Gamesmanship
Posted: Thu Mar 17, 2011 2:35 am
I am sorry to have to report that elements of gamesmanship are starting to creep in to the fringes of the community of people playing this game.
Probably at its core is the slow pace of updates for the game, the many serious and game-breaking bugs encountered discouraging players from sticking with the game, and the generally lower level of interest in gamers in the Napoleonic era games compared to, say, modern / WWII era games. Which is a pity, because when it's played well there are few games that are better or more nerve-racking (at times, when it comes to selecting chits) than Empires in Arms.
One of the side effects of this are the many players that are in multiple games at the same time. Recently, until withdrawing from 4, I was in 8 games. I am now down to 4 and won't join in any more, for reasons of gamesmanship that I have encountered.
Recently, I have seen:
* Player A and player B are at war in game 1, and player A is winning handily. As a result, player B declares war on player A in game 2.
* Player A and player B are at war (with an alliance of other players on each side) in game 1. Player A is winning, marginally but not convincingly. Player A and player B are drawn into a war started by other powers in game 2. Player B's side seems to be winning well in that war. As a peace condition in game 2, player B demands that player A surrender in game 1 to reduce the harshness of the peace terms in game 2.
* Player A loaning money to player B in game 1, in exchange for which player B loans money to player A in game 2.
This is the sort of thing that makes my stomach turn. I'm not going to get involved in naming names here, but I hope we can stamp this out before it becomes accepted practice.
I apologise publically to all of the players in all of the games that I have recently withdrawn from, but without getting into a name-calling match I am not going to go into further explanations. I am simply not going to put up with this sort of behaviour, it is a blight on the hobby and an act of knavery of the worst kind.
Probably at its core is the slow pace of updates for the game, the many serious and game-breaking bugs encountered discouraging players from sticking with the game, and the generally lower level of interest in gamers in the Napoleonic era games compared to, say, modern / WWII era games. Which is a pity, because when it's played well there are few games that are better or more nerve-racking (at times, when it comes to selecting chits) than Empires in Arms.
One of the side effects of this are the many players that are in multiple games at the same time. Recently, until withdrawing from 4, I was in 8 games. I am now down to 4 and won't join in any more, for reasons of gamesmanship that I have encountered.
Recently, I have seen:
* Player A and player B are at war in game 1, and player A is winning handily. As a result, player B declares war on player A in game 2.
* Player A and player B are at war (with an alliance of other players on each side) in game 1. Player A is winning, marginally but not convincingly. Player A and player B are drawn into a war started by other powers in game 2. Player B's side seems to be winning well in that war. As a peace condition in game 2, player B demands that player A surrender in game 1 to reduce the harshness of the peace terms in game 2.
* Player A loaning money to player B in game 1, in exchange for which player B loans money to player A in game 2.
This is the sort of thing that makes my stomach turn. I'm not going to get involved in naming names here, but I hope we can stamp this out before it becomes accepted practice.
I apologise publically to all of the players in all of the games that I have recently withdrawn from, but without getting into a name-calling match I am not going to go into further explanations. I am simply not going to put up with this sort of behaviour, it is a blight on the hobby and an act of knavery of the worst kind.