From: vjelinek@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Virginia G Jelinek)
Subject: Re: EiA Campaigns
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 05:02:15 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.003848.27632@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> jchunko@magnus.ac
s.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey Chunko) writes:
>
>
>Our group has managed to scrounge up two more players (giving us 7.)

HEY! HEY! HEY!

I was not "scrounged," "recruited," perhaps.  I should think that you
wouldn't want to insult new your opponents before the game even begins!

See you on the battlefield, Jeff. ;-)

I've been following the latest EiA thread and see some merit in
both factions' positions.

It's probably true that Austria shouln't make an unholy alliance
with France.  The other nations will be hard-pressed to make
significant headway against their combined armies.

However, in a multi-player, diplomatic game, traditional "shoulds"
and "shouldn'ts" are not compelling reasons to choose a particular
path.  Spanish fleets in St. Pete?  Just because it may not have
happened a couple hundred years ago is no reason for it not to
happen in a game of EiA.

In game terms, perhaps Austria "shouldn't" ally with France.  But,
if the other nations cannot convince Austria not to form that
alliance, it certainly isn't Austria's problem.  This is the essence
of a diplomatic game.  If "Nation A" wants "Nation B" to do some-
thing, "Nation A" must be prepared to:

     -Threaten "Nation B" into this action, or
     -Make a mutually beneficial deal with "Nation B," or
     -Grovel, beg, plead, whine, and cry until "Nation B" caves in. ;-)

The more the action benefits "Nation B," clearly, the easier time 
"Nation A" will have in convincing them to do it.  If "Nation B," for
whatever reason, cannot see that the action is beneficial, "Nation A"
has a choice to make.

     -Let "Nation B" wallow in its stupidity, or
     -Try another course in the negotiations, i.e., attack?

I've played enough multi-player games to have learned another very
important concept--Every player does not always do what is logically
the best for himself or herself.  Sometimes it's just a matter of in-
experience or rules ignorance--these things are easily handled.  Other
times, it's a hidden agenda--a player who believes he or she cannot
"win" (in game terms) may create an alternative goal and be satisfied
to pursue it.  This can be a drag for the other players, but it beats
the alternative--quitting.

Clearly, these are not earth-shattering revelations.  But, sometimes
exceedingly logical thinkers (like Chris and Jeff) neglect the element
of uncertainty inherent in people.  This uncertaintiy helps to make
this type of game fun and interesting.  If one wants to play a game
where the winner is the player who best followed the historical script,
play AH's _Brittania_.  Otherwise, let the players play.  If someone
wants to do something that they "shouldn't" or that you don't want them
to do, it's _your_ responsibility (and the point of a diplomatic game)
to convince them to do otherwise.

So, I'll step of my soapbox and prepare to thrash Chris and Jeff and
the others in our upcoming EiA game.

Bill (through vjelinek@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu)
Lines: 26