When to quit?

[ggiacoppe@...]

the DGI boards (www.deftgaming.com) have a discussion going out of
their game 310.

It appears all of the freeps dropped, except one, who insists on
continuing to play the bug hunt and creating new capitals to hide out
in, off the maps. I've been somewhat vocal, on the concept that it's
poor etiquite to not go along with a mass drop of your team.

In any event, it started a lively discussion, which in part exposed
the lack of historical knowledge of many of the US players, who
insisted on arguing incorrect real world history to support their
position in how to play a game.

Gian

[Richard John Devereux]

----- Original Message -----
From: <ggiacoppe@...>
To: <mepbmlist (AT) egroups (DOT) com>
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2000 5:03 PM
Subject: [mepbmlist] When to quit?


> the DGI boards (www.deftgaming.com) have a discussion going out of
> their game 310.
>
> It appears all of the freeps dropped, except one, who insists on
> continuing to play the bug hunt and creating new capitals to hide out
> in, off the maps. I've been somewhat vocal, on the concept that it's
> poor etiquite to not go along with a mass drop of your team.
>
> In any event, it started a lively discussion, which in part exposed
> the lack of historical knowledge of many of the US players, who
> insisted on arguing incorrect real world history to support their
> position in how to play a game.
>
> Gian
>
>
RD: It's really very, very simple. The game ain't over until either you've
eliminated your last opponent, or you've dropped the One Ring into Orodruin.
If one bloke can run rings (no pun intended ) round the opposing team then
all credit to him!

I have 3 criteria for dropping a game:
1) I can't afford it
2) it's not fun any more
3) I don't have enough time

Regards,

Richard.

[Laurence G. Tilley]

ggiacoppe@... wrote
>It appears all of the freeps dropped, except one, who insists on
>continuing to play the bug hunt and creating new capitals to hide out
>in, off the maps. I've been somewhat vocal, on the concept that it's
>poor etiquite to not go along with a mass drop of your team.
Happened here in game 74. It's one reason why I at one stage suggested
pre-game agreements (usual polite comments, but no real interest). I
support the right of any player who's daft enough to carry on playing as
long as he has the money BUT it would be nice if grown up players would
wave that right in a pre-game agreement, where they committed to a team
majority concession. That would avoid people having to pay a fortune
when the real war is over. This is actually a far better solution to
the long and boring game problem, than the artificial shut-off based on
turn number which 4th age has. Just one of many reasons IMHO why 4th
age is an embarrassing travesty of MEPBM.
>
>In any event, it started a lively discussion, which in part exposed
>the lack of historical knowledge of many of the US players, who
>insisted on arguing incorrect real world history to support their
>position in how to play a game.
Ha! I bet that was jolly. Wish I'd been there.

Regards,

Laurence G. Tilley http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk/

[Laurence G. Tilley]

Gavinwj <gavinwj@...> wrote
>> In any event, it started a lively discussion, which in part exposed
>> the lack of historical knowledge of many of the US players, who
>> insisted on arguing incorrect real world history to support their
>> position in how to play a game.
>
>And remember, folks, in a few days these people get to vote for the leader
>of the free world...
But only a very small percentage of them will actually bother.

Regards,

Laurence G. Tilley http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk/

[Harlequin Games]

> Happened here in game 74. It's one reason why I at one stage suggested
> pre-game agreements (usual polite comments, but no real interest).

*** World Champ games have the >2-1 which is fine and ends games. Sam has
been pushing me to implement it in normal games but as you say Laurence,
there is not enough support. I could try sending out a YOU must vote type
thingy with the start of a game - abstentations mean that I get to do their
vote on their behalf. (Only way to get enough as most players won't even
read it).

> support the right of any player who's daft enough to carry on playing as
> long as he has the money BUT it would be nice if grown up players would
> wave that right in a pre-game agreement, where they committed to a team
> majority concession. That would avoid people having to pay a fortune
> when the real war is over. This is actually a far better solution to
> the long and boring game problem, than the artificial shut-off based on
> turn number which 4th age has. Just one of many reasons IMHO why 4th
> age is an embarrassing travesty of MEPBM.

*** I haven't seen a FA game reach turn 52 yet - over very quickly for some
and the game has other inbuilt features to bring the game to a swift
conclusion (strategic victory for example). Just started my second game of
FA and the diplomcay is flying thick and fast, the nations set-ups have gone
for many different types on our team (some specialsed and some not) so we
shall see what happens.

Clint

[Johan Nilson]

--- In mepbmlist (AT) egroups (DOT) com, "Harlequin Games" <pbm@h...> wrote:
> *** I haven't seen a FA game reach turn 52 yet - over very quickly
for some
> and the game has other inbuilt features to bring the game to a swift
> conclusion (strategic victory for example). Just started my second

How about implementing a strategic victory option for the other
scenarios too then? ie win at holding all enemy capitals.
That way the overall strategy wouldn't change much, but games where
one side in reality has won could be brought to an end.

Johan

[Harlequin Games]

Depends if players wanted a game with that and there was a player base we
could do it. It would have to be hand-moderated though.

Clint> > *** I haven't seen a FA game reach turn 52 yet - over very quickly
> for some
> > and the game has other inbuilt features to bring the game to a swift
> > conclusion (strategic victory for example). Just started my second
>
> How about implementing a strategic victory option for the other
> scenarios too then? ie win at holding all enemy capitals.
> That way the overall strategy wouldn't change much, but games where
> one side in reality has won could be brought to an end.
>
> Johan
>
>

[ggiacoppe@...]

> >And remember, folks, in a few days these people get to vote for
the leader
> >of the free world...
> But only a very small percentage of them will actually bother.
>
> Regards,
>
> Laurence G. Tilley http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk/

This from a national where soccer (yeah, written that way just to
cheese you off) hooligans manage to make world headlines. I'll take
rude board postings over that kind of stuff any day thank you.
<gasp> but those people get to vote in elections for a PM with a
finger on the nucler trigger.

Not our problem that you guys lost in 1783, and then again in 1814.

[ggiacoppe@...]

.. It can't be the Brits 'cos they've won everything
> since 1066. Ah, must be the French... :-)
>
> Gavin

1783, treaty of paris, ends the war of the american revolution
1814, andrew jackson defeats the british at the battle of new orleans