From: thornley@milli.cs.umn.edu (David H. Thornley)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Winning isn't everything
Date: 12 Jan 93 18:08:54 GMT
Article-I.D.: news2.C0r6FD.4Ey
Organization: University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, CSci dept.

In article <19545@mindlink.bc.ca> Bruce_Harper@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Harper) writes:
>I agree with most of this posting - if A attacks C, and C responds by
>fighting A rather than attacking B (which would help A), A can hardly
>complain.

Agreed in general.  A player who can be precisely manipulated by any means
is at a severe disadvantage.  In multi-player games, I will remember the
unprovoked attacks, and will try to repay them as I can throughout the
game.

  But I was more thinking of the situation when C's reaction is "if
>you do anything at all to me, I'm going to attack you for the rest of the
>game no matter what".  If C persists in his policy of revenge even though he
>has a chance to win the game, I think he is probably going too far.  The
>situation is even worse if C threatens A in order to force A to do something.
>
Also sounds good.  This is somewhat self-correcting; if C threatened A with
mutual destruction for offensive reasons, I would be real tempted to assist
A against C.  You can't let somebody get away with that.

Another borderline case:  B is winning.  A attacks C, setting up a situation
where C has a small chance of winning by attacking B only.  If the attack on
B will primarily help A, it seems reasonable to take revenge on A.  Again,
it's a matter of behavior you can't let somebody get away with.  Therefore,
I would say that revenge is a somewhat acceptable motive, as long as it is
roughly proportionate.

For a more general rule, I think there's some confusion in levels of play.
You can play to improve your position on the board, or you can play against
your opponents (a specialty of Lasker's, by the way).  In the above example,
A's best move *on*the*board* is to attack the leader B, since that leaves
A closest to first place.  Instead, A attacks C, which is mostly irrelevant
to the board situation, to set up a situation where C's best move *on*the*
*board* is to attack B.  This is not playing the best board move, nor is
it really playing against the opponents, and therefore is a somewhat
dishonest style of play.  A certainly has the right to attack based on
diplomatic issues, but C has the same right, and A cannot consistently
play diplomatically while insisting that C play tactically.  (Of course,
A is perfectly free to argue otherwise during the game, since convincing
C to do what A wants is part of diplomacy, but complaining of C's play
after the game is tacky.)

This is the case in the Tyrrano Ex game discussed earlier.  

>And if C goes after A when the game is just beginning, while C has as much
>chance to win as anyone, C becomes a player who is not worth playing with.

Obviously.

>Picture a Risk game where one player attacks another on the first turn,
>ensuring that both get eliminated by a third player.  What's the point in
>playing?  This is different from a Risk attack when the game is on the line -
>the player who tries and fails to eliminate another player should expect a
>counterattack, even if it allows a third player to win.
>
Actually, while playing Risk I am likely to attack on my first turn, and
I expect to be attacked on my first turn.  I don't intend or perceive this
as starting game-long enmity.  Suppose I am green, and on the first turn
am attacked by yellow and attack blue.  I won't try for serious revenge
on yellow, don't expect it from blue, and certainly will keep a careful
eye on black.

>I assume the Lasker quote "No bad moves in a lost position" was in relation
>to chess, (Lasker was World Champion).  Of course he's right - but chess is a
>two-player game, and we're discussing multi-player games, where completely
>irrational play may ruin the game (and the evening) for six or seven players.
>The key is "when is a position lost" - better games give players hope, so C
>might be able to wait and rebuild before getting his revenge.

Some multi-player games are better at this than others.  In Risk or Titan,
the losing players are likely to be annihilated, and therefore can go do
something else.  In Republic of Rome, it's almost impossible to be eliminated,
but, until the game is over, each player generally has some chance of
winning.  In Diplomacy, either you have no power to harm another or you
have some slight chance of doing well.  In all of these cases, a player who
is playing to win is not going to disrupt the game for others.

Civilization is a particularly bad game in this respect.  It is impossible
to eliminate a player but possible to effectively destroy a player's chances
of winning, and even the worst-off player can usually pick one other
player and make sure that player doesn't win.  For this reason, I'm not
fond of the original game (the Advanced version is better in this regard,
since it is far harder to destroy all hope).

What do you do, in a multi-player game, when you have no hope of winning
yourself, or achieving a credible finish, but still can affect the play
of the game, and are going to be in the game for several hours yet?
I consider my time reasonably valuable, and intensely dislike sitting
around losing for hours.

DHT
Newsgroups: rec.games.board