SpielByWeb

[Beirdo]

The "obvious choice", eh? Heh. Strategy games are about strategy, and there is almost always more than one winning strategy. Granted, there were a few times I *could* have attacked Thyrza instead, but I didn't want to. That is my choice, and I stand by it. There were also many times that demarryl could have attacked either of us, but chose rather to build buildings in provinces he must have known were going to be captured because they only had one army in them. Does that make any strategic sense? No.

The purpose of the game is to win in any way possible, is it not? And also to have fun. Well, I know *I* was having fun. I'm sorry if demarryl wasn't having fun, but such is life. I wish him better luck in future games. And don't start a 3 player game if you are worried about winning They are far too volatile at the best of times.

Whether you like a particular strategy or not, it was more effective than I had expected in a 3-player game. Such devastation. I think we should likely keep that strategy to games with more players, to give the others at least a fighting chance. However.... don't overlook the function of chance and of the strategy of the player being "victimized". I'm afraid chance was mostly on our side, and demarryl's strategy confused me, I'm not sure how it could possibly turn into a win for him.

demarryl: would you like a rematch without us teaming up at all?

[thyrza]

well it is love, we are honeymooners
and hmmm I've attacked my husband in games and he has attacked me... I've royally lost plenty of games and won a few, I've felt ganged up on and still I enjoy my time.
hey I also have fun kicking my husband's rear in games too... you should see the beating I gave him in tikal in our first game and then he kicked mine in wallenstein.

I don't think I have to stop playing games together with my husband.

this is not likely the last time you'll be ganged up on.
_________________
Thyrza

[thyrza]

rematch yeah I like rematches... though I usually lose them anyway... heh

then again, I didn't win the first game either
_________________
Thyrza

[craw-daddy]

[mrbass]

That's expressly prohibited in the site rules and you'll be banned. I know your making a point but husband/wife or playing with friends isn't a site rule and completely different thing.

[Beirdo]

[gische]

[Beirdo]

Whether you play or not is, of course, your choice

Calling something cheating when it is not against the rules of the game is going a bit too far in my mind. Granted, it's not the original intent of the game, but if the rules don't preclude it... YMMV.

[gische]

So in your mind any concept not expressly excluded is legal in a game?

That would make for extremely long rulebooks.

I prefer to believe that rulebooks are inclusionary, not exclusionary.

And yes, I think you are cheating.

[Beirdo]

Those are pretty strong words, gische. Accusing someone of cheating just because they choose NOT to attack someone... Jeez.

I maintain that choosing to concentrate on eliminating another player by not attacking a particular player while hoping that they will keep to their word and reciprocate... That's not cheating, that's a valid strategy. Granted, it's not terribly nice to the victim.

Anyways, if demarryl is interested in playing again with the assurance that it's completely individual, the game has been created.

[Kanga]

I have never played Wallenstein, so am not commenting on that game in particular. Nor am I commenting on the specific players that this post has been referring to; however...

Personally speaking, I expect all players will take actions that best benefit their chances of winning. Online, I would also expect their to be no collusion or agreements between players. A simple example in Amun Re (a game I play) would be:

At the end of round 3 , two players have the equal most on one side, prior to taking sacrifice rewards. Player 1 has the biggest sacrifice, and player 2 has the second biggest. If the two players agreed to spend their rewards on powercards (for example) instead of out building eachother, I would view this as tantamount to cheating. Even player 1 choosing rewards such that player 2 would be able to share the most on one side bonus would be extremely poor play; unless that move did not harm player 1's chances of winning - extremely unlikely in the mid game.

I think the majority of players must agree with this, as in over 100 Amun Re games I've only once seen anything like the above example happen; and it was between a husband and wife!

So I think I agree (quite strongly) with the original poster, assuming his allegations are indeed accurate.



Collusion in online games

[freduk]

No-one is saying (i think) that husband & wife or personal friends should not play in a game together. What people are objecting to is two people joining a game with the pre-agreed intent that they will gang up on the third player. That's not fair on the victim, especially if they have no way of knowing it's going to happen. It's the online equivalent of being mugged.
By all means play together, but please play as individuals.

[fr33py]

I am in the Gische/Kanga camp on this one. While I know nothing of the individuals involved, I do agree that coming into a game with a friend/spouse/random person with an implied agreement to "not" play against each other but rather take out the other person first mentality is most definitely collusion.


Collusion:

# When two are more players conspire to cheat in a poker game.
www.pokercommunity.net/dictionary.htm

# is two or more parties acting together to defraud a person or an organisation.
https://secure.wsa.u-net.com/www.fraudhotline.net/www/HowItWorks/Definitions/Definitions.html

# A secret agreement between two or more parties for fraud or deceit.
www.austin.cc.tx.us/audit/Glossary/LetterC.htm

# This is when Players form partnerships with the intent of defrauding other Players. For example, Players may signal their hand to their partner Players, so that the best hand is played.
www.gamble365.co.uk/poker_glossary.html

# That process whereby more than one person agrees to act together.
www.indiainfoline.com/bisc/jama/jmmc.html


Collusion is considered cheating. Therefor the two in question coming into a game with the intention of working together as to elminate the other player would be considered collusion and or cheating.

[Big Bad Lex]

The technical term for what is being described here is 'diplomacy'. It is not cheating. There have been several threads on this forum about the legitimacy of diplomacy and there are two camps; those who consider it a strict no no and those who accept in varying degrees.

Those who use diplomacy should win. However no one should feel like they have broken an unwritten rule just because they broker a deal.

The best way to mess with an alliance is to mix it up with counter deals to either side. This opens up a whole new vista to the game.
_________________
It's not the winning, it's utter annihilation of your opponant that matters.

[gische]