SpielByWeb

[fteplin]

Just out of curiousity, please go check out the game "First time with 3 players". Read the messages, and then post your thoughts here. Thank you!

[artman]

OK. I've read the message posts. I've played 3 LIVE games of Wallenstein, and this is definitely collusion against Lotsa Blots. Way to much table talk. However, it is just a game. And I would try to win it anyway and do my best. I wouldn't quit, since I would view it as a challenge. It's not like you're playing for money. However, everyone is different, and Lotsa Blots seems to have taken it a bit personally. So I recommend just backing off of the table talk. Either way try and have fun.

[fteplin]

If I'm playing a game and feel like players are conducting too much table talk, to the point where it's interfering with my enjoyment of the game, I'd simply ask them to stop. "Pardon me, but I feel like that's too much table talk. Would you mind stopping?" At that point, if they refused, I would then either decide to grin and bear it (after all, it's just a game), or make the decision to leave.

I feel that if lotsa blots had asked us to stop talking in a manner he was uncomfortable with, I would of course been happy to do so.

According to my dictionary, "collusion" is "A secret agreement between two or more parties for a fraudulent, illegal, or deceitful purpose." It may just be a difference of opinion, but I just don't see that here.

[louplouop]

For me, all the subtlety of Wallenstein lies in the deduction of the planing of other players on the basis of what I can deduce from the game itself like ressources, troops, events ... and not from what players are telling.
If other players talk about their own strategy (even if it is not against myself) then there is no more interest for the game.
For me Wallenstein is more a game of management (I would say risk management) than a wargame. And surely not a game of diplomacy.
For this reason, I understand the reaction of lotsa blots.

I hope this meaning will help you too to understand the reaction of lotsa blots.

[artman]

"Collusion", was the wrong term to use. You did "gang" up on him due to your "table talk". The problem isn't ganging up on him. That can happen during the course of any game as players are positioning themselves according to their own strategies that they feel are in their best interests, and I've seen it happen several times. The difference is the "table talk".

Anyway, I don't mean to make to big a deal of this. I do agree with louplouop's point.

[benji68]

Just a word from the other party involved in that "collusion":

First of all, fteplin made a suggestion. Even if I said I was going to follow it, there is no way fteplin could be sure I woud actually do that and not attack his weakened provinces. For me, that's part of the game - and yes - diplomacy plays a BIG part in it.

If you trust the other player regarding agreements, that has as much to do with risk management as playing the cards.

It's interesting to see that online playing of Wallenstein is so much different from live playing. Table talk is absolutely crucial there. People are not going to just sit at the table and not say a word about their next turn. Without diplomacy, you don't last a year, and even WITH diplomacy you STILL can't be sure what your opponent (after all, only one player is going to win) will do. In my opinion, the "diplomacy"-part only enhances gameplay.

The reason it started in the first place was that fteplin and I were huting each other so badly that lotsa was going to win uncontested. This is of course more likely to happen in a three player game than in a four- or five player game. Talking to each other - and gagnging up on the uncontested leader - was the reasonable thing to do, to even have a chance in this game. Of course in the long run it's in everybodys interest that the other two keep fighting...

[artman]

I see your point benji68.

I suppose there is no real wrong or right in regards to this table talk / diplomacy / alliance (ganging up) discussion. In the games I've played with the actual board game, there were no discussions about forming alliances. But I can see games being played with the actual board game where people could form alliances. Even though I personally feel this game is about planning and executing your strategies on your own, I can't say that it is unfair or wrong to form alliances.

[bloodylarry]

I would agree with lotsa. In the online game it is rahter rare to see alliances that strong. Especially at 3 players, where that owlu leave no chance to lotsa to win. The 2 weaker players shouldn't to make tohse plans out loud and that obviously, they should think and not attack each other if they want to, but only if they don't talk over it like that. Again, I feel that at 3 players it is the worse, as the remaining player feels that he's got nobody to make an alliance with.

[fteplin]

Whatever your opinion on the level of discussion in a game, alliances or no, my question is: what would have been the better way to handle this situation, or ANY situation when you feel players in a game are acting inappropriately?

Method # 1: That's it, guys. I'm out. No more game.

Method # 2: I feel as if the level of discussion and agreement in this game has progressed far beyond what I'm comfortable with. Please refrain from discussing specific plans or actions. Thank you.

In all honesty, if lotsa had simply told us his feelings, I would've had no problem with complying. It's the use of Method # 1 that bothers me.

[artman]

Everyone's different. I also think that Method #2 is the better of the two. It is the one I would have chosen. No, that's a lie, I would of kept my mouth shut, and put up the good fight (and lost), too much pride on my part. But it does upset me when people quit a game just because things are not going their way. I guess what I'm saying is, I like people who are NOT quitters, and who will finish the game out, even when there is no chance for them to win. I have had my fair share of games where I don't quit, even though there is no chance of me winning. It may be a courtesy thing as well as a fighter instinct in me. Just because you can't win, doesn't mean you have to spoil the fun for others.

[greygamer]

I think that an inherant problem with 3 player games (not just Wallenstein) is that a two against one situation that can occur either with or without it being blatent. If the players had contacted each other by another means you wouldn't even know (for sure) that they were co-ordinating their moves to such a degree.

Funnily enough the very first game of Wallenstein I played here was a three player game, I jumped out to a decisive lead and was quite worried that the other two players would completely blitz me in Year 2. Fortunately for me they didn't, but to this day I am very wary of establishing too big a lead in Year 1.

I agree that I would fight to the end though, too stubborn (or dumb) too quit

[bloodylarry]

In fact, I also think that people shouldn't quit the game before the end of it, and I would have fought until the end too. But I understand lotsa's reaction.