Recruiting a player to prevent a loss

Rules for playing on and using the site.
Forum rules
This section of the Forum is for the Site's rules.
If you have a question about how to play the game, please post in the RULES section of the Forum, not here. The site's rules for standard Dip do not substantially differ from published rules.

Re: Recruiting a player to prevent a loss

Postby Piquinya » 18 Aug 2013, 05:30

Long time no see, Jaelis :)
Former Moderator of the Oldies Group.
Member of the Classicists, Platinum tier.

Quo usque tandem abutere, Catilina, patientia nostra?
User avatar
Piquinya
 
Posts: 471
Joined: 23 Jul 2010, 16:51
Location: Venezuela
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1429)
All-game rating: (1569)
Timezone: GMT-4

Re: Recruiting a player to prevent a loss

Postby Jegpeg » 18 Aug 2013, 11:08

Petunia wrote:
VegaMan wrote:But joining any period of time afterwards just throws off everyone from the game. Losing to someone because I got outplayed is one thing. Losing because someone joined the game is just irritating.

... I don't get it. Why do you deserve to have a neighboring Power in permanent CD? How can you LOSE because all seven Powers are being controlled by a player? How can someone taking up a Power and playing it possibly be more of a disruption than someone quitting in the first place?


I do get it. You can lose because you have made moves in the expectation that a country in in CD when it is not. It is like I give you the option of a bet on a coin toss if it is heads I give you £100 if it is tails you give me £50. You don't lose anything by the option being available but if you take the gamble you can lose.

Say you have an NAP with the county that surrendered. You had a couple of units that were defending against a stab from that country. If you KNOW the surrendered country wont get taken over you can use those home guard units to take over the country in CD, this is what Vegaman wants. If you THINK the surrendered country will remain in CD (as per current rules) then you can either keep your units in defensive positions and not gain as much from the surrender
(guard units are usually only enough to limit the damage while the country remains in CD you will not be stabbed) but not lose anything or push your units into surrendered country taking the risk that if it is taken over you could lose the territories they were guarding.

Vegaman: As the above implies. It doesn't take much to take over a country and often guard units can be used as they no longer need to guard. Any SC gains can be sent to the fight against your enemies. So going back the the situation where England surrenders and you are France. Your guard units in France it self were to prevent against stabs from English units in places like Bur, Bel, Hol. Your guard units arn't required until russia's advances through the "buffer zzone" of English units so you can use those uunits to take half of England while Russia takes the other half. All of those builds can be sent to Italy. So Italy does not gain form the surrender it loses a lot.
Jegpeg
 
Posts: 1271
Joined: 08 Dec 2009, 20:56
Location: Scotland
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1125)
All-game rating: (1401)
Timezone: GMT

Re: Recruiting a player to prevent a loss

Postby VegaMan » 18 Aug 2013, 18:20

Janepeg wrote:
Petunia wrote:
VegaMan wrote:But joining any period of time afterwards just throws off everyone from the game. Losing to someone because I got outplayed is one thing. Losing because someone joined the game is just irritating.

... I don't get it. Why do you deserve to have a neighboring Power in permanent CD? How can you LOSE because all seven Powers are being controlled by a player? How can someone taking up a Power and playing it possibly be more of a disruption than someone quitting in the first place?


I do get it. You can lose because you have made moves in the expectation that a country in in CD when it is not. It is like I give you the option of a bet on a coin toss if it is heads I give you £100 if it is tails you give me £50. You don't lose anything by the option being available but if you take the gamble you can lose.

Say you have an NAP with the county that surrendered. You had a couple of units that were defending against a stab from that country. If you KNOW the surrendered country wont get taken over you can use those home guard units to take over the country in CD, this is what Vegaman wants. If you THINK the surrendered country will remain in CD (as per current rules) then you can either keep your units in defensive positions and not gain as much from the surrender
(guard units are usually only enough to limit the damage while the country remains in CD you will not be stabbed) but not lose anything or push your units into surrendered country taking the risk that if it is taken over you could lose the territories they were guarding.

Vegaman: As the above implies. It doesn't take much to take over a country and often guard units can be used as they no longer need to guard. Any SC gains can be sent to the fight against your enemies. So going back the the situation where England surrenders and you are France. Your guard units in France it self were to prevent against stabs from English units in places like Bur, Bel, Hol. Your guard units arn't required until russia's advances through the "buffer zzone" of English units so you can use those uunits to take half of England while Russia takes the other half. All of those builds can be sent to Italy. So Italy does not gain form the surrender it loses a lot.


This is assuming that everyone has the ability to have guard units. This is not always the case.... as mine tend to turn out. Like I said.... I got screwed out of a win, when someone else replaced the surrendered player and then allied against me. Not because my ally surrendered. But because he was replaced in a different phase of the game than when the other person had surrendered. Had I known that my ally was going to be replaced I would have built differently which at least would have delayed the loss I am facing now.

Why is it bad for me as England that Turkey surrenders? SOMEONE on the board does not have enough units to both defend/advance in one front yet defend in another. But it doesn't even have to be about guard units. Russia could build an army south to try to grab up the SCs. That's 1 less build up north I have to deal with. Or I can lessen my attacks on/ally with Russia giving one of my opponents more of a fight for the SC's, giving me more units to deal with threats elsewhere. The point is that people surrendering is fine because any threats it poses and the luck aspect it involves to other players via losing an ally, being surrounded, losing support, etc is purely reactionary. When another player joins that threat and luck aspect of it is purely anticipatory.


I dunno how you guys run tournaments, but I would be pretty unhappy if I made it to the Championship game, someone quits, and a random Joe Snuffy that didn't earn his or her way there took over mid game.... Let alone actually win it.

I'm not saying that people joining a game is bad. But one of the main reasons I've always liked this game is because of the lack of luck involved. It's bad enough we have to deal with the luck aspect of people quitting, but to deal with another one with people joining in a different phase? Why not play Risk? All I'm saying is that it should be an option.
"Nothing cheaper than something free"
VegaMan
 
Posts: 465
Joined: 17 Mar 2013, 00:41
Location: Atlanta..... Finally escaped Cali.
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: (1212)
All-game rating: (1148)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Recruiting a player to prevent a loss

Postby Jegpeg » 18 Aug 2013, 20:54

Turkey surrendering can be bad for England because Russia can immediately take (say) Ankara and Serbia, the forces he has in the South are sufficient to take Turkey quickly (he need one unit to take an unoccupied territory and 2 to take an occupied one) so he builds F StP (nc), and A Mos moves them against you in the spring.

I agree it is bad enough having to deal with the luck aspect of people quitting but I believe the the possibility of people taking over those surrendered positions reduces the luck factor as the countries in a position most to gain from the surrender don't know what the surrendered country will do. (remain in CD or move). Knowing what you neighbour is going to do puts you at a huge advantage.
Jegpeg
 
Posts: 1271
Joined: 08 Dec 2009, 20:56
Location: Scotland
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1125)
All-game rating: (1401)
Timezone: GMT

Re: Recruiting a player to prevent a loss

Postby Petunia » 18 Aug 2013, 22:53

Janepeg (emphasis by Petunia) wrote:I do get it. You can lose because you have made moves in the expectation that a country in in CD when it is not. It is like I give you the option of a bet on a coin toss if it is heads I give you £100 if it is tails you give me £50. You don't lose anything by the option being available but if you take the gamble you can lose.

So you didn't lose because a surrendered position was taken up, then? You lost because of the orders you gave were based on a faulty assumption? I see.
Any views expressed prior to Dec 2013 are solely my own and do not represent the site or its administration in any way.
I took a break from the site for a while. I'm back now. Hi.
Platinum Classicist
User avatar
Petunia
 
Posts: 3190
Joined: 29 Aug 2012, 21:57
Location: I'm a dude.
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1583)
All-game rating: (1571)
Timezone: GMT-8

Re: Recruiting a player to prevent a loss

Postby VegaMan » 19 Aug 2013, 01:22

Janepeg wrote:Turkey surrendering can be bad for England because Russia can immediately take (say) Ankara and Serbia, the forces he has in the South are sufficient to take Turkey quickly (he need one unit to take an unoccupied territory and 2 to take an occupied one) so he builds F StP (nc), and A Mos moves them against you in the spring.

I agree it is bad enough having to deal with the luck aspect of people quitting but I believe the the possibility of people taking over those surrendered positions reduces the luck factor as the countries in a position most to gain from the surrender don't know what the surrendered country will do. (remain in CD or move). Knowing what you neighbour is going to do puts you at a huge advantage.


Again you are assuming that Russia has a strong presence in the south. There are many situations where this isnt the case. And if Russia is strong in the south there's a strong chance that Austria and Italy are not as strong meaning they would reposition accordingly or risk losing SC's to the juggernaut Russia.

Petunia wrote:
Janepeg (emphasis by Petunia) wrote:I do get it. You can lose because you have made moves in the expectation that a country in in CD when it is not. It is like I give you the option of a bet on a coin toss if it is heads I give you £100 if it is tails you give me £50. You don't lose anything by the option being available but if you take the gamble you can lose.

So you didn't lose because a surrendered position was taken up, then? You lost because of the orders you gave were based on a faulty assumption? I see.


And that assumption aspect is the part I don't like. It doesn't make sense that I should expect someone to randomly join a game. It's not the same person. It's not the same mindset.

Screw this.... I'm not playing with anyone but Classicists from this point forward. I really hate this aspect of the game. I can't support this join mid game crap.
"Nothing cheaper than something free"
VegaMan
 
Posts: 465
Joined: 17 Mar 2013, 00:41
Location: Atlanta..... Finally escaped Cali.
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: (1212)
All-game rating: (1148)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Recruiting a player to prevent a loss

Postby Petunia » 19 Aug 2013, 01:38

VegaMan wrote:It doesn't make sense that I should expect someone to randomly join a game. It's not the same person. It's not the same mindset.

Mindset is a different argument than the one I understand you to have been making. And to that I'd repeat that yes, a new mindset/relationship is a disruption, but a lesser one than missing a player.

And to the original point, of course it does make sense that you should expect units to be given orders. Expecting anything else is just greedy.
Any views expressed prior to Dec 2013 are solely my own and do not represent the site or its administration in any way.
I took a break from the site for a while. I'm back now. Hi.
Platinum Classicist
User avatar
Petunia
 
Posts: 3190
Joined: 29 Aug 2012, 21:57
Location: I'm a dude.
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1583)
All-game rating: (1571)
Timezone: GMT-8

Re: Recruiting a player to prevent a loss

Postby VegaMan » 19 Aug 2013, 02:06

Petunia wrote:
VegaMan wrote:It doesn't make sense that I should expect someone to randomly join a game. It's not the same person. It's not the same mindset.

Mindset is a different argument than the one I understand you to have been making. And to that I'd repeat that yes, a new mindset/relationship is a disruption, but a lesser one than missing a player.

And to the original point, of course it does make sense that you should expect units to be given orders. Expecting anything else is just greedy.



Since I cannot find anything regarding this...

Are tournaments played this way here?
"Nothing cheaper than something free"
VegaMan
 
Posts: 465
Joined: 17 Mar 2013, 00:41
Location: Atlanta..... Finally escaped Cali.
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: (1212)
All-game rating: (1148)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Recruiting a player to prevent a loss

Postby Petunia » 19 Aug 2013, 03:07

I think it's typical for the TD to assemble a list of tournament reserves. Tournament games (again, typically) are not played with Powers in permanent CD but neither, in my experience, do replacement players usually come in unexpectedly. I'd suggest that you check out the tournament rules for any tournament you're interested in entering.
Any views expressed prior to Dec 2013 are solely my own and do not represent the site or its administration in any way.
I took a break from the site for a while. I'm back now. Hi.
Platinum Classicist
User avatar
Petunia
 
Posts: 3190
Joined: 29 Aug 2012, 21:57
Location: I'm a dude.
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1583)
All-game rating: (1571)
Timezone: GMT-8

Previous

Return to Rules for Fair Play and Fair Use

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests