The politics of losing

[Gandalf Parker]

Some people are total strategists. They want the game to be decided by strategy only.

Some are total role-players and have just as much fun with diplomacy, intrigue, or a game that turns to vengence.

And most are probably somewhere in-between.

We have had games setup which purposely sought to lock the game more into one type or the other. And most games which were somewhere in-between.

So where are we at?
Be happy that the game so well allows for both. And create/join the games of the type you like.
And if unsure which is preferred in a game, just ask the person who created/running it.

[WingedDog]

Originally Posted by Gandalf Parker

So where are we at?
Be happy that the game so well allows for both. And create/join the games of the type you like.
And if unsure which is preferred in a game, just ask the person who created/running it.

If only people followed inhouse rules, or at least read them.

Originally Posted by Squirrelloid

You're absolutely wrong, there are definitely times you have no hope of winning. To pick an extreme example, you're dying to an opponent. Its sufficiently against you that there is no hope of recovery. (I can show you plenty of trn files that look like that, btw, so this definitely occurs). So what do you do? Clearly not play to win.

Squirrelloid, how can I be "absolutely wrong" when I haven't posted any absolutes?

First of all, I think its pretty obvious that there can be a point at which any game is unwinnable, anyone who has lost a game knows that. I take that for granted and don't think it needs to be restated. So no thanks on the trn files

But if you look at my post, you'll see that I basically emphasize two things:

1. people tend to underestimate their chances

2. I think people should always play to win on the macro level (big empires an such). --But let me just clarify, that if you're at the point of no return (ie, last provinces/cities being conquered by unstoppable opponent[s]), then yes you can't play to win...its impossible.

I also said to play to win "no matter how slim the odds," but there is a big difference between very slim odds of winning and zero odds.

I should point out that this is my style and I understand playing by other motivations.

There are perhaps fine lines between what is and isn't king-making at that unwinnable point of a losing game, like if you're talking about..say...giving away the chalice to your conuerer's rival when you're last province/fort is about to be taken...of course that situation is your call and I would totally do that. Sure, its not playing to win, exactly, so maybe that's technically kingmaking, but I would prefer to call it simple revenge or vengeful death throes

The sort of kingmaking I dislike is when someone who is a minor power decides to become a vassal (calling it an alliance) of the winning player, even when the rest of the players have banded up against him. I would bet we're in agreement on that.

[Squirrelloid]

Originally Posted by Grijalva

Squirrelloid, how can I be "absolutely wrong" when I haven't posted any absolutes?

Hmm... lets take a look.

Originally Posted by Grijalva

Everything you do should be in respect to yourself eventually winning, no matter how slim those odds might be.

Now, where's Waldo?

------------
And Nope. I have no problem with so-called 'vassalage'. Minor power want to throw in with the leading side? That's a triumph of diplomacy.

Yes, diplomacy is part of the game. If you do it well, people are more likely to stay allied with you even when you're winning, especially when they have no chance themselves. Neglect diplomacy at your peril.

And heck, any alliance against a leading player that will have few tangible benefits for you (and to be honest, most alliances against a leading player primarily benefit the second ranked player(s)) isn't really playing to win, its kingmaking for #2. If you believe anything else you're just deluding yourself. I'd certainly consider my diplomatic history with the likely beneficiaries of both sides and make my decision based on who played the diplomatic game better.

A realistic assessment of most games would likely show that 50% of players (or more!) are not in contention to win by turn 40-50. Many of those players likely control decently-sized territories.
-Luck is only a factor in any real sense between evenly matched opponents, and even then, its usually a rather small factor. Most opponents are not evenly matched.
-Player skill is a huge factor in nation performance, and its only rational to use conditioned expectations of victory chances based on demonstrated player skill.
-Overwhelming material advantages really are overwhelming. Only a gross imbalance in player skill can save a nation or set of nations with a large deficiency of material.

Originally Posted by Squirrelloid

Hmm... lets take a look.

Now, where's Waldo?

------------
And Nope. I have no problem with so-called 'vassalage'. Minor power want to throw in with the leading side? That's a triumph of diplomacy.

Yes, diplomacy is part of the game. If you do it well, people are more likely to stay allied with you even when you're winning, especially when they have no chance themselves. Neglect diplomacy at your peril.

Hmm indeed, you may have me there, I should really re-read my posts. However, I'm not sure if "everything you do under specific conditions" is an absolute, the condition here being that you have slim odds of winning. Again, slim odds > zero odds. Whatever, I'll cop to that one if need be.

But I couldn't care less about how to phrase my sentiment, even if it is an absolute, I took the time to point out the obvious exceptions to you. It is starting a post with "you're absolutely wrong" that I disapprove of and was trying to make light of. Your call I guess...

Aaanyways, I myself wouldn't ban such vassalage-kingmaking from a game, players should have that choice, but I'm surprised that you hold such a move in high esteem. The "triumph" would be for the winner, not the kingmaker, who is the subject of this conversation.

So, yeah, if you can convince some chump (or chumpette) to help you conquer the world, that's a triumph for you....I kind of take that for granted though, just like diplomacy being "a part of the game"

Originally Posted by Squirrelloid

A realistic assessment of most games would likely show that 50% of players (or more!) are not in contention to win by turn 40-50. Many of those players likely control decently-sized territories.

More like, 50% or more have been eliminated or have a low chance of winning.

Originally Posted by Squirrelloid

-Luck is only a factor in any real sense between evenly matched opponents, and even then, its usually a rather small factor. Most opponents are not evenly matched.
-Player skill is a huge factor in nation performance, and its only rational to use conditioned expectations of victory chances based on demonstrated player skill.
-Overwhelming material advantages really are overwhelming. Only a gross imbalance in player skill can save a nation or set of nations with a large deficiency of material.

Again, you are restating the obvious; of course luck is a small factor (except when it isn't) but its a factor nonetheless.

Player skills matter?

Something that's overwhelming is actually overwhelming? Who's arguing with that?


Regardless, these are clear reasons why I would encourage smaller nations to pool their resources and fight the largest power. Of course, if in the end you don't win, you were just kingmaking for number 2, but at least you were trying to make yourself king.

EDIT: I do totally agree with the vengeance thing though, I would just wait until it was truly hopeless before I focused my strategy on revenge over winning (they often go hand-in-hand anyways).

[theenemy]

Do what you feel like. It's just a game

[LDiCesare]

you've lost, how soon do you go AI?

Never unless nobody can profit from your going ai. Which means you may do that the turn before your castle is stormed, but there's little point to it at that time.
Going ai screws the game for everyone else, so it should never be done.

Is it reasonable to collude with nation B by having them take some of your provinces so that nation A is funneled over a specific path?

Totally acceptable for me.

Under what circumstances would you play the kingmaker and support nation 2?

I keep playing along the lines of what I did before. If I'm allied with either, I'll stick to it. If you can't support player 2 until he tips the balance and then backstab him to try to win yourself, then I'd just go with what I used to do or try to get a lot from player 1 so I can maybe get a chance of winning.
However, if I have a chance of changing the game balance, then player 1 should probably consider it and give me something in order not to lose. And 2 in order to win. If I'm in a king-making position, I should be able to bargain my way out of that position into a 'can win' position.
The only exception I can think of is certain uncommon victory conditions like cumulated VPs or such. I'd probably not intervene in these cases, unless I've been at war with one player in which case I'd stick with that war.

Originally Posted by theenemy

Do what you feel like. It's just a game

Well said, please disregard my previous posts, looking back over them, the arguments seem trite and unimportant, especially when confronted with this simple truth.

[SsSam]

A couple of thoughts.

I do agree that going AI with any hope left is not a good idea.
I do agree that I usually try to spite the person who knocked me out by dragging them down as far as I can.
Playing to win is a good idea, but ...

...but suppose I run into a couple of really good players and with 5 players left, I'm probably running 4th or 5th. We dogpile on the guy we thought was the leader and....

#1 Eliminate the leader completely, and when he is completely finished off the map dogpile again with the former 3-4-5 against the former #2?

#2 Knock the leader down to 2-3 and rethink the dogpile?

#3 Knock him down to 4-5 and have him join in against the former #2?

I guess I'm curious if so many players "never" concede, then how do your games ever end? I don't mean that in an inflammatory way, I'm honestly curious. I'm at turn 90 in a game and if we consistently choose #2 or #3, I could see this game going 200+ turns.

[LDiCesare]

Originally Posted by SsSam

I guess I'm curious if so many players "never" concede, then how do your games ever end? I don't mean that in an inflammatory way, I'm honestly curious. I'm at turn 90 in a game and if we consistently choose #2 or #3, I could see this game going 200+ turns.

I've got a game past turn 150. And it's a pretty long one and I wonder whether it'll ever finish.
I've seen several games where the balance of power is clearly in favor of one or two and the rest can't do anything like king-making. Those where several player are mostly equal in pwoer can indeed drag. That's why I personally favor smaller games now (4 players is great imo), or victory conditions like a deadline or 2/3rds of the provinces or some such which means that the game will eventually end.