The 'I cant win' effect

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: McGuire

From my point of view: Ruining a game is worse that simply quitting!
I'd give a quitter another chance - but someone who did a thing like this: NEVER!

I'm of the opposite perspective, but for this game only. Most games, I agree. However, the boardgame EiA takes a year to play. If someone quits 1/4 of the way through, the whole game is ruined (unless it was the player playing Prussia -- the one major power that the game can afford to not be played).

The thing about playing spoiler, again, in this game only, is that it's historically accurate. When von Blucher came out of retirement, he had one goal for his life: Get rid of Napoleon. He managed to talk his country back into war, when there was no sane reason to do so. Same thing with Austria, although she had a decent set of reasons for that second war (1809).

Napoleon's reasons for attacking Spain and Russia bordered on insanity (two bouts of insanity, no less)!

So, playing ones country "in period" or "historically" might actually lead one to perform some very poor tactical or strategic moves, but what is history without idiotic choices made during war?

[JudgeDredd]

You know, this thread kind of puts off people playing multiplayer....especially newcomers to the game.

Am I correct in thinking what's effectively being said is, if a player doesn't play fair then he should be dropped/ganged up on?

As a new player to the series, I'd be way too nervous to play with you bunch just in case my lack of knowledge of "your way of playing" was construed as deliberately destroying peoples chances of having a fair game.

Seriously, I think you might want to listen to yourselves, 'cos I could pretty much gaurantee, out of fear of being branded and banished, that I wouldn't want to play in your clique when and if I do get the game.

If there are "spoilers" within the game, then the game mechanics should perhaps deal with it and prevent it. Not have the other multiplayers chasing you out of town.

This post sounds a little harsher than I meant it to be, but you should really re-rad what your saying...new players would not want to play against you!

[Monadman]

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd

You know, this thread kind of puts off people playing multiplayer....especially newcomers to the game.

Am I correct in thinking what's effectively being said is, if a player doesn't play fair then he should be dropped/ganged up on?

As a new player to the series, I'd be way too nervous to play with you bunch just in case my lack of knowledge of "your way of playing" was construed as deliberately destroying peoples chances of having a fair game.

Seriously, I think you might want to listen to yourselves, 'cos I could pretty much gaurantee, out of fear of being branded and banished, that I wouldn't want to play in your clique when and if I do get the game.

If there are "spoilers" within the game, then the game mechanics should perhaps deal with it and prevent it. Not have the other multiplayers chasing you out of town.

This post sounds a little harsher than I meant it to be, but you should really re-rad what your saying...new players would not want to play against you!

Judge,

Yeah, you should be very careful whom you join up with to PBEM this game. First off, nothing beats personally knowing who the other players are but, if that is not possible the next best thing is to have an idea of what they might be like, based on their past posts (as you have done). However, do keep in mind the beauty of this game (computer version), that the host plays a very important role in PBEM games and if he/she, or the majority of the playgroup, are convince they have a “spoiler” (one that indeed is ruining the game) then the host can boot that player and either replace him/her with another human player or let the AI control that major power.

Enjoy

Richard

[JudgeDredd]

But that's what I'm saying really. My particular playstyle may well prevent me from continuing because someone thinks I'm deliberately spoiling the game or because someone doesn't like the way I'm playing...and the risk of that happening is quite high, being new to the game.

Also, not only does it make it very difficult to convince myself to play online, but also it makes it even more dificult knowing that people will be scrutinising your style for signs of "not playing properly".

And war is never fair anyway. Hitler was hardly fair when he said he wouldn't do anything and stormed all over Europe....when he signed a pact with Russia, knowing full well he was going to invade at some point.

Maybe it's because I don't understand the ways in which the game can be spoiled and I'm assuming that any strategy I employ will be "under the looking glass"....but it is off putting to new players, of which I may well become one (one day).

[Jimmer]

I probably should clarify my last post a bit. The gaming crews I played with were of somewhat of a "noble" kind of gaming mentality. To a man, every person would agree to "This game is NOT Diplomacy!" Or Machiavelli. People did not backstab other people simply because it was the second turn of the game (which is common in Diplomacy and somewhat common in Machiavelli). No, we all perceived that this game was a game among friends, and the goal was NOT to shaft someone. It was to have a year's worth of fun and then do it again. I've been friends with some of those people for over 30 years.
 
So, if someone quit (without a good reason), it was really tough to handle. We LIKED each other, and wanted to KEEP liking each other. So, there was always a significant pressure to keep playing, even a bad position. We even once changed the rules for a player in a particularly bad position. What we did was make two games for him: One with his original bid, and another with a new, negative bid, that took into account his bad position at the current time. As I recall, he won with the changed rules, but the original bid came very close to winning as well (i.e. his fortunes turned around rather dramatically.
 
I've found the NEVER is a player totally out of it, unless the player bid too much for France, Great Britian, or Russia. And, I don't mean 25 VPs. We had an odd fellow play with us once (exactly once), and he really wanted to play France. So, he bid 85, I think. Being a rookie, he was very quickly at a point where he could not win. That's the one game that we didn't either finish or agree on who would have won (so we could move on to the next game).

[JudgeDredd]

I'm pretty sure you aren't getting what I'm meaning...

If I bought this now, then I am a new player to this game...never set eyes on it before. If I then hooked up with however many others you can do.

So, I start to play and play "my way"...whichever way that may be. I might decide to dump alot of diplomacy and go charging around the map...it may get me somewhere, it may not. The point is, you "grognards" who have played the boardgame to death and now play the computer version may well think "He's just pissing around...lets kick him off or end it quick and get a new game without him"...doesn't seem right to me that in a grand strategy game involving several players (be that 2 or 200) that some players can decide that someone is "not playing right" (and again, what constitues right? The fact that I don't play a certain way makes it incorrect?"

As I said, it could be that I do not understand the mechanics of it...but hey ho.

It's a moot point at present anyway, 'cos I do not have it, but what I'm trying to say is this thread has really put me off PBEM with it with anyone of any knowledge of the game.

As that is, I will leave you to enjoy your game...god knows you've waited long enough for it. [;)]