Gamesmanship

[delatbabel]

I am sorry to have to report that elements of gamesmanship are starting to creep in to the fringes of the community of people playing this game.

Probably at its core is the slow pace of updates for the game, the many serious and game-breaking bugs encountered discouraging players from sticking with the game, and the generally lower level of interest in gamers in the Napoleonic era games compared to, say, modern / WWII era games. Which is a pity, because when it's played well there are few games that are better or more nerve-racking (at times, when it comes to selecting chits) than Empires in Arms.

One of the side effects of this are the many players that are in multiple games at the same time. Recently, until withdrawing from 4, I was in 8 games. I am now down to 4 and won't join in any more, for reasons of gamesmanship that I have encountered.

Recently, I have seen:

* Player A and player B are at war in game 1, and player A is winning handily. As a result, player B declares war on player A in game 2.

* Player A and player B are at war (with an alliance of other players on each side) in game 1. Player A is winning, marginally but not convincingly. Player A and player B are drawn into a war started by other powers in game 2. Player B's side seems to be winning well in that war. As a peace condition in game 2, player B demands that player A surrender in game 1 to reduce the harshness of the peace terms in game 2.

* Player A loaning money to player B in game 1, in exchange for which player B loans money to player A in game 2.

This is the sort of thing that makes my stomach turn. I'm not going to get involved in naming names here, but I hope we can stamp this out before it becomes accepted practice.

I apologise publically to all of the players in all of the games that I have recently withdrawn from, but without getting into a name-calling match I am not going to go into further explanations. I am simply not going to put up with this sort of behaviour, it is a blight on the hobby and an act of knavery of the worst kind.

[DCWhitworth]

To me I think it is a case of people not being able to play the game in isolation from the rest of their life, of not being able to distinguish between in-game feelings and out of game feelings. I've had in-game slanging matches with people but remained perfectly good friends outside the game, but some people can't do that.

Also the idea of across game trades I would also find intolerable. To find that a game I have spent many months, even years of time is being influenced by a game I don't even know exists would be not just infuriating but a down right betrayal of the game itself and the people in it who have invested so much time.

[Dancing Bear]

I quit these games too, if I found out that this was happening.

[DCWhitworth]

ORIGINAL: Dancing Bear

I quit these games too, if I found out that this was happening.

I wouldn't want to leave the game unless the players in the game were OK with what had happened, I'd want to see the offender ejected.

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: delatbabel

I am sorry to have to report that elements of gamesmanship are starting to creep in to the fringes of the community of people playing this game.

Probably at its core is the slow pace of updates for the game, the many serious and game-breaking bugs encountered discouraging players from sticking with the game, and the generally lower level of interest in gamers in the Napoleonic era games compared to, say, modern / WWII era games. Which is a pity, because when it's played well there are few games that are better or more nerve-racking (at times, when it comes to selecting chits) than Empires in Arms.

One of the side effects of this are the many players that are in multiple games at the same time. Recently, until withdrawing from 4, I was in 8 games. I am now down to 4 and won't join in any more, for reasons of gamesmanship that I have encountered.

Recently, I have seen:

* Player A and player B are at war in game 1, and player A is winning handily. As a result, player B declares war on player A in game 2.

* Player A and player B are at war (with an alliance of other players on each side) in game 1. Player A is winning, marginally but not convincingly. Player A and player B are drawn into a war started by other powers in game 2. Player B's side seems to be winning well in that war. As a peace condition in game 2, player B demands that player A surrender in game 1 to reduce the harshness of the peace terms in game 2.

* Player A loaning money to player B in game 1, in exchange for which player B loans money to player A in game 2.

This is the sort of thing that makes my stomach turn. I'm not going to get involved in naming names here, but I hope we can stamp this out before it becomes accepted practice.

I apologise publically to all of the players in all of the games that I have recently withdrawn from, but without getting into a name-calling match I am not going to go into further explanations. I am simply not going to put up with this sort of behaviour, it is a blight on the hobby and an act of knavery of the worst kind.

You need new players, this should NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT be happening and is totally unacceptable.