#143 - Steel Exploratory Lion's Share Victory

[mafmiller]

Congratulations to all the podiumists!!! (DW)
I was disappointed that I was going to be playing the DW, so in the beginning I decided my role would be to support the WI. He was new to the game and I usually do much better at support than taking the lead. Then, as you all know, he dropped! Ugh! What was I going to do now?! I had expended a lot of resources in his favor instead of really developing my own position. Oh, well. The DW position was better than I had thought it would be and I did take my region fairly early, so I thought I'd just hang out in the Mountains for a while, stay to myself and build up. That was amusing for only so long. I was bored, so I needed an enemy. Well, Dwarves are good and Demons are evil, so why don't I attack them?   That was fun and went very well for a while. I didn't realize, however, that DE was part of an alliance, and eventually was attacked by three kingdoms ... although to be fair, the only serious attacks still only came from the DE. He was an excellent opponent and eventually wore me down ... curse those Princes!!! I guess it's understandable that some players considered me a part of a bigger alliance, but I really only cooperated with RD/UN/AN from time to time.
Good game.

[Ry Vor]

Would someone please post the final status points.  My game turn result omitted them.  I have no idea what the status point totals were.  Where did I finish?  Last? 12th? What?

Same for me I only know 1st - 4th from the forum.

GAME END STATUS POINTS

PLACE KINGDOM PLAYER RESULTS-40 GRAND TOTAL
1 UN Daredevil 9960 18503
2 RA The Wise One 7215 14382
3 AN Canticar 3905 10584
4 BL Airborne Ranger 5200 10573
5 DE Lord Thanatos 4660 8403
6 EL Jumpingfist 4245 8269
7 RD Vball Michael 1000 5995
8 DW Damelon 1545 4734
9 DA Bash Grimtooth 2000 4409
10 SO Drogo 2400 4100
11 WA Cloud 1000 2650
12 GI Hamlet 1000 2274

[gkmetty]

Canticar (AN)

It is interesting to hear everyone's perspective on the game.  Thanks to everyone for sharing.

Uncle Mike, in all of your posts you have done nothing but try to put down other players.  You had a major advantage in this game in that you have access to the game code and you admittedly used it to your advantage.  You openly resigned from the game on these forums and then did not resign, gaining a small advantage in doing so.  You came in second, which is admirable, but you tried to take the win away from another player.  I dislike your in game actions and your actions on this forum and if possible, in the future, I will avoid participating in games with you.

To everyone else, congratulations.  It was a great game.

[Airborne Ranger]

So funny how you rewrite history. Your alliance started on Turn 1. The RD helped the UN and GN against a TR invasion, then later joined AN after your alliance attacked. Your "team" was attacking as a group on the WA and GI by turn 6. So leave words like "unfair" out of your posts as you personally formed the first multi-player alliance.

Vball,

I can guarantee that you are wrong, conjecture is ok but do not state that they are facts if you do not really know the truth. This game had many twists, in fact my only alliance at first was with DE and we really never coordinated any attacks on anyone, he fought his battles and I fought mine we agreed both early on that 3 vs 1 was not fair and we would fight our own battles, that is why DE fought basically alone vs DW, he was adamant about that.. The only thing we shared in game was an artifact for a few turns.
My alliance with RA came about so we did not fight over region and since SO was his ally it brought us together. It was quite obvious early that UN/GN/RD were working together or allied some way. Yes I did help out vs WA for a few turns but my goal was Runnimede where I fought 99% of the game vs GN and UN. TR was in Runnimede before I attacked but since he was there we agreed to fight together since he was getting hammered badly at that time.
The AN was never even a thought in this game until you attacked me out of no where, then it was obvious that you formed alliance with RD/UN/GN. That changed the whole outlook of game, we saw your side as the EVIL alliance!

To be honest EL was going to fight us and join other side but he had reasons of his own, that is for him to know or explain if he wants to. It was his demand that WA be left alone and WA made his decisions from there on. I offered him pc's to get back into game after EL requested it and I thought it a good gesture.

Its funny how each side see's things differently, you labeled our side the EVIL side but I see it quite opposite. I do not understand the hostility between some people in this GAME. It was a GAME and it was fun. I am sorry WA was hit hard at first but his region was ripe for taking, nothing personal. But I do take offense to his "sitting at the kids table " remark. He owes much to EL for being in the game at the end. At end of turn 40 the our EVIL side looked like it kicked butt! Even though status points do not reflect it. I think only AN held regions for their EVIL side at games end, UN owned no pc's and I think our evil side owned at least 5 regions and was thriving. So much for those kids

As you can see I did not raise numerous emmys nor ally or declare enemy or whatever other last turn antics just to gain status points near end of game, I could have as I had the ability to do so...heck I bid 300000 gold for HC seat, so I could have done much with that before if I was worried about status points, I played the game for conquest to win, the status points mean absolutely zero to me. And please UN do not mistake what I am saying, you played a great game as I have told you a few times but when a player wins a game and does not control a pc then status points do not mean much to me, others see it differently.

That was my perspective................BL

[Airborne Ranger]

So funny how you rewrite history. Your alliance started on Turn 1. The RD helped the UN and GN against a TR invasion, then later joined AN after your alliance attacked. Your "team" was attacking as a group on the WA and GI by turn 6. So leave words like "unfair" out of your posts as you personally formed the first multi-player alliance.

Vball,

I can guarantee that you are wrong, conjecture is ok but do not state that they are facts if you do not really know the truth. This game had many twists, in fact my only alliance at first was with DE and we really never coordinated any attacks on anyone, he fought his battles and I fought mine we agreed both early on that 3 vs 1 was not fair and we would fight our own battles, that is why DE fought basically alone vs DW, he was adamant about that.. The only thing we shared in game was an artifact for a few turns.
My alliance with RA came about so we did not fight over region and since SO was his ally it brought us together. It was quite obvious early that UN/GN/RD were working together or allied some way. Yes I did help out vs WA for a few turns but my goal was Runnimede where I fought 99% of the game vs GN and UN. TR was in Runnimede before I attacked but since he was there we agreed to fight together since he was getting hammered badly at that time.
The AN was never even a thought in this game until you attacked me out of no where, then it was obvious that you formed alliance with RD/UN/GN. That changed the whole outlook of game, we saw your side as the EVIL alliance!

To be honest EL was going to fight us and join other side but he had reasons of his own, that is for him to know or explain if he wants to. It was his demand that WA be left alone and WA made his decisions from there on. I offered him pc's to get back into game after EL requested it and I thought it a good gesture.

Its funny how each side see's things differently, you labeled our side the EVIL side but I see it quite opposite. I do not understand the hostility between some people in this GAME. It was a GAME and it was fun. I am sorry WA was hit hard at first but his region was ripe for taking, nothing personal. But I do take offense to his "sitting at the kids table " remark. He owes much to EL for being in the game at the end. At end of turn 40 the our EVIL side looked like it kicked butt! Even though status points do not reflect it. I think only AN held regions for their EVIL side at games end, UN owned no pc's and I think our evil side owned at least 5 regions and was thriving. So much for those kids

As you can see I did not raise numerous emmys nor ally or declare enemy or whatever other last turn antics just to gain status points near end of game, I could have as I had the ability to do so...heck I bid 300000 gold for HC seat, so I could have done much with that before if I was worried about status points, I played the game for conquest to win, the status points mean absolutely zero to me. And please UN do not mistake what I am saying, you played a great game as I have told you a few times but when a player wins a game and does not control a pc then status points do not mean much to me, others see it differently.

That was my perspective................BL

Also, there is an old saying "  the winner always writes history". 

[Ry Vor]

While this is a players' forum, I'd like to quell personal attacks.  Very early on in 2013, some player who had a bad result accused Ciipher on the forum of cheating.  He was roundly criticized and I invited that player to leave the community.  Please remember, there is very little money in running Alamaze.  Some, like Uncle Mike, who have provided the outstanding order verification and web entry, and the test game #300, and is looking to automate Alamaze processing, have gotten no money, actually turned down the offer of some renumeration.  What Cipher or I get is not nearly enough to live on, I can assure you.  All this is done mainly for the love of the game.  I also am most appreciative of the volunteer efforts of Lord Diamond, Frost Lord, Bananas, Maximus Dominus, and probably others I am leaving out.  We don't have a mercenary staff, "Staff" is actually overstating it: they do what they can, when they can, and generally expect nothing in return, just want to help support Alamaze.  And they like to play: again, they are not in it for the money, they are trying to make the game better for the players, whether order entry, Valhalla, the forum administration, coding, initiating GUI, etc. 

People, we don't have that many players.  Usually the player that starts with personal attacks, vents, gets rebuffed, and leaves the game.  I believe The Broken has left after that discussion last week, maybe he is just having technical problems.

I have tried to say this in many ways, many times: Alamaze affords players many ways to play, many styles.  Usually arguments break out when styles clash, a player wondering why player X doesn't play the way I do?  When it becomes accusatory, it doesn't help anyone.  Anyone who has played Diplomacy or even Risk has felt a bit taken advantage of from time to time.  When they take the game experience and apply it to the person, that's too far.

Good gaming. 

[Daredevil]

(UN) Wow, guess I am late to the table here.

Here is a shout out to all of the folks I conflicted with at one time or another, and then on to others:

Airborne (BL), you were a worthy adversary who was a thorn the entire game. Congratulations on finally ousting me and taking the region. Good persistence even after I took out some of your leaders.
Ranger, nice coordinating of things behind the scenes to improve your position, and nice use of agents prior to the final status point run.
Demons, sorry I had to kill a couple of your Princes, but they are evil after all and they were right there in my sights. Congratulations on winning your very long, mostly one-on-one against the Dwarves.
Sorceror, nice invasion, but not sorry I took out your wizards. You were, after all, invading me .
Troll, not sure why you attacked so many folks, really did cause us to have to band together to defend Runnimede, then the BL and SO came in to Runnimede. Weird.
Giant, not sure whose side you were on, fighting the Reds, then hitting Troll, UN, DE, RA, DA, BL maybe. Not really sure, just a little crazy there.
Elf, really had no dealings with you until you attacked, so hope you were ok with me killing some emissaries.
Darkelf, no dealings.
Dwarf, no dealings, though nice of you to point out some juicy Demon targets.
Ancients, no dealings, but again nice of you to point out some targets.
Red Dragons, thanks for defending Gnome and me against troll, been nice if you could have fought off the Blacks also .
Gnomes, sorry you got knocked out painfully by the Black Dragons and Sorcerors. Ouch.
Warlock, no real interaction until near end of game, but was curious why you attacked us (saw your answer in your post). Oh well, it was fun.
Witchlord, early drop, no interaction.

I played this like an Underworld as somebody noted above. I finished with no population, but as Jumping or someone said, not really a limiting factor for an Underworld especially so late in the game.
Property is just one piece, and yes an important piece, of the game. I killed 13 kings/regents and at least 20 other emissaries or leaders, and had 6 level 19s at one point (one with Ring of Invisible), fun position.

I did not expect to hold my spot at the end, though I did have the most points at every status point update.

Good gaming to all, thank you for a great game.

Chancellor, Vball.
Iron-willed, Black Dragon Airborne (not really hanging around with no forces, but a very determined foe).
Infamous, Giant, who just seemed to run rampant.

[Ry Vor]

I don't think Uncle Mike had inflammatory remarks.  I think his suggestion to limit declarations in the last few turns warrants consideration.  I wish this Valhalla writeup of the campaign was more of a celebration of a 40 turn game.  It may be time instead to call an end to the discussion.

[Cloud]

I am sorry WA was hit hard at first but his region was ripe for taking, nothing personal. But I do take offense to his "sitting at the kids table " remark. He owes much to EL for being in the game at the end.

a. Don't be sorry.  It was a fine move.

b. What I meant by 'sitting at the kids' table' was my position within the alliance, not a commentary on the alliance itself.  Sorry for the confusion.

c. You can't make a player leave a game.  I've never quit a game and I don't owe anyone for that.

unclemike

I can understand why the WA is angry with me, I nearly took him out of the game early on so he's upset about it.

I actually am not upset nor am I angry with you.  In-game stuff ends with the game as far as I'm concerned.  I've never once held a cross-game vendetta and have in fact later allied with nearly everyone I've ever tussled with.  Obviously, I will form opinions about the trustworthiness/capability/reliability of players but I'm not one to cast character judgements around based on game play.  If I was angry with you, I would not have congratulated your podium placement, affirmed the validity of your placement, or nominated you for Infamous which I consider an honor.  Sorry to disappoint.

Ry Vor

It may be time instead to call an end to the discussion.

I really hope you don't do that.  Most of this thread is fine.

[Airborne Ranger]

I AM READY FOR ANOTHER STEEL EXPLORITORY! Lets get most of same group in and go again?