david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (06/14/85)
> ... > I begged, I pleaded with the Russians to leave me alone so I could > make one last effort to prevent the French running away with it. > Several years passed... > When he finally agreed, France had 16 supply centres, and had enough > troops around Italy to easily prevent any surprise attack from me. > I decided to settle for a respectable second place, France supported > my fleet into Smyrna, and no hard feelings. > ... > One thing I can't stand is playing in a game where personal feelings > override (admittedly minimal) common sense. > ... > What should have happened? > -Nige Gale There is no such thing as a respectable second place finish. If you do not win or draw, you lose, whether you end with zero centers or sixteen. Therefore, I would have taken the slim chance that the Russians would come to their senses and stabbed France rather than be an accessory to my own loss. A 1% chance of sharing a five way draw has a greater expected return than a 100% chance of finishing second to a solo winner. Your objection to Russia's play is based upon their pursuit of goals OTHER than winning (personal dislike); you, however, ought not to feel too superior to the Russian player, as you eventually played in pursuit of goals other than winning, too ("second place"). In my view, both goals are equally removed from the game. If your response is that you enjoy finishing second more than being annihilated, I'd point out that it is likely that the Russian player enjoyed attacking the countries of players he disliked more than those of whom he liked. So long as everyone's enjoying themselves, we can all live with our eccentricities.... David Rubin {allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david
ncg@ukc.UUCP (N.C.Gale) (06/17/85)
The W4S4 game: I need advice. I am Austria-Hungary. The game started with 5 players, but both Germany and Italy were allowed into the game after it had started. Both Germany and Italy have now been wiped out. I was allied to Russia, and was happily stomping on Turkey, while supporting (on and off) the Italians against France. France and England were stomping on Germany, and France was failing to make any headway against the Italians (because of my support). When Germany at last fell, roughly at the same time as Italy, France and England were left with no one to attack. And there was I with the princely (!) number of 9 supply centres. Instantly, everyone declared war on me, including Russia, who pulled his armies out of Syria and Armenia and began an all-out assault. The French captured Tunis, Naples and Rome from me. More by luck than judgement, I managed to capture Rumnania from Russia, and cut my losses to 2. I 'gave' France Venice (which was disordered Italian) as a bribe, and he attacked England. He also has far more firepower in the Med than me. Turkey has two fleets (Black s and Aeg) and an Army (Const), Russia has armies from Sevastopol to Warsaw. England could conceivably snatch Sweden and/or St P from Russia, but has quite enough trouble what with his war with France. If I attack France, I will have a two front war, France will lose to England, I will lose to Turkey. So who do I ally with? Turkey or Russia? France and/or England? If neither Turkey nor Russia will ally with me, who should I *lose* to? I could allow Russia into the Balkans, so that Turkey has a much greater temptation to stab him, but Russia would be a better positioned ally (what would Turkey do once he and I won back the Balkans?)
ncg@ukc.UUCP (06/18/85)
Well, for those that are interested, here's how the W4S4 game ended:
Russia was taken over by a player who hates me (Austria), and Turkey
was in no position to be able to attack Russia effectively, so for the
rest of the game, they were allied against me.
This would have lead to my downfall, were it not for France sending a
single fleet to support me in the Eastern Med. As it was, in about
five years play, all that happened was Rumania and Galicia changed
hands a few times.
Meanwhile, in the north, France was getting the upper hand in the war
against England. But Russia was bringing her forces to bear against
France in Germany at last.
This left Austria and France with 17 spots (7 of mine).
England, Turkey and Russia had 18 spots combined.
There entered a phase of heavy diplomacy.
I pointed out to Russia that I was in a very good position to
stab France, who was advancing inexorably towards total victory,
but I could only do so if Russia stopped attacking me. He could
keep Rumania, and I would support him in attacking Turkey.
He refused, because he hates me, but he thought about it sufficiently
hard for Turkey to become suspicious. Turkey made moves anticipating
a Russian stab, leaving Rumania without any support, which I duly
seized.
This left us with 18 spots, them with 17.
Now England panicked, decided to abandon his homeland and move to
Northern Russia. He stabbed Russia, snatching all of Scandinavia.
All the Russian fleets keeping the French at bay in Germany were
disbanded, and there was nothing left to stop the French.
I begged, I pleaded with the Russians to leave me alone so I could
make one last effort to prevent the French running away with it.
Several years passed...
When he finally agreed, France had 16 supply centres, and had enough
troops around Italy to easily prevent any surprise attack from me.
I decided to settle for a respectable second place, France supported
my fleet into Smyrna, and no hard feelings.
One thing I can't stand is playing in a game where personal feelings
override (admittedly minimal) common sense.
What should have happened?
~~~~~~
-Nige Galedavid@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (06/23/85)
[">>" = David Rubin, ">" = Nige Gale, "" = David Rubin] >>There is no such thing as a respectable second place finish. If you >>do not win or draw, you lose, whether you end with zero centers or >>sixteen. Therefore, I would have taken the slim chance that the Russians >>would come to their senses and stabbed France rather than be an >>accessory to my own loss. A 1% chance of sharing a five way draw has >>a greater expected return than a 100% chance of finishing second to a >>solo winner. >The trouble was that Russia had no common border with French occupied >territory. It is hard for me to conceive how France could have reached 16 centers without coming into contact with Russia. Since you've said that England was not overrun, we have at most France (3), Low Countries (2), Iberia (2), Italy (3), and Tunis (1), for a total of 11. It seems that France must have dominated Germany (bringing us to 14 French centers), giving Russia a common border on which to exert considerable, if not maximum, pressure. > In order for Russia, England, Turkey and Austria all to bring >the maximum number of armies to bear on French frontiers (as was necessary, >and very quickly, too), Russia would have to >a) abandon her homeland to the mercy of someone the player hates and has >been persecuting throughout the game First, maximum pressure often is not necessary; Russia might be able to apply sufficient pressure from the Baltic to the Alps. Second, it seems plausible to me. Assuming that no one wishes to lose (perhaps too great an assumption), Russia would be perfectly safe to leave supply centers unguarded, as the power that seizes them destroys themselves. Of course, if someone is known to enjoy second-place but losing positions, one cannot win no matter what one does in that circumstance. >b) move through my own similarly undefended homeland without snatching >a couple of supply points from someone the player hates See above. >Not 1% >much, much less. Not if all the players fully understand what the rules have to say about what constitutes a win and a loss, and act accordingly. >What the Hell is a five-way draw anyway? >We were playing to conclusion The conclusion is not necessarily a win by one power. If, by mutual agreement, the game ends without a single power winning, all players with any units share equally in the draw. A five way draw occurs when the powers who still have a chance to win outright are weaker than the powers who do not if the latter group remains collectively as strong. Rather than accept a defeat, the weaker powers band together to demand that the stronger share the victory with them. Only if someone makes a serious miscalculation can someone win outright. A well-played game on all sides will usually result in a draw, either static or dynamic. >Immediately after that game, we started a new one, and I was placed >right next to the player who had been playing France (who I decided >not to backstab and allowed to win in the previous game). >He was Turkey, and I Russia. >Now if I had just done a vicious backstab, I wouldn't be in a very >good position in this game, would I? >In my first year at University, there was this person whose first >action, whenever he formed an alliance, was to betray it. Eventually >everyone else's first action, whenever a game started, was to ally >against him & put him out of the game. >Personal and emotional considerations must be taken into account when >playing against people you have to see the next day. >Trust does carry between games. >So if your chances of winning the current game are zero or less, perhaps >it is a good idea to plan for the next... Reputation does carry over, and is legitimate cause for concern. However, abandoning one game so as to maximize your chances in the next in unsporting; there ought to be no linkage (other than appraisal of style) between two games. Your chances of winning any game is ALWAYS above zero; trading off that chance, tacitly ("I'll get on his good side for the future.") or overtly ("If you help me win this game, I'll help you win the next.") for a better chance in a different game is to create a connection between games that ought not be there. If it was critically important to you for reasons of style to be deemed trustworthy, the sporting thing to do was not to allow the French player to win, but to inform the French player that, as it appeared he was not going to equitably share his victory with you, you found yourself compelled to oppose him. David Rubin {allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david
ncg@ukc.UUCP (N.C.Gale) (06/24/85)
In article <677@fisher.UUCP> david@fisher.UUCP writes: >There is no such thing as a respectable second place finish. If you >do not win or draw, you lose, whether you end with zero centers or >sixteen. Therefore, I would have taken the slim chance that the Russians >would come to their senses and stabbed France rather than be an >accessory to my own loss. A 1% chance of sharing a five way draw has >a greater expected return than a 100% chance of finishing second to a >solo winner. > The trouble was that Russia had no common border with French occupied territory. In order for Russia, England, Turkey and Austria all to bring the maximum number of armies to bear on French frontiers (as was necessary, and very quickly, too), Russia would have to a) abandon her homeland to the mercy of someone the player hates and has been persecuting throughout the game b) move through my own similarly undefended homeland without snatching a couple of supply points from someone the player hates Not 1% much, much less. What the Hell is a five-way draw anyway? We were playing to conclusion Immediately after that game, we started a new one, and I was placed right next to the player who had been playing France (who I decided not to backstab and allowed to win in the previous game). He was Turkey, and I Russia. Now if I had just done a vicious backstab, I wouldn't be in a very good position in this game, would I? In my first year at University, there was this person whose first action, whenever he formed an alliance, was to betray it. Eventually everyone else's first action, whenever a game started, was to ally against him & put him out of the game. Personal and emotional considerations must be taken into account when playing against people you have to see the next day. Trust does carry between games. So if your chances of winning the current game are zero or less, perhaps it is a good idea to plan for the next... -Nige Gale Now look what you made me do. I've swallowed my contact lens.