Re: [eia] losing players

[Joel Uckelman <uckelman@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thus spake "Kyle H":
> I agree that this is a rational playing style given our current mode of
> quit-after-three-years.  That's why I'm not interested in playing a
> quit-after-three-years game any more.  After all, we could just say we are
> playing the 1805-1807 campaign game.  Then everyone playing would understand
> that there will be no looking to the future and you should go out with guns
> blazing.  But my understanding at the beginning of both of our last
> campaigns was that we were starting Grand Campaign games (1805-1815).  If
> you think the game is supposed to last for a given duration, you play with
> that duration in mind.  And, as I said in my last email, I'm tired of being
> punished for being a sucker and playing the game under the guidelines that
> we supposedly all agree to at the beginning.

I'm not talking about quitting after three years, I'm talking about what it 
makes sense to do when you foresee that the game will end long before 1815 
*via the victory conditions*. I agree with you about what makes sense when 
the game looks like there won't be a winner until near the maximum number 
of turns is up. Short games tend not to favor Turkey, since the Turks 
become more effective as the other powers wear themselves out. So the Turks 
need to act with an eye toward prolonging the game.

People, myself included, don't give sufficient consideration to balance of 
power issues. I think we'd have games more likely to get close to 1815 if 
we did.

> > I have to ask again whether we've had anyone quit *because* they were
> faring
> > poorly. We've had several resignations coincide with players being in bad
> > situations, but correlation does not causation make.
> >
> 
> Joel, where in my email did I say that the player who quit did so *because*
> they were losing?  You are reading way too much into the email.  All I asked
> is what can we do to try to handle the situation (which has come up twice
> now) that the country that is worst off needs a new player?  It seems to be
> a reasonable question given our history.  But you seem to want to make my
> question an accusation.  Where are you getting this?

I'm not accusing anyone. I'm drawing a distinction between two different 
situations. I think we already have a reasonable solution to someone 
quitting because they don't have time, namely asking another player to pick 
up that power. And in the other case, if it hasn't happened, I don't 
understand why we're belaboring it so much.

I think I understand now. What you're talking about is how to replace 
players of powers which are doing badly, and that category cuts across the 
two I was thinking about.

>     You are probably right about this, but I'd like to hear more.  Why would
> the British calculations be disfigured if France's victory conditions are
> changed to accommodate a new player (under the assumption that France is
> getting its butt kicked)?

If the British are going for a solo victory, say, then they wouldn't want 
to do anything which would make it easier for France to win. Suppose that 
the French player  bailed. Any way that you adjust the victory conditions 
for a new French player is going to make it easier for France to win than 
if the French player had not quit. There's not much point in adjusting the 
victory conditions for a new player unless the adjustment is large enough 
to make it possible for that player to win. So it's conceivable that by 
defeating France badly, Britain could end up making it possible for France 
to win again---precisely the opposite of the desired effect.

-- 
J.


_______________________________________________
eia mailing list
eia@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia