smaller nations on which I was spying. Isn't this normal multiplayer behavior? And why is conducting diplomacy on IRC considered disgusting behavior?

[archaeolept]

no, the alliance was not it - i could hold out against a regular alliance. But it turns out, secretly, behind the scenes, the two other major powers were also in collusion.

also, mork, due to your inexperience, you likely give far too much weight to certain of the graphs. the two major determiners of power, outside the early game, are gems and research, of which taken together qm ih and I were all fairly close - so, part of the question is, which of the experienced players were encouraging you to think that?

an alliance which works solely to the benefit of the "secret partner", and where the other major player seems to have undertaken to front the other's interest, forsaking his own... that's throwing the game, w/ the sole purpose I would guess, just to deny me a chance - now, denying me a chance is ok, but working for another's interest is against the spirit of the game (see "throwing", as per above).

Its clearly not worth my time playing such a game. Reminds we of the old "stacked deck" norfleet days...

[Ironhawk]

archaeolept said:
so, upon discussions w/ quantum, it appears that not only was this a 6 vs 1 gangbang, but that the decision was earlier made to throw the game to ironhawk. That's one way to play, but not a style I am interested in supporting. after this turn i plan on staling my way out of the game, though i shall not resign.

Yeah this viewpoint is one-sided and completely unfair. The truth of the matter was a simple crisis of diplomacy. There came a time when my nation was ready for serious war. The targets were either Man or Pan. Pan was my first choice since he had explicitly told me he was going to invade me over the issue of the Treelords. BUT during my prepartions to pre-emptivly attack Pan, Ulm attacked him instead. Knowing then that if I too were to attack Pan that he would quickly be crushed and I would rapidly find myself with a long front facing a very powerful Ulm I was still unready to face... I chose the second option and attacked Man. After the Man conflict was completed I decided to use the attention-vacuum caused by the two major super-powers fighting in order to try and tackle Ermor.

As fighting in the Ermor war progressed favorably I began to look forward to the future. What would happen when Ermor was finished? Clearly I would have to attack a superpower, but which one? I chose to eventually attack Ulm as the bigger threat, given that he seemed to be succesfully waging war against not one but five nations. Additionally, if Ulm were to be defeated, the resulting geographic layout of Pan provinces would favor my eventual invasion of them. So, two turns ago, I made the final decision and began to support the Panish war effort with intelligence and material.

[Saber Cherry]

"No Diplomacy" is like playing the AI. Since "Unlimited Diplomacy" invariably causes problems and hard feelings (in games, offices, and nations), how about "Limited Diplomacy"?

- Limited Diplomacy Levels -

Level 0: No diplomacy. Public nondiplomatic messages allowed.

Level 1: No private diplomacy. Public declarations allowed (but not required): Unilateral declarations of war, unilateral declarations of peace, requests for trade at a fixed rate. Conditions allowed on war/peace declarations: Anything that does not involve a 3rd party.
Examples:
"I will send 6 water gems to anyone who sends me an Ice Sword. Should I receive too many, I will return the excess."
"I will declare war on Ulm unless his troops leave Province 120, and he gives me 200 gold in reparations."
"My people love the citizens of Soulgate Ermor, and would be content with our present borders for the next 16 months if Ermor will also pledge to peace."

...Of course, that causes a lot of public messaging, but it shouldn't be too much trouble.

Level 2: Private diplomacy allowed. However, no politics involving a 3rd party are allowed. In other words - no alliances, no mutual protection agreements, no discussion of other nations, implict or explicit. Trading is unrestricted.


Level 1 and level 2 are the same, except level 2 allows secret deals and directed trading. Still - since all deals are required to be fully unilateral, with no mention of any third party - there should not be any hard feelings, questions of ganging up, accusations of unfairness, soiled honor, or anything else; so long as everyone (with the exception of, at most, one person) in the game is trusted not to grossly violate explicit rules.

[archaeolept]

<quantum_mechani> well, I would have just withdrawn from the game myself but I figured ironhawk would get unstoppable soon enough, and I'm enjoying our war a fair amount
<archae> like i said, a rigged game
...
<quantum_mechani> you have to understand I am in a very awkward situation, whatever I do I'm slighting either you or iron
<archae> lol
<archae> you've thrown the game
<archae> i don't need any other rationalisations
<archae> games aren't primarily about winning
<archae> they're about how well you play, and about honour
<quantum_mechani> yeah, that's exaxtly it, and I see no honourable way out
<quantum_mechani> if I go iron's way I'm throwing the game