I think I now understand Cohen

[Cainehill]

Historically, I think it's damn rare, to say the least, for a nation to say "If you attack me, I'm giving all my gold, weapons and ships to so-and-so so they can destroy you".

They used their weapons and ships in battle themselves. The gold, they may have given to another nation as an inducement to the other to ally with them, but they did _NOT_ say, "If you attack me, I'm giving so-and-so all my gold so they can conquer the world."

There's a difference between sending gifts to someone who may avenge you ("France may destroy me in the month to come; in case they do, here is the location of weapon stashes in the mountains, and the information about their plans that my spies have gathered...") and de facto threatening suicide by promising to give all your resources to someone else in retaliation.

Germany didn't send all their gold to Japan when it was obvious they were going to lose. The Confederates didn't threaten to give everything to England and France if the Union didn't back off.

I do think Arch over-reacted to Lintman's post, which was _NOT_ advocating throwing the game, but frankly, threatening to throw the game is a bit of a childish tantrum. I expect I would have attacked with a vengeance, forcing him to decide whether or not to _really_ send everything over and totally throw the game away, and then avoided playing with the person again.

[archaeolept]

again, I never responded to lintman's post in the first place. that supposed over-reaction on my part to Lintman was an invention on Panther's part. I'm only talking about Zap, and his earlier threat to throw the game. Lintman did not enter into it.

"and then avoided playing with the person again. "
yes. no doubt that is the best strategy, though not always easy in public games.

Edit: ahh, i see I did mention lintman. i said his advice was horrible, but horrible as advice for someone who threatens to throw a game, in that it encourages his excessive responses. the context is that of zapmeister already threatening to throw the game away, and then later instead to go AI: we would all be happy if he were to tenaciously defend his holdings.

[Stormbinder]

Cainehill said:

Historically, I think it's damn rare, to say the least, for a nation to say "If you attack me, I'm giving all my gold, weapons and ships to so-and-so so they can destroy you".

That's not what happened in our game Cain. Not in the 1st situation that happen 6 turns ago, and to which me and Arcahe are refering to. Regarding 2nd sitution (which was described by Zap and which is the topic for this discussion) we are actually in agreement.

There's a difference between sending gifts to someone who may avenge you ("France may destroy me in the month to come; in case they do, here is the location of weapon stashes in the mountains, and the information about their plans that my spies have gathered...") and de facto threatening suicide by promising to give all your resources to someone else in retaliation.

Again that's not what happned in our game 6 or so turns ago. As far as I know Zap was treatening to use all his resourses for himself, not give them to somebody else.

Germany didn't send all their gold to Japan when it was obvious they were going to lose.

Bad example Cain. In fact they did. Didn't they send a lot of their strategic materials, including large reserves of uranium oxide (over 1000 pounds), "heavy water", blueprints for ballistic V2 missles and for jet fighters and other strategic materials with thier latest reseach regarding development of atomic bomb via U2 submarines to Japan? That's as close to sending "magic gems and unique artifacts" as you can get in real world.

And all that despite the fact that there was never much love lost between Germany and Japan, despite them being allies in Axis. Germany badly wanted Japan to attack Soviets from the East, while Japans did not want any of that after Khalhing Goll mess. The Japan wanted military assistance from advanced Germany's military technology and scientists, which Hotler refused to give it since he didn't trust japanese. Nevertheless, when Germany was faced with the certain defeat by the end of WW2 they tried to screw their enemies one Last time by sending these boats to Japan and hoping they will revenge them.


Anyway, it's all beside the point. I was arguing that threating the country to make his own rival the "king" is a somewhat valid and historically proven tactic. Zap have pushed it harder than the most, true, but that by itself does not make it unethical, in my opinion. But vialating "no quiters rule" in such way does, IMHO.


Answering Archae: I agree that in both situations I would end up as a winner. And yes, I did not want to win the game in such manner, neither back than not now, and that's why I worked hard to avoid it, both back than and now, as you know. But just because the results of such actions are similar(meaning I end up as a winner) does not mean that the actions themself are the same, since both the situations back than and now, as well as what Zap have threatened to do is very different.


But anyway, enough about it. Time to hit the bed for me.

[Cohen]

Thx for the apologies, I appreciated.

About Cainehill saying I went AI in a game where I was ruling, true, in that turn I was still the biggest, but with 5 or 6 Nations against ... how long I will be still ruling? 1-2 turns ?

I've not played Machaka in MP before, so Zap, if it's not too late, I'll take this off your hands if you like.

Mark

[Zapmeister]

Mark the Merciful said:
I've not played Machaka in MP before, so Zap, if it's not too late, I'll take this off your hands if you like.

Excellent! The perfect solution - thanks Mark.
I'll PM the password to you now.

[Schmoe]

For what it's worth, Black Sorcerers casting Bane Fire should kill an Airqueen quite well, regardless of her defense.

Also for what it's worth, I would not join a game that said "no quitters" without taking my commitment very seriously. Like it or not, joining an MP game implies some sort of commitment to the other players. Usually it is a general commitment, such as "I will not cheat and I will try to play the game to the best of my ability." In this case, that commitment was explicit, and backing out of the commitment is pretty much a breach of contract. There is no legal penalty for the breach of contract, but there is definitely loss of face and respect within your community.

Having said that, it looks like you found a good solution.

[Cohen]

Air Queens has usually at least 9 Mirror Images, so on 1 banefire out of 9 will hit the target.

You should need Incinerate, or Soul Slay, or however 100% precision spells that target a single person, not an area even of 1.

[Schmoe]

Cohen said:
Air Queens has usually at least 9 Mirror Images, so on 1 banefire out of 9 will hit the target.

You should need Incinerate, or Soul Slay, or however 100% precision spells that target a single person, not an area even of 1.

Then might I suggest said Black Sorcerers (or normal Sorcerers) with a Skull Staff, Spell Focus Amulet, and scripted to cast Disintegrate?

Incinerate is conceivable, too, for a Black Sorcerer with a Skull of Fire or a random in fire, or even casting Phoenix Power.

[Stormbinder]

Are you sure about it Cohen?

From general logic perspective spells that target single person should be fooled by Mirror Images, reducing chances to hit to 1/n, where n is number of mirror images (2*airschool+1), while area effect spells such as Fireball, etc should completely ignore Mirror Image defense.


At least this is the way it works in D&D, and IMHO it makes sense.