Game 77 Private and Confidential

[Meaty_Bites]

well its been nearly a month since anyone has posted other then miraeng...... what gives?

[Galvorn]

It appears that your enemies are now ours, Paul. Iceland (and presumably his TAs) has joined with France, Gemany and the Scandinavians in attacking Austria and her allies. Those Icelandic paradrops are a pain. Espiecially when combined with a preceding French air bombardment. At least I still have my trusty T-34s which are not vulnerable to that particular form of attack.

 

The situation is perfect, targets everywhere.

 

Kaiser und Konig of Austria

Galvorn

[jstrait]

Your Allies? Is that what you call Poland? I guess your allies are disposable. His armies fled his homeland upon our invasion, to disrupt Germany and aid you for one turn prior to what would seem to be him dropping his position. Seems like you and your TAs consider some less allies worthy of defense than others. I am seeing this as a common problem with this game. Perhaps Russ needs to reinstitute the permanent TA programming? Sacrificing a friend's position for personal gain is contrary to the spirit of the game. I've seen it at least twice in this game alone (from two different alliances). Russ, I hope you are reading this....because as a relatively new player, this is not the way to keep my attention. This is a fundamental problem with the game that needs to be addressed.

[the_dark_monk]

In this case Don is right; the program is fine as it is. To sacrifice your own position for good of the alliance is a normal decision. Of course everybody like to play successful until the end of the game, but sometimes your opponents are too strong. In this case the most allies do the best they can to keep their friends and allies with an advantage in the game. This is normal. If you change this rule then there are a bunch of other rules which will have to be changed. For example a position can only be attack by one player, because it is unfair to attack a position with two players. Ideas like that would start a never ending discussion.

 

Your problem can be solved very simple, kill your opponent fast.

 

Sorry Jstrait but that is the Monk's oppinion.

 

The Monk

[jstrait]

I think you guys are missing the point. Is it acceptable and reasonable for players to join a game together, planning all along for one position to give all its cash and resources to another and then drop? I have seen this happen (in Game 77, no less). No one is saying everything needs to be fair, merely that gaming the system should be prevented as best as possible. Otherwise, the player base will continue to shrink (which appears to have already happened to this game), and the ability to attract new players will be diminished.

[the_dark_monk]

No rule will change the number of players which dropped their position. Most players drop out of a game because they are unsuccessful or they have real time problems or other reasons.

 

I have seen players who play until they shot their last bullet because they enjoyed the war with their opponent.

 

Rules will not change any of these reasons.

 

Transfer of resources is always possible, even if transfer between allies would not be possible anymore. Then the people will simply use the method of cannibalism instead of a transfer. They will not join as TAs, they will be enemies; eating each other if one of the positions becomes unplayable.

 

Transfering money is not so easy; you need ten rounds to plunder 60% of a position money due to the 10% rule. Money is no problem anyway, if you fight for your life you will not care bout a negative treassury.

 

What ever argument you mention, I do not think that you can offer a better rule then the one we have.

 

The Monk

[miraeng]

No rule will change the number of players which dropped their position. Most players drop out of a game because they are unsuccessful or they have real time problems or other reasons.

 

I have seen players who play until they shot their last bullet because they enjoyed the war with their opponent.

 

Rules will not change any of these reasons.

 

Transfer of resources is always possible, even if transfer between allies would not be possible anymore. Then the people will simply use the method of cannibalism instead of a transfer. They will not join as TAs, they will be enemies; eating each other if one of the positions becomes unplayable.

 

Transfering money is not so easy; you need ten rounds to plunder 60% of a position money due to the 10% rule. Money is no problem anyway, if you fight for your life you will not care bout a negative treassury.

 

What ever argument you mention, I do not think that you can offer a better rule then the one we have.

 

The Monk

 

G'Day All

Nice to see some activity here at last.

I think all the rules are OK as they stand.

What you guys are getting at I'm not sure.

Even though this is only a game there ethical issues to consider.

This comes down to your own set of ethics.

What certain people do to you or others in the period that you play this game you learn what ethical standing some player have.

I would never consider TAing with people I've come across in this game that I consider have taken an unethical stance in the past.

This is not a "goody two shoes" approach it's up to your own set of standards and that is mine.

 

Anyway:

 

Turn 33

 

Took xzagora and held xsafi.

Can't make up my mind what to take next.

xceuta would be good then I could start railling troops in.

Defence there is good.

Don't you just love it when your enemy forgets to defend the target you hit.

Portugal Paul

[JTBB64]

Poland made no such "sacrifice". The fact is the Poles were fighting Germany long before any nation invaded its borders. You cannot fault the Poles for trying to conquer Germany. The German player has played a very good game, almost flawless, and my hat is tipped to that player. Poland is not without any defenses either. I would sugggest that perhaps you dont have all the facts of the case. Poland may indeed fall, but not due to its giving itself up or being without any defense.

 

As far as permanent TA's, I could live with the rule being either way. As long as a rule applies to everyone, then no one has an advantage. I have already won a game of victory (49). Even won as Bulgaria. So in this game, I am not so concerned with my winning, but I would like to help some friends win a game. In the end, if it would help them win, I would drop my TA position, transfer all I could to help them win. I pay my turn fees, so I would say that gives me the right to do what is within the rules to do. Perhaps the rule you would like modified, is for money, territory,etc to not be exchangeable bewteen TA's. Otherwise, as long as I am paying and it's within the rules, why should I not be able to do it?

 

 

JT

[Meaty_Bites]

for the record I am a new player.

[nfbeerse]

Hello Meaty_bites,

 

I have seen you posting in several forum topics, so you are not that "new"...

 

Norbert

[Meaty_Bites]

Hello Meaty_bites,

 

I have seen you posting in several forum topics, so you are not that "new"...

 

Norbert

 

?????

 

This is my first game, that would class me as new.

[Earthling]

Jared, which position supposedly joined this game with the intent of giving away all of its money and resources? You make a lot of accusations.....lets here the actual suspects that you have in mind so they can defend themselves, if they are so willing. As far as Poland goes, you don't have all the information.

 

Earthling

 

I think you guys are missing the point. Is it acceptable and reasonable for players to join a game together, planning all along for one position to give all its cash and resources to another and then drop? I have seen this happen (in Game 77, no less). No one is saying everything needs to be fair, merely that gaming the system should be prevented as best as possible. Otherwise, the player base will continue to shrink (which appears to have already happened to this game), and the ability to attract new players will be diminished.

[jstrait]

I appreciate everyone's input....and I'm sure I don't have ALL the information on either topic, but I know where the vast majority of Poland's troops are currently. I hope you are right, and I hope he does stick it out, as I much prefer a human opponent. Guess we'll have to see how accurate my claims are (they were never accusations) in a few turns.

 

As for the resource question, the issue has already been identified to Russ, who says it is not uncommon, but that he is inclined not to interfere. I guess the previous message indicating that ethics are up to the individual player probably is the most compelling I have heard. Everyone has their own perspective on what is an acceptable tactic within the spirit of the game. However, I hate to see players explicitly playing a position for the benefit of another, with little or no self interest. That can be very imbalancing to the game, and generally speaking, will discourage new players. I have played PBMs for twenty years, and seen issues like this destroy games.

[miraeng]

I appreciate everyone's input....and I'm sure I don't have ALL the information on either topic, but I know where the vast majority of Poland's troops are currently. I hope you are right, and I hope he does stick it out, as I much prefer a human opponent. Guess we'll have to see how accurate my claims are (they were never accusations) in a few turns.

 

As for the resource question, the issue has already been identified to Russ, who says it is not uncommon, but that he is inclined not to interfere. I guess the previous message indicating that ethics are up to the individual player probably is the most compelling I have heard. Everyone has their own perspective on what is an acceptable tactic within the spirit of the game. However, I hate to see players explicitly playing a position for the benefit of another, with little or no self interest. That can be very imbalancing to the game, and generally speaking, will discourage new players. I have played PBMs for twenty years, and seen issues like this destroy games.

 

I have been involve in a couple of games where some players declared war on each other with the sole purpose to let one take over the other deliberatly.

GB and Ireland were involved in this in one of the games I know of.

The tactic didn't work I might add.

The other was Tunisia and Algeria.

This was about 4 years ago and I haven't heard of it since.

Basically I haven't seen an advantage in that ploy in the end in any case.

What if you win by cheating.

Big deal.

Paul

[JTBB64]

I appreciate everyone's input....and I'm sure I don't have ALL the information on either topic, but I know where the vast majority of Poland's troops are currently. I hope you are right, and I hope he does stick it out, as I much prefer a human opponent. Guess we'll have to see how accurate my claims are (they were never accusations) in a few turns.

 

 

Poland does have troops in Germany. They have been fighting Germany for probably 10-15 turns. Just because you didnt invade Poland till now, and when you did, Poles troops are in Germany, does not in any way, shape or form mean they deserted their country or had any intent on sacrificing their position. I had 18 armored/mech divisions which attacked into East Prussia, and I intended to kick the Scandanavians out, but then a better target came up. My troops moved, just as the Poles did, into Germany. I would think you find it favorable that the Polish army is fighting someone else as you enter their country. Do you expect that the Poles, for the last 10 turns, just sit and wait for your invasion?

 

As far as the Poles sticking around, do you expect if he loses his country, that he would still play? I would suspect not, at least not in a winning sense, but perhaps to still get info etc. And if he sees the writing on the wall that he cannot win, or that his TA with the rest of us may prevent us from winning, do you expect he would drag us down with him? I would hope not. As it stands right now, even if you left his country, I would say his point contribution to our alliance winning would be minimal, if not detrimental, mostly due to the amount of armies etc he has lost. If you are claiming that from the beginning of this game it was the Poles intention to do anything other then win, you would be wrong. In fact, you would be far more accurate making that claim of me, as I said before, I will drop TA, cede, give, whatever it would take to help my friends win.

 

 

JT