|
Pages: [1]
|
 |
|
Author
|
Topic: WW-AR/3 (Read 1235 times)
|
|
|
John Symons
Full Member
 Offline
Posts: 51
|
 |
Re: WW-AR/3
« Reply #1 on: October 09, 2008, 03:51:21 PM » |
|
I never play anonymous games because I am extremely skeptical about them being truly anonymous. It's way too easy for friends to play telling each other about their positions and co-operating as if it was a non-anonymous game.
In any casae, the main reason I play games like the ones FBI offers is for the contact between players. They'd be rather boring without it IMHO. Anonymous games have absolutely no attraction for me!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
GrumpyHumbug
Full Member
Offline
Posts: 90
|
|
Re: WW-AR/3
« Reply #2 on: October 10, 2008, 12:48:01 AM » |
|
14 backstabbed me last turn, 3 and 10 this turn.
14 is a special case. I sent him a 5-turn NAP request on turn A, he responded affirmatively on turn B, on turn C he backstabs me, and then on turn D he has the temerity to ask me for another NAP!!!  After not lasting more than 1 turn in our prior NAP, he expects me to trust him again?  14 is either very stupid or very optimistic.
3 and/or 10 were probably being opportunistic due to my gross misfortune in attacking 6 and being betrayed by 14. They might be working together, might not. 3 is far stronger than me and had no valid excuse to attack without a 1-turn warning. 10, being in the middle of the pack, at least has a reason.
3 and 14 could be working together, but if so 14's getting the short end of that alliance.
Following the existing pattern of player #'s in anon games correlating to A-Z last names, I have strong suspicions about who each of these three are, but only the game-end turn will say for certain.
It's clear that the anon games are primarily won by backstabbing cowards who probably can't otherwise win in a fair fight during an open game. I may suck at direct combat, but at least I'm not low enough to resort to backstabbing someone during a clear 5-turn NAP. Gonna leave these games to the anon-only players and let them be dishonest to each other all they want.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Ian
The Grumpy Humbug
|
|
|
|
|
booksmith
Newbie
Offline
Posts: 6
|
|
Re: WW-AR/3
« Reply #4 on: November 07, 2008, 02:08:37 AM » |
|
Dear GrumpyHumbug;
Message 22 "I hate to say this, but I must cancel our non-agression pact." was sent to you. Furthermore, on Turn 2 a 5 turn NAP was offered, Turn 3 you accepted, and on Turn 10 I attacked you. Not sure why or how you can say I backstabbed you as our NAP expired but we kept it going AND I did state I was cancelling our NAP even though our NAP had expired. Yes, your losses with 6 was a major factor in others attacking your positions assuming you are the player of a certain position I am presuming. I will be happy to talk in detail about this after the game ends but I would suggest a careful review of the orders submitted page and looking through the messages exchanged by each player. The hardest part of anonymous games is in one turn a major event occurs and there is a major need to cancel an agreement, in this case a NAP. A non-anonymous game an email can be fired off letting the other player know that the previous agreement is now cancelled. This cannot be done in anonymous game without having to wait one additional turn. There are many circumstances where your enemy now has an advantage over you and your doom is certain. If the NAP player stands by in certain instances he will be the next to fall. In non-anonymous games a cancellation is expected prior to attacking. This is a difficult challenge for me. I have always honored my agreements. I am incorrectly listed as a backstabber in this board and thus have produced evidence that the NAP was not violated. After the game ends I will reveal my position and any further documentation you would like.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
GrumpyHumbug
Full Member
Offline
Posts: 90
|
|
Re: WW-AR/3
« Reply #5 on: November 07, 2008, 02:58:59 AM » |
|
Here's what I saw from my end:
14 entered a 5-turn NAP, then sent me "I hate to say this, but I must cancel our non-aggression pact" THE SAME TURN HE ATTACKED ME!!! It was the turn we agreed to a 5-turn NAP. I had NO WARNING whatsoever. I could at least understand if he sent the message one turn and attacked the next. He spectacularly failed to adhere to the basic principle of a non-aggression pact.
So far as 3 and 10 go, I said yes to their 5 turn NAP's on turn 3, which means those NAP's were effective on turns 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7.
3 sent "I just want to reconfirm our non-aggression pact" to me on turns 7 and 8, then attacked me and sent the "I must cancel our non-aggression pact" message while concurrently attacking me on turn 9.
10 agreed to my turn 6 message reconifirming our NAP on turn 7, then asked for another 5-turn NAP on turn 8, and attaked on turn 9. I never got the chance to agree before he was attacking me again.
All of these circumstances have led to my refusal to play any more anonymous games. If I operate with a different understanding of the common rules, then I am playing at an obvious disadvantage.
I believe that sending the reconfirm a NAP message AFTER a 5-turn NAP expires equates to a one-turn NAP for the set of orders that go in following the turn the recipient gets the message. I see it as lying to send that message, then attack the same player with the very next set of orders. If this is a mistaken impression, I'm willing to listen and clarify our understanding of the rules. The only other explanation I see is that sending the reconfirm NAP message means an NAP for the turn that just ran (i.e. "I didn't just attack you"), which seems entirely pointless.
As for some of the more incendiary remarks made earlier, I do apologize to all concerned. I was angry, and the internet is a bad place to go when you're angry. Please accept my humble apologies for the unwarranted invective.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Ian
The Grumpy Humbug
|
|
|
booksmith
Newbie
Offline
Posts: 6
|
|
Re: WW-AR/3
« Reply #6 on: November 07, 2008, 08:29:58 AM » |
|
HI GrumpyHumbug
Boy you sure are "Grumpy" over this issue  ;
I totally agree and sympathize with your confusion and frustration over the issues you have brought up in the Anonymous games. There are numerous problems, especially when determing when a NAP begins and when one ends. Most of the guys seem to find the slightest excuse for not honoring a NAP. One reason one person attacked me is because I had one army on our mutual border. I had that army there for over 6 turns and he attacked me the 7th turn stating later that I was the one who did not honor the NAP yet he had 2 or more armies on our mutual borders. This happens even in non-anonymous games. FBI did make a big improvement in giving us message 39 to state a specific number of turns. But it is still confusing for some as to when the NAP starts and when it ends. I am one of the players you mentioned as possible "backstabber." As I pointed out earlier, the NAP was honored even after it had expired. The problem is not so much with you but with other players when it comes to NAPs. In a few of the games you and I have been in other players have violated their NAPs with me in non-anonymous games. So, this is more a reflection of the other player which still makes it wrong and unfair. This is a major issue as to why there are so few people left playing BP and WWBP games. FBI should do something about it just from a business point of view. There can be an order that if someone breaks the NAP they lose 50% HPI or some other weighted factor that will hurt the faulty player. Just an idea. Don't be hard on yourself as it is the fault of the other players and it is only a few at that. As the song goes, "Don't Worry. Be Happy." BAH GRUMPYHUMBUG!!!! 
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Lin Goldstein
Jr. Member
Offline
Posts: 30
|
Player #1 has resigned so the game is over. Congratulations to Lin Goldstein
for winning and thanks to everyone for playing.
The game is over! Final results:
Place Turns Identifier Player
1 24 [12] Lin Goldstein
2 23 [1] Jim Fronsee
3 22 [11] Bill McClintock
& 22 [7] J Scott Balda
5 18 [3] Phil Cressey
6 16 [2] David Scott
7 15 [10] Rick Loomis
& 15 [14] K C Hennum
9 13 [6] Martin Johnson
10 11 [8] Glen Chip Grier
11 9 [4] Ian Densmore
12 7 [13] Rory Post
13 6 [9] Stephen Doyle
14 4 [5] Brian Allen
Victory message:
When I got my first turn, I was disappointed. I was a natural enemy (the way I saw it) of
[8],[10], and [11]. Also, more of my spaces adjoined two or more of the same players'
spaces than any other player. On the plus side, I had a clear advantage (almost majority) of
spaces bordering the icecap, thus allowing for transfers between NA, Asia, and the North
Sea. I declared [11] enemy, trying to trap him in the sea, while preparing to knock [8] out
of Russia, offering him 4 spaces for 2 spaces and the [11] space between them.
Turn 2 I was disappointed as [11] didn't fall into the traps. But to my surprise, turn 3
showed that I didn't lose most of the spaces bordering on two of the same opponent's
spaces. Also [3] and [10] declared [11] enemy.
By turn 4 I was leading the pack in spaces controlled. I saw that [8] had unsucessfully tried
to conquer a space I claimed as mine. I immediately attacked [8] and offered [11] peace.
Next turn [11] happily accepted, and carved out an empire in Scandanavia that lasted nearly
the whole game. [8] was put on the defensive in five fronts, and had other players to worry
about, too.
Shortly later, [1] presumably made a map error and attacked one of [2]'s spaces. Next
turn [2] took it back. [1] had previously sent me the "take second place" message, and now
sent the "lied to me message". I sent [1] "please help me attack #2" message, expecting
that [1] would wait until I initiated the attack (I had an unexpired non-agression pact with
[2]) To my surprise, [1] made a surprise attack on [2] before [2] had completed his
industry buildup ([2] should have built industry much earlier as he wasn't at war, then he
could have contended for the game -- he was the strongest player on the board when he
was attacked, although I had more spaces and had mostly completed my industry buildup),
and [2] was crushed, especially two turns later when I joined in the attack.
The rest of the game turned out to be mainly mop-up for [1] and me. [11] might have
finished in a tie for second; I was mostly letting [1] determine the order of finish for the
last five players, but when [1] tried to keep [7] alive and [11] finish fourth, I tried to get
[11] in a tie for second. However [11] had dropped after receving the "end of non-aggression
pact message from me the previous turn.
No apparent cheating in this game
-- Lin
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lin Goldstein
Jr. Member
Offline
Posts: 30
|
#3 was a real wimp. He probably told #7 that they should attack me at some point. The
whole game he was only feeding off of dying players, then when I attacked him he dropped
out. The same turn, when #7 and I had been sending each other confirmations on an expired
non-aggression pact, I declared #7 an enemy but did no other attacks, which if #7 honored his
confirmation of the non-aggression pact would do little damage to him, but he moved to some
of my sea spaces and got clobbered, only firing a few missiles, most of which were deflected.
#7 spent the next four or five turns trying to apologize, giving me full spies (I didn't need the full
spies because I was spying #7 to help #1), while #1 and I went after him full force.
You were going to die anway when #10 and #14 attacked you. The significant backstab (if it
was a backstab) was #1 attacking #2. Maybe #2 should have ignored the attack #1 made on
AMZ; he might have won the game if he had.
Lin
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1]
|
|
|
|
|
