Doctor Fate wrote:I don't think this game is representative of much. Bartalone is someone I like, but he is given to some bellicosity. I would note he has toned it down a LOT over the past few years. He's a good player with some holes in his game that are due to his very strong sense that there is only one approach to the game . . . his.
I think that the shouting was hard from a long way away. The guy organising the little UK tourney I was at this weekend was quite annoyed to see an article like this come out just beforehand. There were a few late dropouts which could just be people not following through (which is common, if annoying for a TD trying to get enough for 2 boards), but if they read that I can understand their reluctance.
The thing we really don't have is arguments about draws. It's a very simple thing - we either publicly veto (which almost never happens, and when it does it's obvious why), or we have a secret ballot.
Same. I really dislike the secret ballot. It may be democratic, but it's a bit silly.
"Why wasn't the peace treaty signed?"
"I dunno. I suppose some country didn't sign it."
"Dunno. They all say they signed it."
"Um, right. The old secret and anonymous treaty signing."
But in every game where there's been a draw vote in which I played ftf, there's been no wrangling about it. As it's DIAS or solo only, that does mean that if you want to exclude someone from the draw you have to actually knock them out.
Most tournaments are DIAS. I think it's more sensible that way.
I guess it depends on how new players are treated. We had a new guy turn up to MidCon last year, and we did not totally screw him over. He came back for YorkCon this weekend. And we had two postgrad students this weekend who had never done a tourney before and one had never played a house game ftf either. Treating these guys with respect and good humour, and forgiving misorders or mistakes (while not forgetting and certainly not avoiding taking advantage of them) is what keeps people coming back. Unless we only want sociopaths and masochists...
I think that's right, but . . . if you go to a "championship" as your first event, I think you've got to expect something other than kid gloves. I know what you mean, and I've seen that/done it at smaller events. Further, I like a bit of "niceness" in my games--not being overly nitpicky.
Ecton I don't really understand, so I won't comment.
Spinning a newb a line that you are going to carebear them and then stabbing them is not unknown, and it's a good object lesson for them. But there are ways to do it.
Sorry, no, I meant him in a general sense. He's got a playing style I don't much care for.
But, putting those two on the same board as a noob/reporter was a mistake. It was like adding vinegar to baking soda and hoping for the best.
There do seem to be some interesting draws at Chapel Hill. Random or seeding would not appear to result in some of those combinations - does Mr Hood come up with it himself?
Yes. I have not asked him, but I know at least some of the games were not random at all. For example, I agreed beforehand to be in the NPR/Ambassador Ross game (not knowing that Ross would be there, but understanding it would be recorded). That was probably a mistake. I might have placed or even won had it not been for that round.
As for being into alliance play, I am. Bartalone introduced me to something I loathe: chaos theory-style. In a nutshell, you don't commit; you agitate. The goal is to get your neighbors mad at each other, join in on the stronger side, and wipe them both out. I can see it working sometimes, but if you are facing alliance types, it may be too slow to resolve one side of the board.
Over here we are generally playing a short game - up to 07, or 09 if we have a longer session. And our clock time is one chunk for diplomacy and order writing rather than them being split.
Most games end by 07-09 over here. However, not having a limit set beforehand does permit a more natural flow. I'm quite certain there's a real edginess 3-4 turns before game end over in the C-Diplo type of system. I may find out--I'd like to go to Milan next year.
So boards don't tend to always 'resolve' - and any solos would be a result of seriously bad play by others (more so than in longer or open-ended games). Chaotic players tend to get pounced on, if they are too flakey.
So, in DC last year, both of my immediate neighbors were doing this and it took me several turns to sort it out. They would not "lie" per se; they simply tried not to agree to much, hoping relations with the others would worsen. I find it a maddening approach.
But then again if the game is too predictable, if someone is not prepared to switch on their ally, then it can make for a boring game. I don't want a game like Agricola where you can spot who will win from the first few moves. being the chaotic one can be useful in the end game - because when it comes to dot-grabbing in the last year you don't want to be easy to predict, and you want everyone to know they can work with you if they make a good case.
I've played Agricola just once. Enjoyed it, but I did not know it was quite so predictable.
My best game, coincidentally, had two Brits on it. I set out to make sure one did not conquer the board. I knew he needed a win to win the tournament. I knew he would play for it. He was England and I was Russia, so it seemed likely I would be his first or second target. Dan Lester is a very nice guy and a fantastic player, but I was not going to "let" him do anything.
Dan is good, and most of the UK players are really nice guys - I make no claims on my part.
When you have a tournament leader on your table, or one of the potential winners, of course you try to keep them down. It's a great alliance-building tool. of course, when you have the two guys who can win the tourney on your board in the last game (England and Germany to your France as it was for me yesterday), it's going to be painful.
One might suppose this to be the case--stop the leader. However, we come back to Ecton. Ecton was Russia to my Turkey in a game in which the eventual champion was Italy. Thomas Haver, again a very nice guy, was the Italian. The Austrian was someone I'd played before, yet was not aware of how easily cowed he was. Ecton and Haver convinced him to go with them vs. me. Now, that's fine in most cases. I don't even mind when it is against me. However, in this case, it handed the championship to Haver. I tried everything to change things, but to no avail. I did last 5 years against the AIR, even destroying Ecton's southern fleet and taking Sev and Rum from him at one point. I do not know and it was not said, but I suspect Ecton rather wanted to prove something against me rather than take the larger picture into consideration. Hey, whatever floats his boat.