RE: [eia] losing players

["James Helle" <jhelle@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Here are my ideas off the cuff ( this is my disclaimer, I haven't thought
out every angle and so they may not be good ideas at all, but they are
ideas):

1)  We hold a player who controls two MPs responsible for winning with their
original MP (the one they started with) and accept the fact that they are
running the second MP as a service to the group.  Of course, this doesn't
leave much incentive to run a second MP very responsibly and this may be a
major fault.  OR

2)  If a MP that loses a player is in the political crapper, maybe whoever
inherits that MP can be given the _minimum_ VPs required to give them a
chance to win.  I'm not sure exactly how this would be calculated, but I'm
sure some of the math gurus in the group may have thoughts on this.
:)

Hopefully this will be a springboard for a solution.

-----Original Message-----
From: eia-bounces@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:eia-bounces@xxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of
Kyle H
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 2:52 PM
To: public list for an Empires in Arms game
Subject: [eia] losing players


    I am willing to start over.  I see that Sterling can't be having a whole
lot of fun playing Spain.  And he's been sticking with it anyway for quite a
while.  Plus, it's not fair to foist the current game situation for Austria
on whoever our new player is.
    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).
    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!
    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.
    Does anyone have any suggestions regarding how we could fairly alter the
victory conditions for such a crippled country if it loses its player?

kdh

----- Original Message -----
From: "James Helle" <jhelle@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "public list for an Empires in Arms game" <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 4:48 PM
Subject: RE: [eia] no word regarding seventh player


> I agree with Kyle 100% that we need to stop starting over.  I will cast my
> vote now for continuing our current game.  I won't say that I'll not play
> another EiA game because I enjoy it too much, but _if_ we start over (by
> majority vote?) I would demand that an agreed upon method for continuing
> through this type of situation in the future be put in place.  I agree
with
> JJ that one player running two MPs is preferable to using the UMP rules.
So
> I say let's continue on.
>

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

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