Re: [eia] losing players

[Joel Uckelman <uckelman@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thus spake "Kyle H":
>     However, I think Jim's point below is a good one.  I think we should
> decide *now* at the *beginning* of a new game how we will deal with the
> prospect of losing players in the future (since it seems inevitable).

Isn't the answer "Ask someone new to play"? I just don't see what you and Jim
are looking for here.

>     Mike's assessment of the game is that we tend to play an all-or-nothing
> style without looking to the future.  That may be true of some players, but
> my style of play has *always* been focused on the long-term.  (For instance,
> when I played France, I accepted a conditional surrender early in the game.
> At the time, Mike repeatedly told me privately that I was crazy for doing
> so, but to this day, I believe that that surrender was in the best long-term
> interests of France in that particular game.  And the fact that I was
> starting to see some successes just as that game ended proves it, in my
> opinion.)  That's part of what makes me so reluctant to keep starting new
> games, because it punishes a more patient style of play and rewards the
> all-or-nothing attitude that Mike is talking about.  After all, if the
> game's probably going to be over in 1807 anyway, then what's the point of
> surrendering to anybody?  Damn the torpedoes; full speed ahead!

You say this as though you think it's not rational. But if it appears that
the game will end naturally before a patient style of play can pay off,
doesn't that make a patient style of play a bad strategy in such a situation?
You're posing the question rhetorically, but what indeed is the point of
surrendering when you expect someone to win before you can recover from
surrendering?

I'm not trying to be inflamatory here; I'm having a hard time understanding
the position that you and Jim hold. We obviously disagree, but I haven't yet
been able to pinpoint what the root of our disagreement is.

>     So, if we start anew, I agree with Jim that we need to put some
> mechanism in place that will account for the loss of a future player.
> 
>     Having one player run 2 countries might not work.  Suppose a country
> gets its butt kicked and is in the crapper as far as victory points are
> concerned.  Then that country's player quits.  Which of the remaining
> countries is going to want to take on that victory point deficit?  After
> all, in order to win controlling 2 countries, both countries must win.  But
> if the country that needs a player is essentially a cripple with no chance
> of winning, no one is going to take control.  The same problem exists with
> regard to finding a new player for such a country.  Who wants to step in to
> a situation that is no-win?
>     The only possible solution I see to this problem is changing the victory
> conditions for countries whose players bail out on us.  Otherwise no one -
> either current player or new player - will have any incentive to take over
> the troubled country.

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.

>     Does anyone have any suggestions regarding how we could fairly alter the
> victory conditions for such a crippled country if it loses its player?
> 

I doubt that there is any fair way to do this without altering game balance.
Take Britain and France as an example. The British player will almost always
have as a long-term goal the defeat of France. If the British player also has
to worry that if he beats France too badly that the French player might quit
and be replaced by a French player with easier victory conditions, that will
seriously disfigure the calcualtions that the British player must make.

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