Quote:

Don't give him a reason to backstab you then.

Okay, but one of the most common reasons given for a backstab is opportunity.
If you don't have enough spare warships, well defended planets, strong starbases, etc. then the opportunity to backstab is ever present.

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Steve1 wrote on Mon, 17 January 2005 14:43

Quote: Good point. If there's ever a good time for a backstab this would be it. That's the price you pay for allying in a one winner game. Well in fact that wouldn't be necessary. Given the situation, the #1 player wouldn't be able to take on the entire universe by themselves. Besides, who wants a reputation as a backstabber? Just means for future games that potential allies might be far less trusting.

As i intiated the back stabbing posts, i have to say, that did also mean the possiblity of simple cancelling the alliance.

While then #1 has 5 years to ready himself, #2 can still do things, that offer a slight advantage.
E.g. argue, without lying ets., #1 into spending much resources upon a design useful against current enemies and secretly build up the counter design.
Or making secret alliance with some other players and trade them techs, ships or planets and maybe get some special devices, like robber baron or mines or cheap overcloakers or gate network.

Clever people will have further ideas how to prepare for ending treaty without breaking it.

Of course this never gives as much advantage as a full backstab, but if the difference between #1 and #2 is not too big it might be enough to have a chance.

Carn

Report message to a moderator

OK. I suppose since I'm to blame for this post being entered in the first place, I suppose I ought to throw in my

Where shall I begin?

Oh yeah, taking a poll for what is mostly an ethical situation is a bit amusing to me.

Calling me a whiner is throwing about names without understanding my stance on the situation, but I'll certainly not lose any sleep over it.

Asking me if I'm ready to concede to a winning alliance when the game conditions spell out a solo victory condition is just asking for my hackles to get up. I will not concede victory to an alliance of any number in this game.

I will, however, concede that the game leader is the clear winner of this game if his "allies" concede the game to him. Otherwise, #2 could decide he has a shot at any time and announce his intentions of breaking off his "alliance of convenience" and launch his own attempt at becoming the Ruler of the Known Universe and I'm hanging in there for that opportunity to join forces with the enemy of my enemy and continue the fray with improved odds. Until the game leader's allies concede victory to the game leader, I will stay in until I am ground down to dust or I win through sheer stubborness. (Yes, I am just that stubborn)

I am absolutely guilty of shouting, spitting, jumping up and down, and being a loud, obnoxious schmuck as regards the willingness of the game leader's allies to roll over and be good, little allies and hoping for an alliance win in a solo victory game. I was hoping that I could shame them into changing their minds, because I will never, ever recognize them as winners sharing in the glory of the victorious game leader.

Is some of this starting to get through to everyone?

All are free to comment on my position, but it will remain my position regardless of the results of the poll or how many other players tell me I am wrong. The only vote that I will agree to is the one to determine whether or not the current game leader has won the game, at which point I will agree with the majority vote. Again, I will not vote on whether or not the leading alliance has won.

Now, does this position realy make me a whiner? No, never mind, I don't care what the answer is after all.

The Crusader

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

I have played a few last man standing games.
In one of my early ones, I was 2nd by the end and friendly with 1st but a long way behind. I conceded and was happy with 2nd as it was my second stars game ever.
A while later (different game) I was 2nd and closely allied to 1st – I did not want to come second as that seems to be my standard finishing place. So I organised an alliance of the willing and made sure that every other race was on my side before breaking the alliance. Unfortunately the 5 years ending clause was enough for him nearly finish another race and when I started fighting him I found myself out teched and outnumbered. I finished second.
My latest last man standing, I am second. He wiped out 6 races, I wiped out 5. We have never been allied (one 10 year period of 3 year NAP). I intend to fight to the bitter end as second is the worst place I can end up in (its actually quite close I think).

In determining what the 2nd (and 3rd, 4th) place person does several things are taken into account
1. Are they happy with their current rank as a finish position.
2. Are they in danger of falling down the ranking if they try for a better place.
3. How much loyalty matters to them.
As such you will not get a 2nd place player who has never done better than 4th to risk an assault when 3rd is close and they like to be thought of as loyal.
Those of us who believe that in last man standing there are 2 positions, 1st and “Loser” would act differently.

Poss game idea
A Variety of last man standing where 1st goes to the 1st and 2nd goes to his highest ranking ally. Except 2nd, 3rd and 4th are ranked as last!
So if you take a beating you can still contribute to the game and even come second. But if you are in a position where you could have won but bottled it you end up last (your discontented populace lynch you as a cowardly and incompetent ruler).
Might even reduce drop outs as being 8th or lower you would be courted as trusted ally of the higher ranked players.

[Updated on: Thu, 27 January 2005 17:10]

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

[Updated on: Tue, 01 February 2005 10:55]

Report message to a moderator

I have found there only 3 types of stars! games that are interesting to play:
"last man standing",
"prearranged team" or
"all enemy" games.
Rest of the games i have found to be mostly boring.

Do these settings mean no allies? Nope. None allies whatsoever you usually have only in "may not communicate" games. Finding and motivating allies is decent part of winning any of these game types i named. Running away with score from the start so you win solo without any allies is probably possible in total novice games, for rest of skill levels its quite hard these days when all the bits of race design and economy management are discussed and explained to death.

If the player (or team) #1 is better in external relations than #3 or #4 ... well, its fault of #3 and #4, not his. If he is so good that he can exploit #2 as his loyal ally ... well, bow down to such diplo skill, guys, dont whine.

Lets say that #2 does not ally with #1 and is better in finding allies than #1 then he will soon be #1 and his best ally will probably improve into top ranks as well. Is it any better scenario for you, #3 & #4, etc. down there? I see no big differences.

Naming that #2 (who is loyal to #1) at the end as "biggest loser" does not certainly help you any, next time you meet in game its even harder to brainwash that #2 as your own kingmaker. When dust settles the "last man standing" game has only one winner. All the rest have something to learn from him. That #2 seemingly accepted it, so why dont you, guys?

Report message to a moderator

This is a common occurrence in many games. I have not voted since the end result is clearly defined.

In the rules of the game it is specified as a one winner game. The race in 2nd place is one of the losers if the game ends.

Since the 2 races together are currently very powerful and probably unbeatable, get a vote from all the players and if they wish to terminate the game, declare the 1st place player to be the winner. In a game like this, there is no satisfaction with being in 2nd place - there are no accolades and no honors to be won since the 2nd place player is just as much of a loser in teh game as any of the other players. If he is happy with that - well, that's his own choice. The most important thing is NOT to declare the alliance a winner - ONLY the 1st place player may be ceclared the winner. In this case, the 1st place player has won by being smart - getting someone to ally with him that was strong enough to provide lots of tech and be in 2nd place yet, won't attack him. I'd call it a good win.


Ptolemy
Emperor of a Thousand Suns

Report message to a moderator

Ptolemy wrote on Tue, 01 February 2005 20:08

This is a common occurrence in many games. I have not voted since the end result is clearly defined. In the rules of the game it is specified as a one winner game. The race in 2nd place is one of the losers if the game ends. Since the 2 races together are currently very powerful and probably unbeatable, get a vote from all the players and if they wish to terminate the game, declare the 1st place player to be the winner. In a game like this, there is no satisfaction with being in 2nd place - there are no accolades and no honors to be won since the 2nd place player is just as much of a loser in teh game as any of the other players. If he is happy with that - well, that's his own choice. The most important thing is NOT to declare the alliance a winner - ONLY the 1st place player may be ceclared the winner. In this case, the 1st place player has won by being smart - getting someone to ally with him that was strong enough to provide lots of tech and be in 2nd place yet, won't attack him. I'd call it a good win. Ptolemy Emperor of a Thousand Suns

I concur with the above.

The 1st place race *won* by means other than military predominance. It could be economic dependence, political supremacy, or other means by which his government has effectively subdued the lesser empire to his will.

- Kurt

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

[Updated on: Thu, 03 February 2005 10:15]

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

[Updated on: Thu, 03 February 2005 15:50] by Moderator

Report message to a moderator

mlaub wrote on Wed, 02 February 2005 22:39

A "Last Man Standing" game implies just that. No one, other than the winner, is left standing. All other races have either stopped submitting, or have conceded through loss of planets and fleets. Having a game long ally concede victory doesn't sound right for that situation, nor do gaining advantages inherent of such a relationship.

This is true. However, in most Last Man Standing games I've been in, alliances have formed that follow the "I'll kill you last" scenario, where two or more races band together to wipe out all opposition before they battle it out between themselves.
Quite often though and especially in larger games, by the time that comes to pass the races are intersettled over the whole of the universe and it would require a mammoth task with tons of MM to completely kill your former ally. The game would become tedious and would remove all fun from it.
The easiest, quickest and (IMO) most enjoyable way to find a winner in these situations is the "battle royale" concept. Gather the fleets, have one massive battle and to the victor go the spoils. The race in 1st will most likely beat 2nd, but it's not impossible for #2 to win, given the right battle orders and/or race advantages (and some luck ).

If you want a true Last Man Standing game, then you need to set the rules up to disadvantage alliances. Either that or only accept bloodthirsty, paranoid players

Report message to a moderator

Downsider wrote on Fri, 04 February 2005 05:50

...[SNIP]... The easiest, quickest and (IMO) most enjoyable way to find a winner in these situations is the "battle royale" concept. ...[SNIP]... If you want a true Last Man Standing game, then you need to set the rules up to disadvantage alliances. Either that or only accept bloodthirsty, paranoid players

To me the "Battle Royale" concept is a cop-out. It does not allow for the strategic maneuvering of forces, attempting to force or deny combat in order to set up battles that favor your side that is, for me, what is really really fun about playing the end-game. I assume that Downsider's concept involves everyone setting everyone else to Enemy, which in many end-games either means that a random race wins or that the monster number one player shows up with so many more AMP Nubs than anyone else that we might as well have simply bowed down and moved on.

I don't think that a true Last Man Standing game requires rules to disadvantage alliances, but I do agree that in any Stars! game one should strive to be a Machievellian player which would mean paranoid and selectively bloodthirsty.

Report message to a moderator

Steve1 said

Quote:

Either way they will be eventually defeated, no matter what their opionion, skill or objectives ......

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Downsider wrote on Wed, 09 February 2005 19:28

... you might as well end the game with something of note rather than a drawn out MM fest that no-one wants...

Ahhh, but you don't understand. I do want it. You see, he tasks me. He tasks me and I shall have him ...I'll chase him 'round the moons of Nibia and 'round the Antares Maelstrom, and 'round perdition's flames before I give him up!

[img]http://services.tos.net/pics/st2/st2-khan.gif[/img]

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Crusader wrote on Fri, 11 February 2005 11:59

Downsider wrote on Wed, 09 February 2005 19:28 ... you might as well end the game with something of note rather than a drawn out MM fest that no-one wants... Ahhh, but you don't understand. I do want it. You see, he tasks me. He tasks me and I shall have him ...I'll chase him 'round the moons of Nibia and 'round the Antares Maelstrom, and 'round perdition's flames before I give him up! [img][url]http://services.tos.net/pics/st2/st2-khan.gif[/url][/img]

That's the spirit!
This is my first game vs human opponents that have lasted to the nubian area, so I will not give in myself until I am utterly defeated, even though I know that it is 99% certain that there is no way I can kill those 1100+ and counting nubians of his..
I cannot win, but at least for me, the game is still a good learning experience..

Report message to a moderator