Picking up player dropped positions

[octagon999]

I honestly just trust Pete and Russ to do the right thing and protect the integrity of the game. Sometimes, they will have to protect it from the appearance of impropriety, even if all participants are being straight-forward and honest.

 

Regardless of what happens with neighbors, if one drops, I for one, would be highly upset if the other were allowed to take over their partner's position, regardless of how strong their alliance was. If they can get another friend to take if over (a REAL friend, not some pseudonym) then I wouldn't mind, but directly running it? No way.

 

I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. Pete's in charge and he will do whats right. He has too much at stake not to.

[The Oracle of Delphi]

Just good ol fashioned sabre-rattling and roleplayin.

Are you gonna rattle your saber all day, little seedling, or are you gonna fight?

[EternusIV]

Do I know you?

 

I never reject an open challenge and never take it personally....I just hope you feel the same way.

 

Take off the makeup, punk, and we'll dance

[Lord SaHeru]

Since I started all of this, I suppose I should jump in as well.

 

First, I think that Pete and Russ are doing a great job at managing this. More so since all of us have now become involved.

 

With the complexity of running all of Rolling Thunders games I really don't see Pete and Russ having the time or the inclination of placing friendly players next to each other and I think the slight accusation is wholly unfair. I've played in enough of their games, both with and without friends, and never had I had the luck of being close to them.

 

Now back to the trading of positions...

 

Personally, I also think that once a position is dropped, after a short duration say 5 turns, the drop is permanent. Any time before that the player can chose to reactive it. No trading..no nothing...

 

However, I do think that since trade can be a very important aspect of this game that any empire with a alliance with any direct neighbor, should be allowed to trade that position if they are dropping from the game COMPLETLY.

 

Of course I'm also a realist. As we all know that running any position, let alone several positions, can be rather expensive. We also know that trading is also a a very expensive task at this time. So if there is a player that has the time and money to pick up his friends dropped position I say more power to him.

 

Now Eternus....

 

You squawking is getting as bad as CaoCao's pointless blathering on the first board. We of the Duat of Evening's Twilight will be more then happy to test our new heavy weapons on your fleets. Just wander over to our neck of the woods and we will see who is the better worm ....

[EternusIV]

And who are you?

 

/sigh

 

I wake up this morning with a target on my chest, I guess

 

The more the merrier, I suppose.

[Kurassier]

I wake up this morning with a target on my chest, I guess

Just a biology question, do sunflowers have chests?

Anyway, sounds like you'll be needing some of my beer fleets to help you out? Should I send them to you, or your enemies? :lol:

[EternusIV]

Roll out three barrels for now Put them on my account

 

Order about ten more just in case while your at it

 

do sunflowers have chests?

 

As an underwater species, our chests are rather elusive and more organic than those of mammals. These reinforced chlorplasts protect our unique chemical exchangers, most of our regenerative nodes and provide a flimsy shell around other other "respiratory" functions. We can't rally pound on them too hard. Hence the Vanatium (sp?) armor.

[The Oracle of Delphi]

I wake up this morning with a target on my chest, I guess

Wake-y wake-y, eggs and bac-y.

[Pig Skin]

Personally, I think the empires that are "trading" their multiple positions between each other know damn well they are being "wormy" and nobody would be shocked as to who their identities are in the least (Hint: wormy, as in playstyle, and according to my brother, reminiscent of the SN II days)

Hey Algae dude,

 

If picking up dropped positions is "wormy" and you come on hear preaching that anyone who engages in it should be attacked on site, and you condemn people for doing it, how is it any different than what you did over in Game #71 of Victory having someone pick up your ally's position to help you win there?

 

Please explain this contradiction.

 

-Pig Skin

[WKE235]

As for myself, I have never played in Victory. But, from what you wrote, there is a clear difference.

 

In the Victory example: It sounds as if player X and Y were allied. Player Y had to drop. Instead of merely dropping, X and Y found another player "Z" to take over Y's spot. I see nothing wrong with this as long as "Z" took over the postion to actively run it and work with X .. and not to run it as a slave to X. Both positions are active and run by differing players. While they may be working together, there are two minds, two sets of opinions, to potential view points, etcetera.

 

In some of the above discussions: Player X and Y are allied. Player Y has to drop. Instead, Player X takes over player Y's position. They key difference is both positions are run by one player. In this case X has gained all the benefits of conquering another empire (including the added bonus of 25 RC which he would not get if he conquered someone by force) without any effort.

 

As a matter of fact, the example you cite is the solution to the problem that others have asked about. X and Y have been allied for a while and have become codependent on each other (say one concentrated on Weapons and Engines, the other in Sensors and Defenses, in R&D). Y has to drop. What is X to do? Well, X and Y need to work together to find someone to take over Y's spot. While this may take a little effort, it is the best solution. Both postions active and paid for (RTG happy). X still has an ally he can likely work with. Y gets to drop. And player Z takes over a good spot where he can enjoy himself with an ally to help support him as he gets used to the new position. The enemies of X-Y (players A through Q) may try to convince Z to abandon X (they are better off than if the spot simply went to X as they have a chance now for diplomacy). Much better for the game all around than simply handing it over to X.

[Kurassier]

I agree with WKE235, (btw, what happened to WKE 1-234? )

As long as the other nation is actually run by another person, that's fine with me. AS long as it is not just a sham.

[Pig Skin]

As for myself, I have never played in Victory. But, from what you wrote, there is a clear difference.

 

In the Victory example: It sounds as if player X and Y were allied. Player Y had to drop. Instead of merely dropping, X and Y found another player "Z" to take over Y's spot. I see nothing wrong with this as long as "Z" took over the postion to actively run it and work with X .. and not to run it as a slave to X. Both positions are active and run by differing players. While they may be working together, there are two minds, two sets of opinions, to potential view points, etcetera.

 

In some of the above discussions: Player X and Y are allied. Player Y has to drop. Instead, Player X takes over player Y's position. They key difference is both positions are run by one player. In this case X has gained all the benefits of conquering another empire (including the added bonus of 25 RC which he would not get if he conquered someone by force) without any effort.

 

As a matter of fact, the example you cite is the solution to the problem that others have asked about. X and Y have been allied for a while and have become codependent on each other (say one concentrated on Weapons and Engines, the other in Sensors and Defenses, in R&D). Y has to drop. What is X to do? Well, X and Y need to work together to find someone to take over Y's spot. While this may take a little effort, it is the best solution. Both postions active and paid for (RTG happy). X still has an ally he can likely work with. Y gets to drop. And player Z takes over a good spot where he can enjoy himself with an ally to help support him as he gets used to the new position. The enemies of X-Y (players A through Q) may try to convince Z to abandon X (they are better off than if the spot simply went to X as they have a chance now for diplomacy). Much better for the game all around than simply handing it over to X.

WKE~

 

I don't see the difference here.

 

In Game 71 the new player of Germany (Player Z) immediately declared alliance with Player X (poland) without conducting any diplomacy, and declared war with players A-Q with no effort to operate as an individual position, any more than Germany-Poland-Czech were seperable. From the looks of it, Poland (Player X) might as well as be playing Germany himself since they have declared to be in lock step allied.

 

Maybe I'm missing something, but the only difference I can see there (Game 71 where Algae admits to it) and here (what Algae claims others have done with no proof presented to back it up) is that it is OK for him and his buddies there to do it, but not OK for his enemies here to do the exact same thing.

 

I just see way too much "Chicken Little" syndrome going around here not to question it.

 

-Pig Skin

[EternusIV]

Pigskin et al-

 

Not like it applies....and I'm thrilled to see you've taken an interest in my Victory! career :lol: .....

 

But......

 

Maybe I'm missing something, but the only difference I can see there (Game 71 where Algae admits to it) and here (what Algae claims others have done with no proof presented to back it up) is that it is OK for him and his buddies there to do it, but not OK for his enemies here to do the exact same thing.

 

Your missing A LOT - like the Rules about Total Allies in Victory! for starters :lol:

 

I didnt "find" the Germany player for Victory 71. In fact, before he came into 71, I never heard of him! He was friends with other people in the game. Russ emailed me and asked if I objected to him picking up the position. I won't explain the whole Total Ally system to you because its clear you don't see the difference (have you played Victory? I'm not obssessed with you enough to troll the Victory boards to find out ) I will explain this though - once you make a Total Ally in Victory, you are stuck with them permanently. Germany couldn't have broken his TA with me if either of us wanted to.

 

Again, the new Germany player was introduced to the game through other neighbors. Another massive distinction you seem to be missing is that the new Germany player wasn't an active player swapping his position in the middle of the game. I've been working closely with one other (really fun) ally after my two brothers left the scene and working with allies in the South that I developed during the course of the game. Ask around - Poland is certainly not a country to be feared. I'm hanging on by a thread in the south against a pretty solid Austira-Hungary team. Bleh - I'm a newb over there compared to most of those guys

 

Ken explained the basic difference between the two games nicely so I won't really elaborate too much.

 

Here is the precise Victory hypothetical that parallels my concern in SNROTE (a player can only run 1 country per game btw...but as an example): Suppose player A runs Germany and Central Russia and is at war with France. Player B runs Lowlands and Northern Russia and is at war with Baltic States. Player A and B agree to swap Germany for Northern Russia....now Player A would have Central Russia and Northern Russia against Baltic States....Player B would have Lowlands and Germany against France. See how such a thing ruins the strategy of it?

 

I posted my concerns about swapping positions earlier in this thread. Please re-read them. I don't see how the activity in Victory 71 contradicts my position here in the least.

 

 

 

To clarify my position in SNROTE:

 

Picking up dropped positions is not evil per se in my mind.

 

I have no objection to Norman Fraley (Laserwolf) picking up Darrin Anderson's dropped Bashkarr position back before January* They were good buds at the time and the transfer was made early on. It was my understanding that they came in together with the other members of Pheonix Arisen at the same time. I know of a few other examples like these that seem perfectly reasonable.

 

I can also see a situation as Ken and Ur-Lord Tedric describes where two empires are entrenched and dependent - if a player has to drop for personal reasons, it seems appropriate to find a replacement or allow a transfer to the remaining active player if its not a "sham" ("Travashamokery?") as the Brewmaster suggests.

 

Picking up dropped positions is FAR different than TRADING them.

 

SWAPPING active positions (or recently inactive positions) between active players is "wormy" under ANY circumstance in my view. Form what I can tell, the empire trading is occuring to consolidate trade routes and run dual empires more efficiently (I think it was Ken who explained the tremendous advantages of running two adjacent empires simultaneously -- diversify research, avoid all of the initial trust isseus that may arise with another player-controlled position etc etc etc)

 

Its one thing to have the luck of the draw and end up next to a pal. I applaud the efforts of players to start at the same time to increase the chances of being close to each other (Heck, even I've done that.) However, its another thing to change that draw by swapping positions in the middle of the game! Thats my opinion. I'm sure that much of the SNROTE community doesn't see it that way. Thats perfectly fine.

 

I'm not even advocating for new rules. I accept them 100% - but I also have the right to declare such folks as "worms" publically to voice my view over such practices. There certainly is no "harm" to any of my positions as the result of the worminess--hence perhaps no "foul" (its still pretty early in the game)...but again, I think I have the right to raise the issue as a person who invests close to $600 a year on this game.

 

RTG probably made the right call in allowing the transfer given the scope of the game. Perhaps more intense circumstances would change the status of future requests to swap empires. It would be a pain to think you were working with Louie for a year only to find out that Louie is now Mike...

 

Perhaps Phasedragon said it best: a player will either play "wormy" or he won't. As he also implies: even if RTG amended their rule, creative "worms" would "worm" around it anyway.

 

Further, I am not advocating that "everyone attack" these wormy empires "on sight." :lol: This is my little protest. There is no grand conspiracy that I know of on either side of the issue and please don't implicate my friendly neighbors with this. I respect the players in this game too much to ever assume they would take such suggestions from me in the first place.

 

Maybe I shouldn't have used the term 'worm.' I was expecting some sort of response from a worm species in protest as a bit of roleplaying fun but alas, it seems I've touched a nerve -- wait -- worms have nerves? I forget. You can cut em in half...nevermind.

 

In any event, I hope that nobody takes this stuff personally. The SNROTE sky in my view is certainly not falling. In fact, I think the game is going swimmingly - even if players are swapping positions. /shrug (I just hope that nobody would be wormy enough to swap positions during a heated war)

 

Lastly, I'm not sure what I've done to stir the attention of some of the personnae that appear to be critical of me.

 

I simply ask that you put your real name at the end of these posts so that I can have the privilege to know who I am dealing with. (thanks for the email Saheru)

 

In any case, it's just a game, right?

 

I think I've said all that can be possibly said (and then some) to explain my view on this topic and I still think it is an important issue to at least bring to the collective SNROTE table for discussion.

 

Sincerely,

 

Brad Lund

aka

Algae Dude, FlowerBoy, Seedhead etc etc etc

 

 

PS to The Oracle= I didn't know that Mr.Blonde from Reservoir Dogs was partial to goofy clown masks. Or is that yet ANOTHER layer of crusty make-up? In any case, thanks for the bacon. The eggs were runny and gross.

 

 

*Common knowledge I presume at this point..(edit: and it was last June, sorry Norm)

[Kurassier]

Just for the record, I don't take any of this banter personally, as long as it is directed at my empire at not myself personally. A little role playing is great for blowing off some steam sometimes!!

 

Now if you show up over my HW and drop Hydrogen bombs, well, that wouldn't be very nice.........

(not that you could actually make it to my HW without an invitation.

[PhaseDragon]

One solution that is not being considered is to make "co-operation" much harder than two empire owners just agreeing to help each other out....formally or behind the scenes. There should be a game mechanism which allows empires to bond enough to allow such exchanges....maybe reviving the old argument about the DIP order and relating it to active empires.

 

A series of successful diplomatic actions could be required before 2 empires would be allowed to exchange items. Of course information exchange is something that you really can't stop (except the warp survey data).

 

At the same time, the use of espionage would take on some importance in regards to Diplomatic actions as well. Empire history with other neutrals or active empires could also be considered when such actions are being evaluated by your neighbor. After all, it takes generations for a leopard to change it's spots.