Hi guys,

I would like to get some opinions about a special case:

In a team-game (WOL V) with 4 teams of 2 players without rules, except up to 1 CA in each team only, 2 teams do ally after (maybe before) the first 6 years. Both teams are designed for early wars. 1 team can win only!

No question, to ally it's not against the rules, because there are no rules. So even pregame-alliances were not forbidden.

BUT does it make sense to do this in a game of 4 teams only?

IMO at least it will be a game between the two allied teams only, after the supernumeraries - the other two teams - are eliminated.

So I'm asking you folks, if out of your point of view it makes sense for the two - at least - needless teams to continue playing this game under this circumstances or if they HAVE to continue playing.

I would like to stop playing this game and to ask the two allied teams to play THEIR game alone (why they not look for a host to play such games with two teams only (team-duell) without stealing time of other players? ).

Would it be o.k. to leave the two allied teams play alone - means, asking the HOST for setting the other teams to inactive?

YOUR OPINION?

Thx, Taka Tuka

Report message to a moderator

You sure are jumping to a lot of conclusions in a game where the only thing that has happened so far is that we traded techs with another team on the other side of the universe, and you killed a fort of ours and ship.

And you teamed up with a highly skilled and experienced CA no less, you are whining like a baby already.
Maybe instead of a strategy war game you should consider Monopoly or Sim City or something?

In case you don't know: Teams can and have coordinated attacks in many games, unless expressly forbidden. And in this game it isn't.

In the end the goal is: May the best team win. That's the rules. Only one team wins in the end. However you get to that goal is the strategy and the skills involved on the way.

Now go see mommy and ask if you can stay up late.

Report message to a moderator

BlueTurbit wrote on Sun, 14 August 2011 23:52

You sure are jumping to a lot of conclusions in a game where the only thing that has happened so far is that we traded techs with another team on the other side of the universe, and you killed a fort of ours and ship. And you teamed up with a highly skilled and experienced CA no less, you are whining like a baby already. Maybe instead of a strategy war game you should consider Monopoly or Sim City or something? In case you don't know: Teams can and have coordinated attacks in many games, unless expressly forbidden. And in this game it isn't. In the end the goal is: May the best team win. That's the rules. Only one team wins in the end. However you get to that goal is the strategy and the skills involved on the way. Now go see mommy and ask if you can stay up late.

Thanks for the compliment (highly skilled & experienced). You are too kind but the statement is probably exaggerated.

Who knew that my red laser QJ5 chaff would be permitted to destroy the fort. Chaff was in clear view & headed for Zucchini the previous year. It needed just one En6 shield &/or one red laser to kill the chaff.

As Taka said, there are no rules to stop what you did. It's the age old "spirit of the game" that some would question.

The ships sent as "tech exchange" were reasonably advanced DD skirmishers with a cost of around 100 res & 75-80kt minerals so the 8 being send cost a total of around 800 res & 600+kt minerals. That's pretty expensive given that scrappers would have cost about half of that.

I understand why Taka is upset. This game is supposed to be a 4 team contest. Even if the 2 teams in question have not allied as such it is clear that the strategy is to exchange techs so that they can gang up against either the Gryphin/Humanoid alliance or our own first & then the other once that alliance has been exterminated.

The 2 alliances in question are indeed on the other side of the universe & that is part of the problem because there is only one alliance in between in this game. So we have 2 teams each with 2 ITs each with any/300 gates & an agreement to transfer advanced weapons & a record of transfering ships between teams.

I am no stranger to fighting in adverse conditions (I was a member of the Independant Alliance in Babylon 5 v2 where that alliance was virtually doomed from the beginning; we fought to the end). But this is different because there were a variety of ways the game could go; there is little doubt how this is going to go.

We Stars players like a win but we play the game largely for fun. This game had every chance of being a lot of fun but here we are 7 years into the game & the game is probably predetermined. Is that fun?

Report message to a moderator

Well, obviously the other two Teams would do well to ally themselves against the original 2-Team Alliance. Common enemies, survival instinct, basic Diplomacy and all that. Even a "kill you last" agreement would be better than fighting (and presumably dying) alone.

Other than that, I must point out that numbers alone don't always win the game. Diplomacy and general strategy count too. That's one of the reasons why we all still love old buggy Stars!

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

Quote:

OMG, you are far more experienced then (which is nice - many players like a challenge, including me). Galaxy Wars was my first game. That's why I played CA; I didn't want to be beaten too badly. My next game was Diadochi Wars in 2006 in which I played JOAT. I have played CA in one other game. I consider myself an Intermediste or Advanced Intermediate.

And your strong position in that first game and perhaps your second CA game gave you a good insight into the powers of CA races in games. (This is no secret in Stars! games for a long while now.) Although I'm sorry that it was an IT that seriously kicked your butt in that one.
If you like a challenge then don't go negative and complain about how things appear to be turning against you early in a game. Think positive and figure out how to turn things around. It's been done before. There are no guarantees in the future.

Quote:

Sure but your original statrment complaining of the destruction of the fort made it appear to be a stronger attack designed to destroy the fort. It was merely a ping.

That wasn't a complaint, that was a statement. I was pointing out that there was no sign of offense yet on our part, only tech trading. The only battles we have been engaged in so far has been your team attacking us. Like the unarmed scout you killed a while back in the deep south of the Taka territory. What? You don't consider attacking planets with armed scouts an aggressive move? There went your chances of any NAP if there were one. How many other NAPs have you killed with your pingers? Maybe your diplomats need to ping more? Me and my partner had to do so much diplomatic pinging it almost wore us out. LOL

Quote:

I guess it's my fault that I did not see "us v them" or "ganging up" as a strong possibity (there's no reason at all, within these rules, why it couldn't become 3 v 1). I'm a bit rusty or maybe I just didn't read the rules carefully enough.

Likely. But I did a lot of research in planning this game, including possible experiences of other players. Ask my partner. I even sent him picture of teams/players, and possible experience. I also ran lots of 50-year-gen test beds with races. And sent results to my partner. LOL

Ally in other game with one of the Zem was not the main factor in my decision to trade tech with them here. It was several discoveries, including his ship design when he killed my scout, and the returns the meetings with the MT's yielded. Our tech gains made it easier to trade with someone that appeared to have more to offer than likely what the other two teams have in terms of tech levels. You can't trade tech with someone unless they have tech you need.

I chose two IT after a lot of thought and testing.
Especially weighing in that likely we might be engaged with CA races on the other teams. And I discussed these things with my partner, to get his opinions. The risks and the possibilities.
Knowing Little Eddie in other game also gave me knowledge of his character and the strength of his word of honor.

Also, that the Zem were on the opposite side of the universe made them better for trading, and less competition for planets for a good while, in terms of expanding against other races. I've always had better results in games where I traded with races that were on the other side of the universe.

And there were more factors I don't really want to go on and on, but I could. LOL You see, there were many things considered in our decision to finally decide what and how to do things.

And yes, I also studied the rules and the possibilities.

And as to Creabild having flawed game rules. Well, I'm not so sure about that theory. This is game V in the series. And as far as I know they have mostly done quite well in the past. He didn't make any major modifications from game IV for this one.

Quote:

Tech exchange is fine. It's coordinated &/or ganging up that reduces the value of the game. Yes, CAs have a lot of potential &, in this scenario with a 50yr pregen so does a dual IT team (where the team get 4 fully de

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

But of course. Taka and Alex figured in a spiral galaxy team game, they would make NAPs and only cancel one at a time after their CA finished doing his number. LOL

But to have to fight possibly two fronts at once. Why, that would be unheard of in Stars! Must complain and resign now, before the first ten turns are done, and join the next WOL game, and make sure all future WOL games are designed the way we want them to fit us. Maybe if things turn out better for us there, we can play to the end.
LOL What a couple of jokers these two. Excuses, excuses, excuses, to drop out early in a perfectly legit game that is playing according to all the rules and as advertised.

Besides, look at how big those guns are that we found out the Zems are already trading. Well, they wouldn't trade with us. So unfair. LOL

Duh! Big guns, maybe because one chose to research only W instead of next cheapest in their research Q for 50 year pre-gen.
Why gee! We never thought of that either. Another reason for us to resign early.

Give me a break. Early quitters! That's what! Game spoilers.

[Updated on: Tue, 16 August 2011 04:29]

Report message to a moderator

Hi!

Quote:

2 teams do ally after (maybe before) the first 6 years.

So you too do "ally or die!"
I waited for ages to write this. Now it fits perfectly.

When game "parameters" change, that always generates some tension. But that's to be expected with live players. Adapt and keep fighting. Quitting the game is a solution too, but so early in the game and without trying to do something, is IMO not commnedable.

BR, Iztok

Report message to a moderator

Hi!

Quote:

Maybe instead of a strategy war game you should consider Monopoly or Sim City or something? ... Now go see mommy and ask if you can stay up late.

Blue Turbit, I'd say you're highly abrasive here. In fact so highly, that I actually got an impression you want to cover something with this name-calling. Namely, I got plenty of experience with similar behaviouor. My kids used this approach, when they did something they felt wrong, but didn't want to admit that. So what really made you write those posts in such and insulting manner?

BR, Iztok

[Updated on: Tue, 16 August 2011 04:45]

Report message to a moderator

Yep. When you spend weeks planning and many hours communicating with others, and someone comes along like this and wants to spoil a good game and quit early in game because things aren't going as they planned, sometimes in the heat of the moment you get carried away. It happens to the best and the worst sometimes. Probably more often with me than some.

But I am still a kid. I've been a kid for decades now.

[Updated on: Tue, 16 August 2011 04:48]

Report message to a moderator

Hi!

BlueTurbit wrote on Tue, 16 August 2011 10:43

sometimes in the heat of the moment you get carried away. It happens to the best and the worst sometimes. Probably more often with me than some.

So you haven't passed the drill our teenager kids extorted upon us old parents. Now I understand.
BR, Iztok

[Updated on: Tue, 16 August 2011 04:50]

Report message to a moderator

I spent time in the military. My drill sergeant drilled every thing I learned as a teenager out of me. Plus I grew up in Texas, and everybody carries guns here, so you have to learn different methods. But it's worked so far... I'm still alive.

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

AlexTheGreat wrote on Tue, 16 August 2011 04:42

I did not see "us v them" or "ganging up" as a strong possibity

Alas, those happen in many games. Some Hosts craft special rules to avoid them. But there's too many players that go "lets all gang against the CA" whenever they see one.

Perhaps the best thing to do would be advertise for replacements before quitting. Shouldn't be too hard to find people willing to run one (or two) strong races, with lots of challenge guaranteed.

Report message to a moderator

hmmm Interesting read. I'd like to add my for what it's worth.

The first thing that hit me was the general level of abrasiveness and sarcasm. This actually is to be expected when you consider many of these players are long time players and the amount of effort everyone has put into it but Whatever the reason for it, I think the more experienced guys should have know better. Just a cursory look at the forums will show that discussions, opinions, tempers, pride etc. can easily get out of hand when it doesn't need to. One of the biggest problems is the inability to sufficiently and assuredly show most kinds of emotion and ESPECIALLY humor/sarcasm (the good kind). Basically post something assuming it will be taken in the worst light.

But this is all just general being human stuff.

To me it looks like one of the major concerns is that the one team feels like they have been one upped by a move they cannot respond to in a sufficient manner to win the game. Interestingly this is how majority games are won/decided BUT only becomes apparent after months of play. By then the players are invested enough in the game to try their utmost to win/change the outcome.

Unfortunately this has happened only 6? turns into the game. There is a TON of effort that went into the game but NO investment This magnifies the feeling of futility/impotence you'd have 70 turns into the game and you see that 5k nubian armada face of your couple 100 BB fleet.

On the other side of my coin, it IS only the start of the game and there is much one can do (within the rules of course) to not only make the game a living hell for the opposing team but perhaps even pull out a win. Score a few points in the "honorable" column with some of the other players. I think that THAT alone could be an invaluable lesson for the newer more inexperienced players to know that every action, inside and outside a game WILL affect your public image.

Hell, most EXPERIENCED players can take that lesson to heart

In the end the game turns out differently from what one expects but making the most of it shows some moxy

/

Report message to a moderator

That's pretty much why I don't like team games and stay clear of them.

I played only one, in which Micha himself tutored me. But in the end there was one experienced player in a team of three with two newbies and it was more "Micha's team" than "our team". He gave us so many pointers and orders to follow that, while an incredible learning experience for a newbie such as myself back then, it wasn't really us playing.

Team games seem to be much more intense both in preparation and play. And if the game allowed pre-made alliances before the start of the game you don't see me surprised that it is the case on turn 6. Actually, the opposite would have surprised me.

And it is no real surprise too that people feel grief over such a game because the coordination between two or more players over a game can significantly increase the amount of work required to prepare for the game. But I guess I'm only starting to repeat what ForceUser said so I'll stop here.

Report message to a moderator

Quote:

Unfortunately this has happened only 6? turns into the game. There is a TON of effort that went into the game but NO investment

Actually it's 2457. This is not your typical game. This game had 50 year pre-gen and turn schedule is set to 100 hours max. It has taken one month from first receiving 2450 files to the present 2457 turn on Autohost.
Investment? LOL Lots of work. Gazillion emails too. And obviously you haven't had to meet two MT's in short time as a team lately.

Quote:

And if the game allowed pre-made alliances before the start of the game you don't see me surprised that it is the case on turn 6. Actually, the opposite would have surprised me.

Well, surprise then. Because I don't know of any pre-game alliance of any sort that took place in this game. As I tried to emphasize here earlier. And so have others. Even though it is allowed within the bounds of the game rules.

This pre-game alliance stuff is all part of the propaganda ministry started by those who want to drop out of a game early, and find justification and approval from others here. Which maybe is why there is a second thread here with almost identical topic to the one in the game forum.

Report message to a moderator

ForceUser wrote on Tue, 16 August 2011 15:00

it IS only the start of the game and there is much one can do (within the rules of course) to not only make the game a living hell for the opposing team but perhaps even pull out a win. Score a few points in the "honorable" column with some of the other players. I think that THAT alone could be an invaluable lesson for the newer more inexperienced players to know that every action, inside and outside a game WILL affect your public image.

Indeed, quitters score negative in my book, and early quitters even more. Getting a replacement, particularly if the replacement turns out to be good, would be a way to get less negative points.

OTOH, I'm always the guy who says "what!? already!?" when a game ends, regardless of my being winning or losing.

Report message to a moderator

BlueTurbit wrote on Tue, 16 August 2011 15:56

Quote: Unfortunately this has happened only 6? turns into the game. There is a TON of effort that went into the game but NO investment Actually it's 2457. This is not your typical game. This game had 50 year pre-gen and turn schedule is set to 100 hours max. It has taken one month from first receiving 2450 files to the present 2457 turn on Autohost. Investment? LOL Lots of work. Gazillion emails too. And obviously you haven't had to meet two MT's in short time as a team lately.

I am aware of the fact that it's 2457. The 6/7 "turns" I spoke of is exactly that, the game was 50y genned and 6/7 turns was played. I applied for WoL V too so I am also familiar with the rules and special nature of the game. I even did quite a bit of work to see the validity of an AR in this environment.

To clarify, effort = the gazzilion emails / pre 50y gen planning / intra-team co-ordination / 1 month or less play time depending on conditions (Team game minimum of a month in MY opinion) / The WORK

Investment is on a more emotional level. Months of communication, bargaining for worlds, fighting over a border world for 20+ turns, using perfectly placed wormholes to sneak a fleet in, have actual major fleet wins/losses.

Those are the things that helps me connect to the story of the game, the events. Not the MM or the work before hand. Basically it is of my opinion that it is more than possible that many players have yet to form any lasting attachment to this game. Some might feel different since we are.. you know, "different"

I did get the impression that there were no pre-game alliances (that alone is a WHOLE can of worms I think should not be discussed here as it is not proven) so I think Eagle may just have misunderstood something?

Report message to a moderator

ForceUser wrote on Tue, 16 August 2011 15:00

One of the biggest problems is the inability to sufficiently and assuredly show most kinds of emotion and ESPECIALLY humor/sarcasm (the good kind). Basically post something assuming it will be taken in the worst light.

We need more !!

Report message to a moderator

Eagle of Fire wrote on Tue, 16 August 2011 15:19

in the end there was one experienced player in a team of three with two newbies and it was more "Micha's team" than "our team". He gave us so many pointers and orders to follow that, while an incredible learning experience for a newbie such as myself back then, it wasn't really us playing.

I've had my fair share of those kinds of Teams, being either the "leader" or a "follower" and it's mostly been "gee, we would never have managed to pull that neat trick on our own" or "whoa, this one newbie is starting to have really great ideas on his own" and always, ALWAYS "we'd never have had this much fun playing solo"

It can be somewhat stressful some times, but ain't nothing easy, at least not under the Stars!

Report message to a moderator