at 5:57 AM, Tuesday December 12, 2006 EST
Post-mortem went something like the following.
Me blue, Dawngreeter green, Badluck purple, 1 or 2 territories. Green is winning/level with me. Orange is her ally with 4 territories, but I purusade him to switch sides with an offer of 2nd place.
I have removed Orange's name to protect the turncoat.
[...mention that Dawngreeter had trusted an alliance with orange...]
Dawngreeter: Not gonan happen again, that much I can say
Dawngreeter: IT really made no difference where I got my territories
Dawngreeter: Could of fought you instead of red and teal
bad luck: again?
Orange: you had bad luck against blue otherwise I wouldve supported u ofcourse
Pegasus: yeah it was the dice that did it
Dawngreeter: I'm out, gotta study
Dawngreeter: good game, and so forth
Pegasus: 2028 I will stop for a bit
Albert Hendriks: sorry :/
bad luck: gg
Pegasus: last time I got over 2000, I can 7th the next 4 in a row
Pegasus: Dawn's strategy was good, she deserved 2nd if not to win
Pegasus: she? dunno, but sounds right with dawn
geocon is here
Dawngreeter has left
bad luck: yes i wouldve taken out albert first
Pegasus: dangerous having albert able to cut her in half in one move
Orange: no, i had big piles and if he beat blue then he would win, really
Pegasus: but if she had spent the time doing that I may have been bigger anyway
bad luck: yes but waiting to the end to pile on was weak
Orange: if he'd attack me I'd cut him in half immediately
MikeHunt: me too
MikeHunt: even if I lose, turncoats should be punished
Orange: c'mon, it's part of the strategy
bad luck: and vultures
Pegasus: sure, but punish enemies first, turncoats second
geocon is here
bad luck: yes, but some play deserves more respect than others
Pegasus: and turncoats not at all if they are turning to you
Abby is here
Pegasus: I offered albert 2nd, so I stuck to it
bad luck: not me, i'd rather give 2nd to someone who put up a good fight than someone who pussied around all game
MikeHunt: i would have killed the turncoat and let bad luck go second
bad luck: or dawn
Pegasus: Thing is Orange was 3rd at worst already, so I had to offer 2nd
Orange: I was surrendered by green and I put myself in a tactical position to make the best out of it
bad luck: but whatever, you win, you do it your way
Orange: I mean surrounded
MikeHunt: good game anyway
Pegasus: somebody should start another etiguette thread about this
So anyway, etiquette questions...
Was it wrong of orange to accept my offer of 2nd place? (I don't think so) Was it wrong of me to offer it? - of course not, I might have lost without it.
Should I have given green 3rd ahead of purple? - for a much better game? But I relied on purple to stay on my side. Green kept attacking purple. Surely loyalty comes before crediting worthy opponents?
Albert Hendriks wrote
at 6:38 AM, Tuesday December 12, 2006 EST
Here's the story from my side.
The bottomline is that I think I didn't really have an option. Also, there was no explicit pact between me and Green except that at some point I said "No" when asked to cut Green in half at that moment.
Blue has one half of the board, Green the other half. Purple has a small part touching both Blue and Green. I (Orange, small) am completely surrounded by Green. I have the possibility to cut Green in half. In the beginning, to my best judgement (which later appeared to be wrong), if I'd do nothing, Green would wipe out the board. On top of that, Green would probably crush me if I cut him in half. It seemed a sensible idea to do nothing.
However, Blue won territory and we got at the point where Blue cut Green in half (though Green got the land back immediately). At this point, Blue had the best chances. If I now cut Green in half he wouldn't be able to crush me. In fact, he would be dead. So that's what I did and I got second. If I hadn't done that, blue would probably wipe me out on the long run and I'd be 3rd or 4th.
at 7:56 AM, Tuesday December 12, 2006 EST
wanna hear my opinion?
I`m only bound to my word given in chat.
I may still hold peace with other players for strategic reasons but i dont spare players who are holding off to ally just to get a better position.
If any of the sides messed up the diplomacy part of the game they simply not deserve to win.
cause you wont ally twice with someone who broke a declared truce.
just my 2 cents.
Albert Hendriks wrote
at 8:21 AM, Tuesday December 12, 2006 EST
In this case there was no explicit truce.
at 11:49 AM, Tuesday December 12, 2006 EST
Willy, what a cheapskate. Only two cents?
If allaances meant something serioous, all your territories would turn the same color. You are at war, you are enemies. You can ask what you want, they can respond how they want, and they can hold to what they say for as long as they feel like doing it. And if you have the choice, you can give them whatever place you feel like giving them, even if that's decided by "eenie meenie minee moe". Loyalty, 'fight', skill; pff, screw that. You earn a good place by dying later, that's how their places shall be decided, when someone decides to kill them, for whatever reason.
at 12:11 PM, Tuesday December 12, 2006 EST
That seemed longer when I was typing it....
at 1:23 PM, Tuesday December 12, 2006 EST
.....lest we forget that kdice is developing into a community, and your reputation follows you around.
I for one have changed my name, style, language etc, but people still associate me with my former self. Now how can I let them down?
at 2:14 PM, Tuesday December 12, 2006 EST
Sure, you get a rep. I assumed that went without saying. You can do whatever you want, and people will react accordingly.
at 9:23 PM, Thursday December 14, 2006 EST
I always make truce until one of us attacks the other, that's the term of the truce. It's a strategy game. I "turncoat" if I think it will help me win the game, and it has. It's also lost me games. ;)
at 9:39 PM, Thursday December 14, 2006 EST
In a game as simple as Kdice, I think Lindsay has the right of it.
Generally I will always let my ally get second if they stay loyal. It's standard policy. I also almost never break truces--unless by doing so I can achieve a substantial shot at ultimate victory the "too strong to stop" test. But even then, I'll usually leave an ally 1 territory and go after the main threat.
If someone turn coats me I'll take their territory as long as it doesn't hurt my position against whoever the main enemy is, just like in actual war you need to go after the main threat first most of the time.
at 9:53 PM, Thursday December 14, 2006 EST
"If any of the sides messed up the diplomacy part of the game they simply not deserve to win. cause you wont ally twice with someone who broke a declared truce"
Strategy wins, not emotion.. which is another strategy. ;) So we're all guilty.