I think I now understand Cohen

[Zapmeister]

archaeolept said:
We don't know why she didn't rout - it looks to me like you're just trying to come up w/ some rationalization, talking about how a battle "should have" resolved...

Yes, I can see that my comment must have sounded like I was making excuses for losing. That was not my intention. I played badly and, as a result, I've lost. No question about that.

And yes, I plan to withdraw from Dom altogether, over the next few weeks.

[Stormbinder]

Cainehill said:

Unethical??? Who's running the game, Stormbinder?

*sigh* Yes, I am running the game and I am that terrible SC/raiding nation in question.

Zapmeister's description of the situation is true and accurate.


I am extremely tempted to add my own bit of advice regarding how to deal with me to what was already mentioned here, but I understand that it would be like shooting myself in the leg. I promise Zap I'll tell you what I would try to do in your place, but it'll have to be until after the game. I did send few small bits of advice to you in PMs over the Last several days.


As for my own nation - I only have 1 real army though which I put together 1 turn ago. And I only have 2 SCs (AQs), in addition to vans, who are good raiders but not up to par agaisnt real SC. I do have one kickass AQ prophet though, who is real ***** to kill.



As Zapmesiter said, the problem is that if huge Machaka Empire would go AI at this point (turn 47) I could overun most of it in 1 turn, with my raiders, summons and teleporting SCs. And I would hate to win the game in this way. I imagine all other players would not like as well.




Meanwhile I can only say that I agree with what was saod by Archae, Graeme and Cain(gasp! ), both in tactical and global points of view.


In Zapmeister's defense I can say that it must be very frustrating for him to play against such raiding tactic, when enemy strike and retreat into shadow. And he also correct, I am not sure myself how my AQ have survived this Last turn big battle, after she was the only one commander left in the castle. I have few theories why it would happen, most likely this was due to that battle being castle defense. Or it could be a bug indeed. I even posted about it myself earlier today (look at the pinned Dom2's FAQ on the top of the first page, I've added some corrections to it today, routing mechanism is one of them).


And btw I also lost my banelord to you due to routing wierdness Last turn (he was scripted to hold 5 turns, since I was expecting your Ghost riders attack, and he was supposed to retreat once you kill the regular troops, which he didn't ). Although to be honest banelord and that AQ SC are not in the same wieght Category of course.


Regards,
Stormbinder

[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.

[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

[archaeolept]

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