Poll on 3 v 1 and 4 v 1

[paway]

I would be interested to learn if the players in anonymous games have encountered less 3:1 situations or if they still occur frequently.

IMO, the game would be better if less 3:1 contests occurred. Currently gaining numbers against an opponent is common tactic. I have been both a giver and a receiver of uneven odds.

In my anonymous games to date, there has been a great deal of 1v1 battles and it has been thoroughly enjoyable.

I'm almost to the point where I only want to play in anonymous games going forward.

Other times, the "1" has either been silent (best case) or obnoxious (worst case) in negotiations, or has taken other hostile actions against one or more of the attackers so as to create ill will, and in such cases, the "1" has no one else to blame for the situation.

I'd say it is also a perfect example of the rationalization that goes on to justify not negotiating with one's neighbors.

I really dislike this concept that if a player doesn't engage in diplomacy with the 14 other kingdoms prior to turn 1, than he has only himself to blame for getting ganged up on.

The problem, as I see it, is too much diplomacy going on. If you make so many alliances and non-aggression pacts that you have no choice but to gang up on a kingdom and fight for the scraps that are left over, then you have made a bunch of bad deals.

As is the case in the business world, there is not really any such thing as a merger. It is always an acquisition. One side always gets a better end of the deal. And if you are making deals with half the kingdoms in each game and one or two guys who aren't you keep winning, then you should closely examine the crappy deals you have been making.

[HeadHoncho]

Who says you have to engage in diplomacy with all 14 other Kingdoms? I negotiate a LOT and I rarely correspond with anyone outside of my immediate neighbors plus at most a couple more people.

Learning how to identify, and make, good vs. bad deals is part of the game. There's a learning curve to that, just like with the rest of the game.

What's your alternative? Are people supposed to just get a pass if they're silent??

Like Brogan said, this is a wargame, and if a person is non-responsive to efforts to reach out, then I'm going to assume that person has no interest in working with me (fair assumption by their own action/inaction), and may even be plotting to come after ME (paranoid assumption, but one that has served me well in numerous cases).

[Lord Thanatos]

Head Honcho paranoid?

I refuse to believe it.....

[Daredevil]

[quote='Brogan' pid='18509' dateline='1393352360']
Well as the RA in game 121 I find it humorous that those wailing about the way we were playing end up using the same tactics against me. So you have a problem with 3 friendly kings removing a neighboring kingdom?

Yes, I think this thread is saying we have a problem with 3 friendly kings going after a new player in the first few turns.... Retaliation is being considered acceptable. It is a war game, but old friends and quick 3v1 alliances will not keep new players on board.

[paway]

What's your alternative? Are people supposed to just get a pass if they're silent??

The alternative is to choose not to gang up on a kingdom 3 vs 1.

[HeadHoncho]

Yeah? So how do you enforce that? How do you distinguish between what starts as a 2-on-1 and then a third Kingdom comes in after the fact? Or what if it's a 2-on-1 and both of the 2 are powerful and the 1 is pretty weak? Wow, that's not really fair, I guess we should police that as well. Or what if the 1 is really powerful and is defending as AN or DE in their home regions with governors in every town and barons in the cities, and denigrates flying everywhere, such that two or even three Kingdoms will get smoked? Should we make an exception for AN/DE only?

This is a complicated issue that defies easy classification. In any event, I am in TOTAL agreement that ganging up on the newbies is not helpful and not good for the game, and have consistently spoken against it, and have striven to mentor on one hand and "take it easy" on the other hand with newbies.

But there has to be some responsiveness on the part of the newbies as well. You can't mentor someone who doesn't want the help, and you can't help hitting back if the newbie hits you first. And I will continue to maintain that radio silence is NOT a good way to play for anyone, newbie or non-newbie.

[paway]

Yeah? So how do you enforce that?

Who is talking about enforcing anything?

We are talking about players making choices to make this game more enjoyable.

Isn't that what this thread is all about?

[HeadHoncho]

I think this thread has been about a lot of things, and has drifted to a number of different places.

Anyway, in light of your comment, perhaps we're more in agreement than not, then.

[DuPont]

I just want to see today's results! (Well, not 119 as that's not pretty, but the other ones.)

[Lord Thanatos]

Many of you are being intentionally obtuse or disingenuous.

The answer is simple. If you find yourselves in a discussion and three of you are taking actions against a single player then STOP DOING IT.

Everything else is base rationalization.

You know this is hurting our game!

Police yourself. If enough people do this we will have more players in the long run.

Can't police yourselves? Don't want to? Then you will be the reason the player base stagnates. Nobody can force you to do what is best for the long term.

It really is pretty simple if you want the game to continue to be available into the future.