I think I now understand Cohen

[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.

[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.

[Stossel]

Quitting at this point for Zapmeister, as in, actually turning AI, is just a formality.

It's obvious he's not enthused about his chances anymore, and you can't force him to have motivation.

If he doesn't turn AI but logs onto the server, hits Machaka and then immediately ends his turn, he has really also quit.

IMO, the damage is already done.

and no other player has quit w/out being totally defeated. Arcos quit w/, what, one or two territories left? same pretty well w/ the jots

In his eyes, it doesn't matter if he has 2 or 20 left since he feels helpless (and even if there is a way for him to beat his opponent, he doesn't know it) so he's really doing exactly the same thing as those other nations. And technically, those other nations would have to be held at fault too because they did in fact quit.

[archaeolept]

The Panther said:
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.

WTF are you talking about panther? are you in this game? are you privy to the private Messages wherein these threats were made? Zapmeister was clear that if I attacked him in any way, as would have been in keeping w/ my word to the much weaker Marignon whom Zap had attacked, that Zap would completely abandon his front against Storm such that Storm would merely walk in. His words themselves were to "throw the game".

Lint's advice in this situation was grotesque, as he was encouraging this childish behaviour. Fighting to the end to inflict maximum damage on an opponent is completely different from throwing a game. one is honorable, the other is not.

As is so often the case in these situations, Zap can dish it out but he sure as hell can't take it.

[The Panther]

LintMan said:
Zap - I'm not an MP guy, but why not go for my friend's and I's time-honored board-game tradition when faced with certain defeat in games like Risk, etc: Sacrifice your nation in a kamikaze effort to use everything you have to take down/thwart your nemesis:
- scorched earth tactics on the territory that you're losing to him. (ie: pop killer rituals on high-pop provinces, bane venom charms on scouts, etc)
- stop fighting your other enemies, withdraw all your forces for use to fight your nemesis.
- send gold, gems, artifacts, & intelligence to any players that might also be fighting your nemesis or that have the best chance to defeat him.

The idea here is fourfold:
1) maybe you get revenge by helping take down the player that sunk you. Revenge is good.
2) the revenge motive can make a game just as or possibly even more fun/interesting than trying to win, so playing a losing game isn't such a drag.
3) These kamikaze tactics will also likely result in the game ending for you *sooner* rather than dragging on longer, so you will be free of the game without needing to go AI and disappoint anyone.
4) if in future games people know you will do this when sinking, they may not be so willing to mess with you.

win-win-win-win, IMHO.

Arch, do you understand English very well? Tell me one single thing in the above post which is childish and immature. I still think you did not actually read the words as written. The above advice was excellent!

I said nothing at all about whatever the heck is going on inside the game mentioned at the start of this thread. NOT ONE WORD! I even feel that you did not read my post either.

I merely pointed out that you skimmed a post and overracted. There is nothing written is the above post that I would not also do. And probably 95% of the other players in this game too. If any of these strategies are considered unethical, I would surely like to know this.

One thing I would never do is lay down and die to HELP a guy who is overruning me. But I suspect there are people who will do this, maybe for a future vague favor. I happen to not be one of them.

[Stormbinder]

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

I don't think calling names is very productive Archae.

Frankly I never used such tactic myself in any of my games, but I don't see it as being too unethical, especially when there are no other choices left to avoid disastorious 1 vs 4 war, including 2 major powers. As I said, it happend historicaly, and quite often. In particular in european history very often 3rd countires (large and small) played two major competing countries against each other to pursue their own goals, using similar "kingmaking" tactics and threats, often successefuly.

The fact that I din't want to take advantage of it and worked to avoid it doesn't mean that I consider it unethical.


Note that it is very different from current situation though. Threating to give your items or territory to your rival to avoid disastorious 4 vs 1 war is one thing. Going AI while being one of the largest nation, especailly in the game with specific "no quiters, everybody stick to the end, no matter sweet one or bitter one" rules to which you have agreed and which everybody honored, is totally different. Let's not confuse these two things together.

Regards,
Stormbinder

[archaeolept]

Arch, do you understand English very well? Tell me one single thing in the above post which is childish and immature. I still think you did not actually read the words as written. The above advice was excellent!

I said nothing at all about whatever the heck is going on inside the game mentioned above. NOT ONE WORD! I even feel that you did not read my post either.

I merely pointed out that you skimmed a post and overracted. There is nothing written is the above post that I would not also do. And probably 95% of the other players in this game too. If any of these strategies are considered unethical, I would surely like to know this.

Panther I have not once in this thread, other than in my response to you, responded in any way to lintman's post. I have only been discussing zap, and his actions, and his threats. How my supposed skimming of a post i never mentioned, or my overreaction to a post i never reacted to, got into your head I do not know.

[archaeolept]

storm, there is no historical analogy for throwing a game: ie. vacating a front, sending national treasuries; all in order to make good the threat to do so. I don't even know where to begin in saying how wrongheaded the claim of historical validation is.

[Stormbinder]

archaeolept said:
storm, there is no historical analogy for throwing a game: ie. vacating a front, sending national treasuries; all in order to make good the threat to do so. I don't even know where to begin in saying how wrongheaded the claim of historical validation is.

Sure there are. Countries and rulers went to the great lengths to ensure screwing of their arch-enemy when faced with certain defeats. And usually the only way to get such revenge would be to help the rival or the enemy of your enemy. Just think about it Archae - how else could you possibly get revenge from "beyond the grave"?!?


What more, people do it left in right in dominion, sending gems/items to your enemy's rivals when faced with cerain defeat, as they indicated even here on this thread. Hell, in our game Cohen did it when you have defeated him, by sending all his gems/items to Pangeya. Was I happy about it? No, since Pangeya is my neigbor and one of my rivals. But I think it was up to Cohen what to do with his national treasury. Other players do this often as well, it is a pretty common thing in Dom2.


But we have to separate threatening to send gems/item and threatening to go AI while having one of the largest empires in the world. They are totally different, and I made clear that I agree that the 2nd situation is indeed unethical, especially in the game with rules such as ours.

Just my two cents.

[archaeolept]

storm, do not elide the question. please give me a specific historical analogy for an action such as Zap was threatening to do. ie. names, places, etc.

since, in fact if anything you were the arch-enemy, as I had not been in any conflict at all, your claim of historical basis is especially weak.

As well, no one, least of all me, claimed that sending gems and items is not a legitimate and/or common tactic; or that there was something wrong w/ sending the remnants of your wealth to an ally when you are about to lose. Neither of these is appropriate to the present situation. Cohen had relatively few resources at the end, and he did not send until he had truly been defeated.

Zap did not threaten to send "some gems" or whatever. He threatened to throw the game such that you would receive his whole empire; which is even now one of the largest and most powerful in the game. You yourself said that that was not how you wished to win. It is not "name calling" to say that such behaviour is unsportsmanlike, childish, or petulant. It is every bit as bad as threatening to go AI: both do great damage to the game. In fact, throwing a game does the greater harm.