No Sign-Up Required!
Play Now!
Throwing a Game
These games are based on everybody acting in their own self interest, to advance their position and better their chance at winning which is why multis are so unpopular. I remember years ago I used to hate playing games with a particular married couple who would always just try and advance one of their position to the detriment of the other.
Here's a message I got that really bugged me and I wanted to see if others see it as unsportsman-like as I did:
NAP until there are only 2 players left, no cancellation
How about that?
Without such deal, I'm stucked in the middle of 2 powers and I will lose to Tigerpipper after he finishes minoleg, so I'll surrender all my territories to him to end the game quicker, I promise.
Out of a 10 player game there are still 5 players left so I either have to side with one till the end or he'll throw the game. Rather than submit to the extortion I called him on it and copied the message to Tiger. We'll see if he goes through with it. Maybe it is just bluster.
Calling for a coalition against the leading player (me) is fine, but saying "either make a treaty till the end of the game or I'll throw the game" is pretty lame.
I like how you name me but not the other player. Ngyendinham.
This one has had lots of wrinkles based on that other player's novel diplomatic tactics.
I agree that this last one crossed the line.
I also like how you said, ok TP can win. I think you just did that, though, because we are about to match up in the IO team tourament. It's won't work, Barka.
I guess there's more to the message as I don't see it saying "you must nap with me or I will throw the game to Tigerpiper".
I have some mixed feelings about that. I agree that intentionally throwing the game is poor sportsmanship. I can see arguments for the other side of the coin too though... I also agree with the rest of your statement, that your goal as a player is to try and better your position ultimately to win the game. So following that direction if Ngyen's position has deteriorated to the point where there's no chance at all he can win without a NAP with you, but such a nap will give him the possibility of recovering for a chance at winning the game, then he should try to make such a NAP happen. And if you have no real incentive to make the nap, his strong-armed tactic of threatening to throw the game is an attempt to give you such an incentive. Of course it has backfired, as it put you off and now you will ensure he never wins this game. But your response to throw the game to tigerpiper to that end, isn't that sort of doing the same thing? If you're not going to be bullied into the nap then why not go all out at Ngyen and take your chances? If it goes well maybe you can still compete with Tigerpiper, and if it does not, at least he won't win and tiger will.
I had a similar "sportsmanship" issue in a game a month or two back... it was a 5 player hex game, and one (very good) player, whom I had a NAP with from the start, got out to a small early lead. One of the other players formed an alliance with the other 2, and instructed them to move in on me. Then with the 3 of them having weakened my navy and bearing down on my capital and other large point island, they issued me an ultimatum... my choices were to cancel my NAP with the very good player and join them in taking him down (essentially a 4 on 1, which is completely unsportsmanlike given he was NOT that far ahead and would have absolutely no chance in such a gang bang), or they would simultaneously attack me and take me out in 5th place. I found this bully tactic so distasteful that I decided to do everything I could against the 3 of them even if it meant a 5th place finish (ultimately it did).
Rather than just tell them no, come eat me alive, I tried to give myself the best chance I could to recover from the situation. I decided to go to the player I was NAP'ed with and share the whole situation, and suggested we form a full alliance and coordinate against them. I guess he really didn't have much choice given the situation, but if he said no that would have been fine with me, I would have just tried to defend myself as good as possible. But he agreed, and then to preserve my capital I pretended to go along with the gang... note, I never actually agreed to any alliance or truce with them, even though all 3 individually asked me... I never replied agreement to their terms. I simply followed their orders. The leader instructed me to cancel my NAP and bcc them or face destruction, so without actually agreeing to anything I sent a fake cancelation notice to my ally and bcc'd them. They backed off and it bought me some time to regroup. In the end it failed as the leader is a very smart player and didn't fully trust that I was on board with him, so when we made our move that revealed the truth he was ready. But at least it gave me some measurable chance to win. And actually, had I joined them in a 4 on 1 I'm 100% sure I had no chance to win, as I'm positive once the 1 was eliminated I would then be facing a 3 on 1. After the truth about my deception was exposed, the leader actually had the gall to say he thought my tactic to pretend to play along was shady. Seriously? After what he pulled to manipulate the game, just wow. Shady would have been agreeing to join them, then breaking the agreement later claiming that I can't be held to the agreement because it was forced under duress. But I never agreed to anything, I simply followed the orders he issued me.
So I guess maybe it cuts both ways. Actually throwing the game if you refuse the NAP would be pretty unsportsmanlike though, I agree with that.
I can solve this little problem for you. The key is "end the game quicker" and that that he only has a Basic a/c, so can only play 3 games at any one time. In those circumstances, throwing games that you have no hope of winning makes a great deal of sense.
That aside, I'm not sure how I feel about it. I've "thrown" games, in that I have played Kingmaker to help one player win when it was clear that there was no way I could. But I can't recall agreeing to take second place, although I have been outmanoeuvred diplomatically a few times into truces that effectively led to that. More usually though, I'll help whoever I have to to keep alive my chance of rebuilding and coming back.
I enjoy this game mainly about testing tactics in negotiation, this kind of theat is a tactic I'm trying, it's new, isn't it ;)
I'm still very new to the game so I haven't had chance to understand every aspect of the game, and English is not my native language so I pissed partners off many times, lol.
Of the sportmanship, when I was young, I was a professional chess player, I surrendered as soon as I know I would certainly lose, and all other chess players do the same, there is almost no pro chess game in the world ending in check mate, unless the losing player choses to let the winner enjoy the moment.
In my point of view fighting to the end is bravery, surrender is a good example of sportmanship.
InGeneral is right there was more to the message but it was very long and I tried to cut to what would make sense here and to make the point.
I told tiger "happy birthday" but I'm not throwing the game to him. I'm just not giving in to a threat. He will be the most likely beneficiary but it isn't a sure bet that he'll win at this point. If someone threatens me, not giving in to the threat is not throwing the game. That might be the result but the action is in the person acting against their self-interest and offering to surrender territory. If someone tells me give me $1,000,000 or I kill the hostages. When I don't give the money and the hostages die, I'm not the murderer. I didn't commit the crime. I might still feel guilty though...
Incidentally upgrading to premium (10 game limit) is currently free - so there is no reason to limit yourself to 3 games if you want to play more.
actually in a chess game when you know that you are going to loose you still try to finish the game in a draw. you don't surrender until you know that draw is impossible.
Initially, you offered me Britain and 2 islands when I wrote you something like "I still have a bigger army, I'll attack you, I'm confident that I'll success", was it a threat? I think in this war game, messages are all about threats and opportunities, it's not lame to make or give to a threat. I negotiate with threats all the time.
Players surrender to avoid watching a long and painful dead, not to play more games, so upgrading doesn't help.
I wish Tigerpiper doesn't involve for awhile so I see if I can beat you in Africa :)
"I had a similar "sportsmanship" issue in a game a month or two back... "
Wow Ingeneral, I didn't realize you were that upset about that game. Allow me to explain the actual strategy we had.
the very good player (Bromley) started the game by making a NAP with every single player except one. I'm not sure what the terms were with you and him, but with myself and mjolnir, he forced us to give up our land on central island, or else he was gonna take it by force, but if we accepted a peace agreement, he'd let us withdraw our troops first. Judging by your reaction to 'bully tactics' I'm sure you understand how we felt.
I'm pretty sure the third player (Swampfox) felt about the same upon learning that Bromley had put him on the wrong side of a 4v1 truce cuz he was actually the one that suggested we team up and go after him. We figured you (ingeneral) were teamed up with Bromley since you were both really high ranked and had played a lot of games together, so we went after you too.
The basic strategy was to hhave swampfox hold off Bromley while Mjolnir and I took you (ingeneral) out. Then Swampfox lost a good part of his fleet right around the time you sent us that message asking us to attack Bromley.
that's when we sent you the ultimatum. I didn't expect you to go along with it. The goal was just to get you to stop fighting for a bit so we could regroup and recover. If you had gone along with it, we would probably have taken you out next, but then Bromley might have given everything to you instead of trying to throw the game to swampfox like he did later.
At that point, the three of us had managed to get a 25-50% income advantage over you and Bromley (though he still had a massive number of fully loaded transports ready to attack) so the longer the game went, the greater the advantage we would have.
Anything else you want to know?
Don't agree with that interpretation at all Peavy.
There's a world of difference, to my mind, in offering someone a way to avoid a fight and coercing them into one. Frankly I'm surprised that you even try to describe my behaviour on Head Island as "bully tactics". Of course I was going to concentrate on clearing Head - it was right next to my capital. It's up to each player to decide if it's worth saving the troops that will otherwise definitely die.
>I'm pretty sure the third player (Swampfox) felt about the same upon
learning that Bromley had put him on the wrong side of a 4v1 truce
Would that not better be described as a 1v1 war? Which is a little more sporting than your 3v1 war.
>trying to throw the game to swampfox like he did later
Not really. I was screwed, so the best chance I had of placing higher (when you're down to 1 island winning's not really a possibility) was to try to sow some discord and hoping one or more of you three was nailed before I was.
I seem to remember that there was a severe breakdown in self interest in that game, with you guys cooperating long after it was sensible to do so. And how you got the others to make such , frankly, crazy moves is beyond me :) .
Bromley, It's only a 1v1 if you're the only enemy he has to worry about. if he has to defend against the four of us, even if we're not deliberately teaming up against him, while you only have to worry about him, that's hardly fair, is it?
As for Central, you were a lot more polite than I'm putting it, but it basicly boiled down to move or die. which incidentally gave you the highest income and made you the biggest threat.
And it was never really a 3v1 war, we just took ingeneral down a bit with a 2v1 while you fought swampfox and built up an invasion fleet off of mjolnirs coast. Then when you officially teamed up with ingeneral, it was 3v2 and you had a lot more forces than us, so you can't really complain about it being that unfair.
As for our cooperation, we were truced until you had been eliminated, once you were gone, we were back at each others throats. We just didn't want you staging a comeback tour while we were distracted with each other. Consider it a compliment to your reputation.
incidentally, swampfox and I had an agreement that if it got down to the 2 of us, we would trade around til we were even. which is why we were willing to do stuff that wasn't entirely in our best interest earlier in the game. Incidentally, i also had a similar agreement with mjolnir, but it never got down to the 2 of us.
I'm sure you will remember, when you were turtling, I was having trouble finishing you off, so i asked swampfox to do it. It may or may not have been good for either of us to do that normally, but since we would have split it evenly afterwards it didn't really matter.
lol, no worries, I'm not upset about that game, just sharing my impressions of it at the time.
I agreed to a NAP with Bromley initially, I was not teamed up with him until proposing it after the 3 of you issued me the ultimatum. And it was not 2v1 then with swampfox holding bromley off, it was in fact swampfox that moved in towards me first at flame and I was the one that killed his fleet (at the same time losing much of mine). MJ moved in around my capital, and you came up to Crag, I had no navy so I couldn't have been fighting you unless you attacked me now could I. And being fully surrounded, you said essentially "give me Crag and work for us or we'll kill you now". This was right after I sent you the message about bromley, although I didn't ask you to attack him, I guess you could construe it that way. I basically pointed out that while you 3 focused on me the strongest player in income and units was getting stronger going unchecked, honestly I was fishing for information as to what the heck was going on because it didn't make any sense to me. 3v1 you guys would have probably taken me down but I had enough to put up a pretty good fight and do decent damage, which by the time you were done with me would have left bromley in a very strong position, probably MJ's capital falls first due to proximity to bromley, he gets my fallen capital, and then you and swampfox are out incomed and out manned. So I just didn't get it. I believe that you didn't expect me to go along with your ultimatum, but the goal was just to get me to stop fighting for a bit so you could regroup and recover? lol What were my units going to do, jump in an swim up to your navies? A couple planes going to attack whole fleets? I was little threat to you once I lost most of my navy defending against swamps move towards flame. In all locations I either had no ships or was severely outmanned.
"If you had gone along with it, we would probably have taken you out
next, but then Bromley might have given everything to you instead of trying to
throw the game to swampfox like he did later."
Not probably, I was 99% sure I was next after Bromley fell if I went along with it. That might be a low estimate. :) Now maybe I could have positioned myself better than the certain death of refusing, but that would have been difficult considering you were ordering my every move.
"Anything else you want to know?"
I wasn't looking for any information in the first place, which is why I left all names out of it. But thanks for sharing. I find the whole thing very interesting, how the different perspectives lead each of us to different impressions and conclusions about what went on.
> that's hardly fair, is it?
Still not sure how your working this out. I had truces with everyone but Swampy. Truces that anyone could have broken at any time.
As I'm pretty sure you did with everyone except General. But even if I'm wrong on that, right from the start you were (effectively or actually) allied with Mjolnir vs. General. Then, as he says, you were cooperating with all three of you against him.
Fair enough, I've no problem with good diplomacy. I don't think I've complained anywhere about the fairness. But I did find the degree of naked coercion of the proposal that you put to General pretty unpleasant. YMMV.
Truces that cannot be broken until someone else is dead aren't great for the game IMO - I got stuck in one that really screwed up a game and greatly pissed oVo off. Again, YMMV.
"Truces that cannot be broken until someone else is dead aren't great for the game IMO - I got stuck in one that really screwed up a game and greatly pissed oVo off. Again, YMMV."
As a side note to this whole discussion, I agree with this sentiment as well. This type of thing screwed up a team game I was in, 6 player/3 teams, my team took a capital from team A, team B one player deadbeated to his partner so his partner took over his land/units/income, and the partner convinced the remaining team A player to treaty with him until one of us died. The problem was because of the deadbeating (his consolodation of strength) and our seperation of strength, he was too strong for us to really counter. But what he did was scoop up as much territory as he could without killing one of us off, to keep the Team A player out of the mix, until it was too late. Like Bromley I'm not complaining and didn't think it was "unfair", it was actually quite brilliant imo, but the moral of the story is any truce or treaty that doesn't include an escape clause (2 or 3 turns notice for early cancelation usually) is bad news. Always leave yourself an out.
Oh My God...
Truces sucks. BIG time.
Ingeneral, it nice to get another person's perspective on the game. When we sent you the ultimatum, we weren't feeling as strong as you seem to think we were. You and I had the land battle going on craig, and I was having a hard time keeping that up while still maintaining my fleet.
Swampfox was still weak after you destroyed his navy (sorry about mixing up the details a bit, his job was mainly to keep Bromley busy but he went after you too) and he was still fighting Bromley, and Bromley had that massive stack of transports parked off of MJ's coast, so we were a lot less sure of ourselves than you might think.
When You pretended to accept our terms though, you stopped building troops on craig island, and then when you went for my trap, you lost a bunch more attacking my positions, which effectively gave me the island.
I have been put in similar situations in other games, and my reaction was pretty much identical to yours. Pretend to go along and strike when the timing is right. I was kinda hoping for that reaction, since if you did actually go with it, I was afraid you might be able to talk one or both of my allies into turning against me later.
With the 'til death do us part' truces though. agreeing to do an even split makes them useable, since that really is as fair as it can get. (i.e. if you can't win a 1v1 with even income and military, then you don't really deserve to)
Another scenario you might consider is 1 player is a superpower, and the other 2 or 3 are kinda weak, but together they're a match for the strong one. They might make a truce to eliminate that player or reduce him to the point that he is weaker than any other player (probably more fair for him with the second option) but make the truce so that theirs no escape clause so that they can completely focus on the greater enemy, without having to worry about one of their allies building up and then cancelling the truce with them to effectively stab them in the back.
"you must
nap with me or I will throw the game to Tigerpiper".
2 thumbs up!!!!
Better yet say,
"if you don't NAP with me in this game I am going to attack you in 2 other games that we are currently playing!!"
haha,.thats a funny one mat.
Told you guys. Go on a two month NO-NAP strike. Its really fun.
My rating has dropped 500pts, but its still very interesting taking everyone on. Just wish no one was truced like me so the game would be fair at the end.
I'm actually very interested in running a 5 player Indian Ocean game with people who will keep their word and play a true FFA game with no truces.
Jester: I'd be happy to join in such a game. If you create, I'll take such a pledge and join in. I'm happy enough making truces, but games where diplomacy plays a part are a minority of the games I play on this site. They get to be exhausting at times!
I'm in too. Sounds like fun
I agree that diplomacy can be exhausting. And time consuming. And while interesting, not the real reason I'm here (strategy!!!). With boardgames, I enjoy Axis and Allies far more than I enjoy Diplomacy.
So the idea I've been percolating well before this thread is to take it a step further than even Jester is advocating. I think I'd enjoy free-for-all games with *no* communication (even more time savings! :-). Well, public comments that all can see and that do not in any way discuss future moves or arrangements would be fine, but no private notes of any flavor (no in-game messages or battleforces.com private mesages) about the game. Honor system, obviously.
By definition there would be no NAPs or agreements of any kind, and the only diplomacy would be the diplomacy of not positioning attack forces near someone's border and praying for reciprocation. Until someone changes their mind, anyway! :-)
I'd expect people to behave in their best interest, and weaker players would probably naturally gang up a bit on the leader when possible/convenient, but only while said leader remains the leader.
Anyway, I'd be in, too, for such a variant. India Ocean map may work, though I feel sorry for any player on the Asian continent wedged between others. World Map may work better, with 6-8 players?
Game on,
Burg
ok sign me up,i can hardly type.
Check out Bassiano's game in the Player Gathering.
UPDATE:
Ngyendinham went back on his "promise" to throw the game to me.
Surprise, surprise, surprise.
I have done throwing all of Europe to Tigerpiper and I focused on fighting Barka, but while I was fighting Barka all over Africa, Barka retreated, he abandoned Africa to me and attacked Tigerpiper, Tigerpiper was the richest but he can't resist this quick campaign and lost the whole Europe. If Tigerpiper was not so greedy, just wait to see I fight Barka instead of invading the territories he can't defend, he would have won the game :)
Yeah,
I was told earlier basically "no more treaties with you. I promised to throw the game and I always keep my word" - that word has been tarnished but at least he is acting in his own self interest. I guess I'd rather see that than keeping his word to throw the game - regardless of my personal interest in the matter.
In my point of view, I've fulfilled the promise, I abandoned and lost 100% territories I own at the time of the statement (except the capital), actually I gave up because they are almost indefensible. Every territories I own now are newly acquired ones. I gave up territories because I'm stucked in the middle, but now geography changed and Tigerpiper is the one in the middle, so I have no reason to give more to him.
This game Barka is likely to win thank to strategic mistakes of Tigerpiper :)
Tigerpiper sucks!
But he did win the A+A tournament!!!
So play 1vs1 standard map with me :)
Maybe. Will there be some kind of nonviolable NAP? Some kind of tying NAP to aggression against a third party in another game? How about demands for territories I own based on territories you don't own?
Any "complicated" treaties? Let me know. Thanks.
LOL