Re: Anyone else noticed that people are afraid to try to win?
- The focus of the game is Diplomacy, but it is a wargame. War is
diplomacy by other means.
Veteran Games are optional, invatation games games, where everyone
who has played at least 10 trns in a current game gets an invatation.
Cronyism? there is no way to guarente you will be in a game with a
friend, or close enough to help each other. But Vet games are brutal,
everyone steps it up afew notches. Anytime I start a new game on here
I look to see who I've played with before and then if I can trust
them. If there are people you like playing with and are considering a
new game, you ask them if they are going to put in for one as well.
If you get lucky your in the same one, if your really lucky your
close. Dosn't work as often as it does.
If these are things a player can't handle then they should consider
doing other things.
--- In email@example.com, "virgil huston"
> The short answer is just stay away from vets games. I have tried
> they were terrible games.enough to
> On 3/30/07, Jeff George <george666@...> wrote:
> > *That's repulsive. It reeks so much of cronyism that's almost
> > turn me off to these games completely. Why don't they just sitaround and
> > give hand jobs to each other if they're not going to play thegames
> > properly?*are afraid
> > *Regards,*
> > *Jeff George*
> > ------------------------------
> > *From:* firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:ageofconque
> > email@example.com] *On Behalf Of *Timo Sillgren
> > *Sent:* Friday, March 30, 2007 5:28 AM
> > *To:* firstname.lastname@example.org
> > *Subject:* [ageofconquest] Re: Anyone else noticed that people
> > to try to win?40yahoogroups.com>,
> > --- In email@example.com <ageofconquest%
> > Carthaginian <c-in-c@> wrote:Germany
> > >
> > > Diplomacy, and the game in itself, is much more professional in
> > the
> > > veteran games. Go to them and I guess you will be pleased again!
> > >
> > > --
> > > http://www.carthaginian.de
> > > AttritiCon now scheduled: June, 15th-17th, 2007, Ulm, South
> > >of
> > From experience I can only say that you should stay away
> > from "veteran" games. The professionalism means just exploitation
> > rules and lying to new players. The veterans will stick togethereven
> > when it is not in their interest in the current game, because theygood.
> > want to maintain their relationships and help each other in other
> > games. So any amount of diplomacy or reasoning won't do you any
> > If you would happen to make progress against a player belonging to
> > such a veteran coalition he will as a last resort sacrifice
> > by making suicidal attacks or by giving away territories to helphis
> > friends. A veteran player might thus behave quite erratically andthat
> > unprofessionally and ignore any chances for victory, if he sees
> > he has small chances for victory and it would be easier just tobe of
> > help to his veteran friend. He might after all help you in ananother
> > game, whereas a screwed-over new player is unlikely to continue
> > playing, so it doesn't really matter what you do to him.
- There is also the point that friends across the table with the Risk
board on it often have something else to base their friendship on
other than the game, such as eating pizza, taking that test together,
covering for him back in junior high, etc. not to mention things like
facial expressions and body language that help pass some threat off as
good fun, something that is hard to do via text only in emails.
On 9/20/07, corpstaffingsystems <corpstaffingsystems@...> wrote:
> the difference between these games and say Risk (where your best
> friend kills you off then you give your GF advice to beat him) is
> simple, diplomacy.
> Single player, total victory games are rare. Coalitions is how you
> win. Friends and Allies in one game may be counted on in another.
> People you step on on your way to victory may look for revenge in
> the next, or may be allies. Out and Out lies, betrayal, underhanded
> moves........get remembered.
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "redwigler" <rlwiggins@...>
> > I am curious, how many of you guys got your start playing war
> > with your friends or family around a table instead of playing
> > semi-strangers on the net? I ask because the idea of not attacking
> > somebody in order to preserve a friendship seems more than a
> > strange to me. I got my start in war gaming playing Risk with my
> > cousins and we loved each other dearly but that didn't stop us
> > playing for blood. If a friendship can't stand being on opposite
> > of a war game it doesn't seem like much of a friendship.
> > As for the differences between playing styles of various players
> > call them the Conqueror, the Diplomat, and the survivor) I think
> > enhances my immersion in the game because it is more true to life.
> > Nations will have different agendas and different goals, players
> > to.
> > Even the guys who unexpectedly drop out work for me. Nations go
> > internal upheavals all the time. Rulers die, civil wars, strikes,
> > plaques break out. When a player drops out of the game it seems
> > this is the perfect reflection of that type of real world event.