 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Master Zen
|
 |
of naughty
Jan 2003
time: 23:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Aeson
Just to be clear, I don't think ND or GoW broke any rules. I certainly don't think any of the alliances in the game were breaking any rules.
The issue with vassal states is a valid concern. But is it actually a problem, and if so, how to address it?
All teams in this game were, at one point or another, in a position where they weren't the team that looked to be in the best position to win. Should a team in a position that is unlikely to lead to a win have to just stop playing altogether so as not to assist someone else's victory? What point is "unlikely" unlikely enough to warrant their removal from the game? The in-game ruleset for governing this is when there is no chance to win, the team is removed. They are synonymous. I think that works fine.
As for the validity of the agreements themselves...
GS and RP had an agreement in place where RP was to support GS for the rest of the game as best it could in repayment for GS doing what it could to try to help RP. GS had a reason to try to keep RP in the game, gaining a potential supporter for the rest of the game. RP had a reason to offer what they did, keeping from being eliminated, and the possibility of becoming a thriving nation again. Would RP have ever turned on GS if the opportunity presented itself? I don't know. They agreed not to, they honored that agreement, but obviously agreements can be broken. In any case, RP still had the chance to make their own decisions about how to act.
That is the sovereignty of a team. The team gets to decide what is in their best interest. As long as that sovereignty isn't compromised (ie. another team playing their turns), then they are still a viable team working in their own best interest. I see no problem with that. Just as I see no problem with teams deciding to ally or help each other for any reason. The problem would be limiting team's sovereignty over it's decisions, not allowing it. |
See, I don't really find any problem with these kinds of tactics (which is why I never complained at Vox or RP's exodus even when the latter was clearly not in GoW's interests).
To me the beauty of MP play is the plethora of alternative strategies which humans use, many of which are direct emulations of real-life historical situations. If a nation wants to be another's vassal so be it, if a group of nations want to go for a joint victory, fine. If some other interesting not-in-the-book strategy is devised and implemented, great.
Of course, if such things are undesirable, then these things should definitely be hammered out as concisely as possible in the game rules at the start of the game to avoid confusion and controversy later on.
Still, I think limiting these types of alternatives really hurt, instead of help, the strategies of a MP game. Rules should be made to stamp out exploits and possible cheats, NOT to constrain the freedom of decision teams have in terms of grand strategy. My best suggestion would therefore be to clearly spell out that such strategies are permitted so that teams are on the lookout for anything, and willing to do anything.
-MZ
btw, regarding Theseus' article, the big difference is that the AI will always play for victory and will never deliberately act as a vassal. In fact, it never changes its strategy at all.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Aeson
|
 |
orangesoda
Nov 2001
time: 22:18
|
|
Like I said before, an out of game UN vote to simulate the in-game one would be perfectly acceptable to me. You don't have to play out the 9 remaining turns, just agree on the team who will (would) trigger the victory.
quote:
To me the beauty of MP play is the plethora of alternative strategies which humans use, many of which are direct emulations of real-life historical situations. If a nation wants to be another's vassal so be it, if a group of nations want to go for a joint victory, fine. If some other interesting not-in-the-book strategy is devised and implemented, great. |
You can claim joint victory. Any team could claim any form of victory they want. And anyone is free to view those claims as they will.
I think there are several accomplishments that each team achieved that are more admirable than simply triggering in-game victory. That isn't what victory was defined as though, and so I don't feel those accomplisments determine who is the victor. If GS claimed victory for having had the most efficient economy over the course of the game, it doesn't mean anything other than GS thinks it had the most efficient economy. If GoW and ND claim joint victory, it doesn't mean anything besides that GoW and ND think they both deserve to share the victory.
In the end, only one team will (would) trigger one of the in-game victory conditions that were set before the game began. Feel free to view that accomplishment however you like.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
vondrack
|
 |
Praha, Czech Republic
Jan 2002
time: 06:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Krill
quote:
Funny, here I thought they were still in the game.  |
Purely from a historical point of view, there ain't much difference. Vox ahve not done anything that has significantly altered the game from the moment the left Estonia...at least, they have not to my knowledge... |
Well, I feel I have to comment on this.
First, as much as letting Vox live was a result of a deal between GS and Lego, Vox lived on not because of GS' mercy, but because Lego wanted it. The whole peaceful Voxodus (which netted GS Theology, IIRC... and us one less team to fear in the race for the Sistine) helped Vox to rebuild on Legos Minor much faster, that's for sure, but their very existence was never at stake - we had a city ready all the time. Asking "What good was letting Vox live to GS?" is simply wrong - Vox would escape to Legos Minor deal or no deal. It was wise of GS to forget the war and look at the situation without emotions... GS profitted from being easy here.
It might have not been obvious to the outside world, but it was Vox that made the whole Lego war such a tight contest. Without their invaluable research assistance throughout the industrial times, we would have been swept without ever having a chance, I believe. Thanks to those few crucial techs we got from Vox (and thanks to the gold we used to rush few extra units at the beginning of the war), we actually had a chance to survive (or so we thought). Yes, we did go down in a single turn, but that was a result of our own mistake, not of a vast technological superiority of our enemies.
We had to invest into Vox, mostly workers (pop points and some gold, which we later got back with interests), but their help was extremely appreciated and important. At least that's how I saw it - and I am not just trying to be nice here.
As for your military help, Rhoth... sigh... unfortunately, the mistake that brought us down could not have been helped by any military aid coming from your side. We did not really lack infantry to defend our cities. We had tanks rolling out of our factories... but we oversaw one possibility and did not position three BBs properly. The reason why we wanted you to stay out of the war, at least for some time, was that we preferred defending our own territory to having to defend your territory. I considered an attack at Voxtavia quite possible and it was sort of a nightmare - Lego would have had a very hard time keeping Vox relatively intact... and would never be able to win via space race without Vox... with them, though...
Well... just wanted to put the Voxian place in the PtWDG into the proper context.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Master Zen
The same can be said about the two vassal civs which were actively playing this game, actively helping another civ, yet with no intention of achieving any of those victories either.
|
I always consider that if I am in the game, then there is some outside shot at winning, no matter the precentages, and play towards that.
And that is what we at Vox have done. And if you can't win, then go for helping the winner, and that is also what we have done.
And I think that we did effect the game after our first defeat.
Jon Miller
(still comes by and checks weekly but has never played a turn)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
(that is to say, I have always been an advisor, never a leader)
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
notyoueither
|
 |
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Master Zen
The essense of your (and other's) argument was that GoW/ND played the game with the intention of achieving a victory which was not among the "standard" ones. The same can be said about the two vassal civs which were actively playing this game, actively helping another civ, yet with no intention of achieving any of those victories either.
plus, ND was like our vassal state too, albeit a really really powerful one  
* Master Zen runs away before Darekill or zeri read this...  |
The vassalisation of Vox and RP were common knowledge. The decisions by Lego and GS to go down those roads had effects.
I can assure you, everything after Bob would have gone differently had Lego and GS known that 'shared victory' was in the cards, given the attitudes of GoW and ND towards each other.
The game would have gone into two blocks. ND-GoW, vs GS-Lego and vassals.
Your decision had no effects, until this thread and the previous announcement. And then, not wanting to rain on the parade, myself and some others held our silence while the game was still on.
Incidently, RP was free to pursue winning the game. If they could have managed to build the UN, we most likely would have voted for them. We would not have considered ourselves to be sharing that victory. It was theirs to take, if they could get it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
yeah...
I will consider one of the two (depending on how the end plays out) the Victor
the other in second place
and Vox in third!
JM
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18.
Apolyton Time is 00:18. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
06-06-2005 19:42
I still remember talking to Vondrack right before GS broke through Lego's defenses and he was saying that he was more confident than he had been so far in the war, and that they still didn't need our military aid. Oh well.
).
|