The politics of losing

[SsSam]

I'm in different games and have noticed that different players seem to have different notions about acceptable behavior when losing. So I'm curious if there is a general consensus about a few issues on the board.

Assume a 7-8 person game....

Obviously the big one, you've lost, how soon do you go AI? Do you play out the string (which can mean a commitment of months) Do you wait till your capitol is lost? Do you congratulate the other nations, go AI and look for another game? At the start you have messed up your pretender creation and you are stuck between two high powered nations and you get hit with some terrible events in the first 5 turns. ....do you go AI?

You are in a war with nation A and you consider the odds to be reasonably matched. You have a neighbor, nation B, that has a long border with nation A, but for whatever reason cannot go to war with A even though they may be supporting you with gems, gold and forging. Is it reasonable to collude with nation B by having them take some of your provinces so that nation A is funneled over a specific path?

In a 7-8 person game....you are pretty sure that you are going to come in third with nation 1 and nation 2 in front of you. If you throw your support to nation 2, they will likely win. If you sit on your hands, you believe 1 has it sewn up. Under what circumstances would you play the kingmaker and support nation 2?

Do your feelings change if you have been at war with nation 2 for most of the game and their success has likely kept you from the top perch? How about if you have been at war with nation 1?

[Dimaz]

Regarding AI, the answer is actually pretty simple.
Just don't do it.
Unless you have some serious RL issues and you absolutely cannot find a sub, of course.
Regarding nations 1 and 2: if you're absolutely sure you cannot win no matter what you do, AND have no agreements with them, AND have no other reason to support particular side, use a 3-sided coin (help 1, help 2, turtle). Otherwise, do everything you can to win. Really simple

[13lackGu4rd]

1. going AI is bad. only exception would be if you've lost your capital and all other forts and can no longer recruit anything and are just waiting for others to finish you off. even than I'd just stick until the end(like I'm currently doing in 1 game) as the turns no longer take time, and going AI is just bad. other than the exception, you're describing a playable situation, whether you think you have a chance or not at this stage is completely irrelevant. you should keep on playing because you're not dead yet and you can still play. if you feel that you're just playing too poorly and believe you can't win because of that than finding a sub(a more experienced player than yourself) to carry on instead of yourself, is an acceptable course of action(as long as the game is not a "newbie only" or something).

2. I really don't understand this example. I assume "whatever reason" is binding diplomatic agreements, otherwise territorial exchange would change the picture and open possibilities for nations A and B to wage war against each other. even than, with spells like teleport, cloud trapeze, gateway, etc, sneaky troops and commanders, flying troops and commanders, etc I don't see how giving up a province or 2 will "funnel" a nation to go into a "kill zone". generally giving up territory without a fight is a bad deal, unless you're cooperating with the nation you're freely giving up territory too, and you do it so said nation can help you against this common enemy.

3. as for playing Kingmaker or not. there is no simple answer here. on the 1 hand you can go with the "do not interfere" philosophy if you feel that no matter what you do, you can no longer win yourself, however your interference towards 1 of the sides will severely change the balance of the game. on the other hand you should look at the game's history, previous diplomatic actions by both sides, were you in a war with any of the sides before, did any of them block you from achieving your goals, etc. this way you can decide which side you prefer to win, and help them. you can also use personal preferences, say if you like player A more than player B, etc. sure, it may be frowned upon for the sake of game balance, but it's only natural that people tend to support their friends over strangers...

[RadicalTurnip]

Perhaps I'm a terrible person? But I have a very strong allegiance to those who have helped me at all/made NAPs with me etc...and a very strong aggressiveness toward those that have attacked me/hurt me in any way. I do a fairly decent job of keeping it within the bounds of the game, but, in this case, I would always help whichever side helped me more/attacked me less.

On the other hand, just do whatever is most challenging to see if you can. I mean, if the less-powerful nation can probably win with your help, then try to help in such a way that you become a lot stronger as well, and then try to beat that nation, too!

[Stretch]

Play as if your nation's citizens are depending on you. Play as if you are truly worthy of wearing the mantle of pantokrator. Play as if you refuse to die. I don't see why anyone would have respect for people who join game after game and cheese out when things get tough... for people like that, who cares if they manage to scrap out a win from time to time when they're so blatantly going with the 'eve a broken clock is right twice a day' strategy.

[Gandalf Parker]

In this forum the MP games are taken fairly seriously. The "try something, it goes bad, drop out" tendencies are considered to be all worked out before joining a serious MP game. On some forums they are even more serious about it and some its less but here its considered to be a commitment when you agree to play. Keep in mind that its not just you being affected. An AI player is a whole different factor than a human one. When you go AI, the entire game is changed. A good player will completely redo their strategy. Many of the serious players will consider it to be a rude thing to have done to their game.

A more honorable option is to find a substitute. No matter how pissed you are, and how crappy you think your situation is, a sub can often be arranged. Brand new players will (or should) enjoy a chance to learn how to do MP turns, to see major armies doing battle, to see how an MP game looks in mid-game or late-game. Even if its just to die the honorable death, that can be instructive. I understand why YOU might not want to but they wont have that connection to the god you made and possibly lost. Give them a chance to slip into your spot, please.


--
Do not go quietly into the night
rage rage rage against the dying of the light - Dylan Thomas
What does that mean? It means dont be a putz and quit the
multiplayer game before all of your candles are snuffed.

[Squirrelloid]

It is only acceptable to go AI when your death is imminent and your armies are spent. ie, the AI would do just as well as a human player at playing the remaining turns (because there's nothing to do).

I'm totally against king-making just because you "want to see 'player A' win and not 'player B'". Everything you do should be in respect to yourself eventually winning, no matter how slim those odds might be. However, I think the odds are never quite as slim as they seem.

True, big empires can gain a lot of momentum in this game and it can often seem hopeless, but every turn has a good deal of luck involved and real cooperation between allies can be devastating.

So in your scenario, I would say try to affect a balance of power (support #2) until you can build yourself up enough or the two big dogs bleed each other dry.

[Squirrelloid]

Originally Posted by Grijalva

I'm totally against king-making just because you "want to see 'player A' win and not 'player B'". Everything you do should be in respect to yourself eventually winning, no matter how slim those odds might be. However, I think the odds are never quite as slim as they seem.

True, big empires can gain a lot of momentum in this game and it can often seem hopeless, but every turn has a good deal of luck involved and real cooperation between allies can be devastating.

So in your scenario, I would say try to affect a balance of power (support #2) until you can build yourself up enough or the two big dogs bleed each other dry.

You're absolutely wrong, there are definitely times you have no hope of winning. To pick an extreme example, you're dying to an opponent. Its sufficiently against you that there is no hope of recovery. (I can show you plenty of trn files that look like that, btw, so this definitely occurs). So what do you do? Clearly not play to win.

Myself, I play to spite the person killing me. I might die, but i'm going to do my damnedest to make sure they pay for it. And yes, that is definitely king-making (against your conqueror). But it also has a positive metagame impact for me - I'm a much less attractive target because people know I'm going to take a chunk of them with me and play it out till I'm out of effective things to do.

[Foodstamp]

Originally Posted by Squirrelloid

You're absolutely wrong, there are definitely times you have no hope of winning. To pick an extreme example, you're dying to an opponent. Its sufficiently against you that there is no hope of recovery. (I can show you plenty of trn files that look like that, btw, so this definitely occurs). So what do you do? Clearly not play to win.

Myself, I play to spite the person killing me. I might die, but i'm going to do my damnedest to make sure they pay for it. And yes, that is definitely king-making (against your conqueror). But it also has a positive metagame impact for me - I'm a much less attractive target because people know I'm going to take a chunk of them with me and play it out till I'm out of effective things to do.

I follow this same philosophy. If you put forth the effort to eliminate me, I am going to put forth the effort to make sure you lose as well.