I have something that really troubles me...

In my experience from about 6-7 games now (excluding duels),
there have been 2 possible endings:

1.) One players is running away, and the rest of the universe
could stop him, or at least should try to, but doesnt.
Partly because of "its too late anyway", or because they
have "kill you last" or similar pacts with the leading race.

2.) An Alliance of players is bashing the rest of the universe,
and is definetly unstopable. But after the other races are
defeated or gave up, they dont start fighing each other and
claim the victory for the alliance, even if the game settings
state that there can be only one winner.

What I would like to know is, if my impression is correct, or
what can be done about it?

Stating in the game settings, that there can be only one winner
does not help at all IMHO.

When i am rank 2 player and allied with rank 1 player, who runs
away and the rest of the universe is unable to stop "us". And
the only way to make the game exciting would be to "backstab",
despite the "kill you last" agreement...
I would have a really bad feeling about that, so should i keep
my promise, let him win, and the game would have a boring end,
or shall I backstab, being the big a****, but making the game
interesting?

How are backstabbers treated in future games? I never met one,
but had several boring ending games...

There is currently one where i am rank 2 PP, intersetteled with
a rank 1 IS (he has 10% more resources than i have), and all
other races are either far behind in econ or tech. I will soon
be the first one with nubians, and i could kill the rank 1
player easily in a turn or 2...
but we agreed on ally end a LONG time ago, before we know we
would be the 2 powerful races in the game...
if i just play on and kill the 3 other reamining races, i will
be second place... for me thats ok, but for the 3 others the
game might be more interesting if i backstab...
and if my assumptions are correct, i will be the only one with
nubians and other superior tech in the game for a while, no real
challange for me also...

For what I learned so far is to NOT agree on any "kill you last"
agreements any more... that means it will be more difficult to
find someone to intersettle very much, and that means shifted
habs in race design make no more much sense, and that means...
ah - thats not a solution...

So how do you handle this?
Do you agree on temporary alliances only?
Do you just not intersettle?
Do you just have fixed borders?
Do you backstab for the sake of an interesting game?
How do you treat backstabbers in later games?

Hope I could make my problem clear... and would love to
hear some comments, and leave this discussion open to the
topic of "end game diplomacy and backstabbing"



Robert

Report message to a moderator

My feeling at this point is that negotiating any treaty without an escape clause is a bad idea.

A 5 year disengagement clause is a good thing to have. It has many benefits as sometimes you can find yourself allied to someone that makes you want to thump him I know this because in at least one case I was the one who deserved thumping (was new and tried my allies patience severely)

So if the game gets to the point where, if nothing changes, the outcome is foreordained you can then execute the disengagement. This has the advantage of cutting way down on the yelling, screaming and finger pointing while keeping the game interesting for a while longer.

David Moen has excellent articles on diplomacy and should be required reading for everyone before they enter their 1st PBEM.
I believe that I've also seen posted somewhere an argument that there should be negotiated, before the start of a game, if the game is going to be "civilized" (breaking treaties is a crime punishable by having to listen to people moan, bitch and whine) or "realpolitik" IE "we're all veteran gamers here and this game is gonna be for blood" ...................(long thoughtful pause)..............hmm........tell you what, I'll be right back. I'm gonna have to take my own advice (I hate that).

Hope this helps

Report message to a moderator

Robert wrote on Sat, 29 March 2003 13:15

I have something that really troubles me... In my experience from about 6-7 games now (excluding duels), there have been 2 possible endings: 1.) One players is running away, and the rest of the universe could stop him, or at least should try to, but doesnt. Partly because of "its too late anyway", or because they have "kill you last" or similar pacts with the leading race. 2.) An Alliance of players is bashing the rest of the universe, and is definetly unstopable. But after the other races are defeated or gave up, they dont start fighing each other and claim the victory for the alliance, even if the game settings state that there can be only one winner. What I would like to know is, if my impression is correct, or what can be done about it?

Unfortunately you are oh so right

Quote:

Stating in the game settings, that there can be only one winner does not help at all IMHO.

Again you're right, it doesn't help a single bit! Once people start to like their friends they will NEVER turn against them, usually it starts by ganging up against the player who is doing his very well, who is staying on his own and is good at it, after they have killed him they stick together and lose all interest in fighting eachother game over, this leaves you with a very empty feeling

I utterly disgusted by such big alliances and do my best to keep only one ally and as less NAPs as possible.
Yet I must admit that when it comes down to the end and only one player can win it is indeed very hard turning against that one ally. Afterall you have been friends for 50-100 years and know eachother in and out, intersettling etc. The reason you two got this far is because of the wonderfull cooperation. Usually when I get that far the number 2 in the alliance gracefully steps down and let the number 1 take the credit, although without eachoter we would not have come that far.
Still it's not a true "only one can win" but if you don't want this than you shouldn't chose an ally at all ...

Solutions:
-playing an "all enemy" game

-or allow an alliance victory but at the same time only one player can be set to friend and all others neutral (much harder because less black/white)

-give the players a goal so they can't let the game go on forever and make sure that the goal comes down to that in fact only one player can achieve it.

1 and 3 are in my new Penta team game BTW Look it up in the New Games section! Still room!

Quote:

When i am rank 2 player and allied with rank 1 player, who runs away and the rest of the universe is unable to stop "us". And the only way to make the game exciting would be to "backstab", despite the "kill you last" agreement... I would have a really bad feeling about that, so should i keep my promise, let him win, and the game would have a boring end, or shall I backstab, being the big a****, but making the game interesting?

What I would consider a "backstab" is when my ally would come through my gates with blazing guns, IOW without warning and I have him still set to friend.
If you agree on the fact that things are getting boring because of the alliance and decide to end it after x years than it's not a backstab.

Quote:

How are backstabbers treated in future games? I never met one, but had several boring ending games...

Never met one either, also had several boring ending games ...
Hm, not completely true, in one occasion I was the "victim" of a backstab, I was a WM allied to a HE (Zoid, pay attention! ) and we were winning. We also had an SS ally but he was very small, I think about 5-10 planets while we had, each more than 70.
We left him allive because it was no use/fun picking on the little guy and he was still having fun helping us. Then all of a sudden he steals minerals from one of my planets and turns evil, he decided to play the rogue leader, he did it role playing and it was indeed interesting and fun as long as it lasted, ... we killed

Report message to a moderator

My last post on backstabbing got me some serious abuse

But here goes again. Backstabbing to win is fine and dandy by me, but not by most. So i avoid it, at least I do now, I didn't a few years ago.

Backstabbing for role play I am all for. Backstabbing to disrupt a predictable situation I am all for. I've played games where its reached a situation where the winner is already defined due to great start / solid alliance, only on two occasions has the ending not been so predictable....

Once where rank 3 backstabbed rank 1, they fought a war and both lost when rank 4 started to stomp the undefended rear of 1. Rank 4 came through and won. I was ranked 2 and I failed to take advantage... so I lost

The other time is in MDI - for some odd reason rank 1 + 2 who COULD have easily wiped everyone out stopped attacking... they just slowed down and let me n Zoid (rank 4 and 3 respectively) catch up and it's reached a point where they're on the run from our bigger and better fleets.

Backstabs and lack of killer instinct are the only real things that can alter those end game situations.

Back to what Micha said.....


1. All enemy games are good... but the lack of diplomacy kinda ruins it somewhat.

2. Restricted games are great the quest to find the best ally you can is always fun.

3. Specific goals are the way forward. For example have declared homeworlds and which ever single race gains control of say 5 out of 9 is winner. That way there can be only one winner. Rightful Heir 1 + 2 are prime examples, from what I have read they form alliances to remove X race from the planet and then battle over who gets to keep it, some races get involved straight away, others wait, some even let themselves out as mercs.

I'd love to join another game but right now I have enough on. Especially with Otaku2 having just hit the fan. I'm in first place and I've been handed the victory... but the host has declared a "lets kill anyone/everyone" situation to end the game with a laugh... and I have no defensive fleets :S could be interesting.

Report message to a moderator

I try very very hard to structure my diplomatic relations so that I do not need to break an agreement in order to win. I am extremely circumspect in entering into "Kill You Last" arrangements and all others have clear opt out clauses.

Having said this, if it comes down to a situation that if I backstab I have a good chance of winning, but if I do not I will assuredly lose, I would opt for backstabbing. I figure that this is a game, the object of the game is to win, and anything that is not outlawed is allowed. Further, this is far more real, as in Realpolitik, than being the gracious and honorable loser.

I believe I was in the game that Micha just referred to. This was a "There can be only one" style of game. The behavior of other players in that game really screwed with my game play. Micha's race clearly started to pull away from all the rest of us, but if the right four or five of us had turned our combined focus on defeating Micha I believe we could have done so. I tried and I tried to convince the one race that we needed that his only hope of winning was to turn his focus, but for reasons that continue to escape me he refused to alter his focus from an irrelevant war to fighting Micha. It was very frusterating for me because I had worked myself into a situation in which I had a good chance of winning if everyone else also did their best to win, but since one or two races did not do their best to win I lost and Micha won.

So, if the game says that only one can win, do your best to win. Try to stick to the letter of your agreements, but don't let that stop you from trying to win.

Report message to a moderator

Interesting topic.

First I would say that if there is a rule "only one winner" and 2 players are declaring they are the winner alliance, they are not respecting the rules. Conclusion: they are either loosers, either cheaters. If they don't play the game following the rules, what are they? Of course it's easy to win a game where everybody is trying to be the lone winner and a couple of complimentary races go alone and don't care about who of them is going to win (or maybe worse: secret pre-game alliance?) But what's the fun? Why did they joined the game with this rule in first place? I would certainly not accept that they are declared "winners"

Second, if a game stops to be fun and a winner is clearly appearing because nobody wants to form a coalition against this runaway leader, then the game is over! Just start another one, don't get bored until the winner has taken 90% of the planets. He will be a bit frustrated of his victory because he won't get the big empire he would like to show everybody and that he would only have if he conquered the universe by playing 30 more turns. I have seen such games where all is finished before the leader even starts building his final army. He was just waiting for someone to attack him to start building, meanwhile accumulating better and better techs and incresing further the gap... Just tell everybody: "since nobody wants to work an alliance against player X who is clearly leading now and will destroy everything in about 20 turns, I see no point in continuing the game. I declare player X the winner". Then you drop out. Unless the players decide to go "against". Dropping can be used as an argument obtaining what you want. If the other players want to see their empire smashed without hope, that's their problem. It's like saying in chess "mate in 6 turns". You don't need to play the turns if you can see what your opponent is saying. You rather start a new game...

Now don't take it the wrong way: even when it is a lost cause, some end games can be quite interesting for the players, either because they get to use the best toys for the first time, either because the situation is interesting (the leader could make a big mistake and the game still rebound) (I have seen big armies with wrong orders being destroyed, or also suddenly this huge pile of chaff is destroyed and the big army is suddenly vulnerable, etc.) - So use the "drop" argument wisely, only if there is really no hope left of having any fun in the game and the future winner is clearly defined. I hate when players drop only because they cannot win anymore but the game has still a lot of potential...

Now there is another delicate thing about this point: many times, a player wants everybody to ally against number one because "otherwise" he will win. However, what is often transparent in the message to those players, is "if we ally against him, *I* can win", and that's why the players don't want to form the coalition. In that case, for them it's a loose-loose situation, so why would they accept? Why would they care? If you want to have fun in this situation, then attack him yourself, alone, and unstabilize him. That way you may loose (and probably will), but the game has no clear issue. And maybe, those oportunistic players will enter the war as well and you'll get what you want... More or less Of course there are cases where there is no hope at all even if #2 attacks #1 and then it's either an alliance or end the game.

I've had to make this choice in a recent game. #1 was running away unchecked and I was in a very dangerous situation, fighting against #3 and #4, being #2. There was no diplomacy allowed but public scores, so all was quite clear. But while I was busy fighting, nobody seemed to check #1. I finally decided to attack #1 and force him to stop his economic program and build an army. I lost several planets but at one point my empire was so compact I was able to use my army very effectively and I destroyed all my foes' armies (I w

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Quote:

Back to what Micha said..... 1. All enemy games are good... but the lack of diplomacy kinda ruins it somewhat.

I look at it differently: NO MAILING!! YES! More time to actually play instead of twisting in all directions to write a diplomatic message that sounds exactly right, I can spend upto 2-3 hours writing a message of 20-30 lines
These kind of games without talking consuming all your energy can be a blessing! Even more if English is not your native tongue ...

Quote:

2. Restricted games are great the quest to find the best ally you can is always fun.

Too much trouble, I prefer a straight out fight above all that talking. I will most likely never join such a game again.

Quote:

3. Specific goals are the way forward. For example have declared homeworlds and which ever single race gains control of say 5 out of 9 is winner. That way there can be only one winner. Rightful Heir 1 + 2 are prime examples, from what I have read they form alliances to remove X race from the planet and then battle over who gets to keep it, some races get involved straight away, others wait, some even let themselves out as mercs.

My favourite! I find that you can make your race around more specific strategies, have a clear timeframe to work them out etc.

regards,
mch

[Updated on: Mon, 31 March 2003 15:38]

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Peptis wrote on Mon, 31 March 2003 21:21

I would have to agree with yucaf here, except for the bit about dropping. IMO there is nothing worse than a player who drops from a game, whatever the reason. You should always have the decency to find a replacement player if you are too busy to play. Dropping because you are losing is just unacceptable.

Sorry, but I have to correct you here: I never said that you can drop just "because you are loosing". I mean propose to end the game because it's over. Most of the time, if you have some experience you can predict this (if you can't predict it then either it's not the case, either you have not enough experience yet to see it and should continue playing until it becomes evident). I said you can announce that the game is over for you if you feel that the issue is already clear and nobody want to do anything about it. I guess I use the wrong word in english: maybe "dropping" means get out without warning and no replacement solution, I don't know. This I never do. What I mean is exiting a game saying you see no more interest in it but you announce it publicly and wait/search for a replacement player or give the pw to the host. If the players want to play 20 more turns to verify your theory, then be it. You can also force the leader to destroy you, to the point that leaving the game is not a concern anymore.

I have been in games where everybody was saying "let's continue" while the leader was clearly winning with an empire bigger than all others summed together and a huge army impossible to defeat. What is the interest to wait for him to conquer the next 50% of the galaxy? What is the interest for you? This means only huge micromanagement but I do not think this is the essence of the game (my very HO of course). I would rather invest that time in another game.

Don't drop in the sense "abandon the game without notice", but if you feel the game has no interest left in it for anybody (and here you SHOULD think in the other players, especially if they are beginners, give them a chance to learn), then decline politely the obligation to continue. This does not mean you should just leave. Play your turns while you find a replacement, etc. It's not that hard. However, present clearly the situation so your replacement do not discover when he enters the game "hey! what's that!? you never told me this game was almost over!"

Still, the best solution is often attacking the leader. Either you get stomped fast (which was the issue anyway) and exit freely the game, either you get the others to react and follow your example (and the game's interest is renewed). The worse situation of course is when you are far away in the universe and cannot attack the "winner" but only the "loosers" between you and him, which is quite boring, don't you think? In that case, personnally, I would "drop" the game...

FWIW,

YucaF

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

yes... i think i am the only one who does not think PP is weak.
i have posted my arguments in the pp-section, but nobody believes
me i think... so i started a game to prove it...

and there i am, 55K resources behind the number one with 60K,
not much difference... but my nubians (and nobody else has
some) make a difference soon i guess...
also we intersettled, and i am pp... does not look too well
for him i think...

anyway... PP is still the most underestimated PRT i believe...

robert

Report message to a moderator

Chee wrote on Tue, 01 April 2003 08:03

THIS has been my experience exactly: Peptis wrote on Mon, 31 March 2003 23:23 What if they are not going for a shared victory? Perhaps one race is happy to let the other player win. I have been in a game where a large alliance walked away with the victory rather unchallenged. This was in a One Winner game - a fact that was reminded to everyone a number of times through out the game, however the races (and there were a lot of them) that were sided with the current leader were unwilling to break their long term friendship in order to bring down the leader. They were happy just ending the game knowing they didn't break their alliance and didn't get wiped out of the universe, even though the didn't win. It was exceptionally frustrating for me, because I was in close second place with the winner, but he had about four or five STRONG allies, and I had one. None of his allies would turn against him, so he was declared the winner. I can (sort of) see their side of things. It can be hard to turn against a loyal friend. However, I always go into the game with the intention of WINNING (not riding out on someone else's coattails), so for me the changing of alliances is always in my plan. If you don't plan for that eventuality, it can be difficult to make happen (as in, you'd rather just end the game than try and reform your empire against a longterm friend). A few more of my random thoughts, Dan

I understand your points of course. But I would guess that was a beginner / novice game... Why would there be a 4 or 5 players alliance in a one-winner-only (OWO) game? This rule is there to force the players to fight early, maybe doing and undoing alliances of 2 or 3 on the way. But I can see many weaknesses in that plan of course. Enforcing a maximum of 2 players in an alliance at one point is a good additional rule. Maybe limiting any alliance to 20 years or so would be a good additional one?

What victory is that? "I won an OWO game in an alliance of 5"

And what is this "I'm happy to let him win because he's my ally". In a OWO game this just means "you loose!", there is no second place. Acceptable for beginners, but I would certainly not be happy to end up 2nd in that scenario. In fact I am pretty sure I would backstab the leader at the worst moment, sending armies through his gates etc.

You cannot do much if the players don't understand or want to play the kind of game you set up, unfortunately. Play in experimented players games and this should become exceptional, because those players are looking for different games.



YucaF

Report message to a moderator

[Updated on: Wed, 02 April 2003 20:01]

Report message to a moderator

Are you saying that the #1 rank can't have anyone set to friend, or that the #1 guy can't do anything that would normally be done with allies (ex. tech trading)? You can still be allies if your settings are neutral, it's just harder. I think it would be difficult to enforce having players cut off all alliances at the drop of the hat. Maybe if you made it so the #1 could not communicate with anyone and had to set all other races to enemies you would have something workable?

"Sorry, my host says I'm not allowed to talk to you anymore..."

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

overworked wrote on Thu, 03 April 2003 09:40

2. I think Stars! games are won psychologically most times well before a military solution is reached. Probably with a direct correlation to length of game. Longer the game, more important the psychological factor. Often, the destruction of a main battle fleet will cause a race to fold. Chances to win are reduced, but the economic damage (so far) may have been minimal. Hard to replace, yes, but has the race really been hopelessly crippled? This ties directly into the "it's a game" theme. Once the time/effort investment is not longer educational (makes me a better player), enjoyable, or competitive (have a reasonable chance of 'winning') you're running on a different mindset. Stubborn maybe, or possibly hold yourself responsible to finish what you started. Some take this farther than others.

I like that. I think as well that when the game is psychologically over, then it's finished. Back at my beginner time, I was willing to continue fighting so I would get access to the next technologies and learn a little bit more about the game. Today I prefer to propose to end the game, and generally everybody accepts this solution, only some novice says "I could continue but I have no hope of winning".

For all the above, I don't like to play "one winner only" games. I would rather engage in a more open game and see if I have the possibility at some point to go alone to the victory, which is a rewarding finish. Which takes us back to the subject of the thread about backstabbing... If you are in that position, the temptation to backstabb an ally would become very strong
I do admit that the rule "one winner" is interesting in the sense that all players should be aware that in this context no ally is "forever", nobody should intersettle, diplomacy and exchanges should be very equilibrated (making for great negociations) and always should take care of his "friend"'s movements and development, but it is a rule very hard to enforce and many games have been spoiled because of that. Not a perfect world



YucaF

Report message to a moderator

yucaf wrote on Sun, 06 April 2003 15:45

For all the above, I don't like to play "one winner only" games. I would rather engage in a more open game and see if I have the possibility at some point to go alone to the victory, which is a rewarding finish. Which takes us back to the subject of the thread about backstabbing... If you are in that position, the temptation to backstabb an ally would become very strong I do admit that the rule "one winner" is interesting in the sense that all players should be aware that in this context no ally is "forever", nobody should intersettle, diplomacy and exchanges should be very equilibrated (making for great negociations) and always should take care of his "friend"'s movements and development, but it is a rule very hard to enforce and many games have been spoiled because of that. Not a perfect world YucaF

I've used the "one winner only" VC condition in my last two hosted games simply to make clear that I will not officially recognize a declared "alliance victory". My congratulatory post-game message will just recognize the 1st place race as the winner.

Beyond that I'm basically refusing to judge things to a large extent. Per my earlier post I think the conditions a race is operating under affects how they react - some are willing to simply ride coattails; others are willing to try to turn a game. You could probably go heavily into game theory and come up with defendable reasons for most of these behaviors. Especially once you start dipping into Meta-game factors such as time investment, other interests, what constitutes "fun" to them in Stars, and all the other associated opportunity costs of "Real Life".

Also, does a galactic conquest necessarily have to be military? or complete in the "view" that we have. Some of the game ending "empires" seem to essentially be the formation of a dual monarchy surrounded by a set of satellite lesser states. Something like the Austro-Hungarian Empire to draw a very loose parallel to European history.

Along the lines of non-military victory and drawing parallels we see various cultures gaining great influence due to non-military exploits - economic, technology, or cultural in general. Historically speaking you see a great deal of Latin influence in the European Middle Ages, French influence in the 19th century, and American influence in the present day. These effects being without infantry in the streets - or well after they've left.

[Aside: This is not a political statement. I'm just drawing parallels to known Earth history.]

Though, in Stars!, what we might be seeing is probably closer to "gunboat dioplomacy" where a fleet turns up to keep a rowdy small state behaving. Perhaps dropping some Hush-a-booms to make a point. (don't want to destroy the infrastructure since your investors will get upset. )

Hmm, I seem to have wandered afield...

I also have the opinion that strict (and complicated) diplomacy rules are potentially as harmful as the preceived abuses of no rules at all. From the sets I've seen so far I think there will always be scenarios where the rules seem to constrict player options unduly. However, it's still a host/player decision to use them. I can simply opt to not play in any such game. I also fear the questions of enforcement and rules lawyering. Just read some of the cheat/chaff threads.

To Summarize (and make a quotable section to maintain context)
1. What a given player wants from a given game of Stars! probably varies widely. And quite possibly changes during the game.
2. Is "victory" in a RP-sense always purely military in nature? (* - see below)
3. Do stricter diplomacy rules necessarily make a better game?

(*)- As posted previously I theorize that the win occurs when the opponent has psychologically conceded. This often seems to occur previous to absolute military or economic supremacy being established.

- Kurt

Report message to a moderator

Quote:

I've used the "one winner only" VC condition in my last two hosted games simply to make clear that I will not officially recognize a declared "alliance victory". My congratulatory post-game message will just recognize the 1st place race as the winner.

IMHO players don't care being "officially recognized as the winner". So any restriction in how many players are allowed to share a victory is just moot. (Is moot the right English word here?)
IOW if you really only want "one winner only" you can't rely on the players good intentions. You'll have to come up with some rules that you can control. And the only true thing you can control/check are the features the game itself presents regarding relations: the [F6] and the [F7] windows.
(And you need a non-playing party for that.)
When the game ad says: "one winner only", than 5 people set eachother to friend without thinking how this will end out (and they will stay allied), giving a lousy ending for several parties.
When the game ad says: "one winner only and all races will be set to enemy" (which the neutral party can check), than chances are you will indeed get only one winner ...
I say "chances are" because you can trust me when I say that some people will form some kind of NAPs etc, since afterall there are a lot of thing that a neutral party can not verify ...

Quote:

I also have the opinion that strict (and complicated) diplomacy rules are potentially as harmful as the preceived abuses of no rules at all. From the sets I've seen so far I think there will always be scenarios where the rules seem to constrict player options unduly. However, it's still a host/player decision to use them. I can simply opt to not play in any such game. I also fear the questions of enforcement and rules lawyering. Just read some of the cheat/chaff threads.

Such rules might indeed be as bad as no rules at all ... But you are completey right that you're free to join or to stay out of the game.
As for enforcing the rules, like I said above make sure you can control them with the features the game offers. In my example of all other races set to enemy you can't forbid NAPs, no way to enforce that.
Or when allowing one player set to friend you can't imagine what a wondering thing the human mind is, be sure your players will find ways around what you set in your game ad.
(Indeed, just like with trying to ban chaff.)

You can try to make clear what the idea is behind the game, what the idea is behind the rules that are supposed to enforce the idea. For example tell your players that an "all enemy game" is truely an "all enemy game", NO NAPs, NO info sharing, NO cooperation at all, ... no talking, nothing, just arm your weapons and let those speak!
Maybe that this is more clear to the players than just the rule, explain where you are going with those rules, tell them why you are using that rule and what kind of game you are looking for to host.
Afterall the host has a certain kind of game in mind and will make up the rules so the game will fit to the image he has.

Quote:

To Summarize (and make a quotable section to maintain context)

Oh! Open questions or not? To tempting to not answer and since you mentoined "quoting" that implies answering.

Quote:

1. What a given player wants from a given game of Stars! probably varies widely. And quite possibly changes during the game.

I agree with you here. I mostly join Stars! games to experiment with different race designs, how well do they perform against humans. Of course there is a little "could I even win with that? 8O" involved, since that's measuring the quality of your race design (and of course your play, including diplomacy).
But I'm not going for a win, sometimes just not getting killed is a huge goal to accomplish.

Quote:

2. Is "victory" in a RP-sense always purely military in nature? (* - see below)

You're right about that too. But usually the soon-to-be winner is starting to show

[Updated on: Sat, 12 April 2003 12:22]

Report message to a moderator