Twilight Imperium 3 - Sunday 24th April 2016

JohnH wrote:I goaded Jamie into going overboard on his vendettas...

Did you? I didn't notice.

Anyhow, I thought you were the specialist when it came to vendettas? It does seem like, ever since that game of Eclipse, you've have this massive bee in your bonnet, and consistently (every game) you go out of your way to try and **** me off.

Right now, I'm feeling like I never want to play that game again; and that's nothing to do with the outcome (who won etc) and everything to do with the manner or spirit in which it's played. It's a shame I feel this way, because I think it's a pretty awesome game.

For example, that thing of making a deal, taking a player's trade goods and then not delivering on that deal. That's just plain BS, there's no need for that kind of thing, and I can't see that it adds anything, other than helping to create a toxic atmosphere.

It's explicit in the rules that swapping of TGs is not a binding agreement and it works on table dynamics. Call it a lesson .

Plus - if you are referring to the single TG I took off you... I gave you that back pretty much straight away - and you still attacked home system... Not exactly an eye for an eye? Or am I missing something?

It's not a vendetta if I'm attacking you to get victory points Jamie, don't take it so personally. Baiting you into going off the rails this time was originally done so we could mess stuff up together as I thought I was out of the game, and I figured you'd join me in having some big battles. Jokes were even being made about watching the galaxy burn.

Before you start complaining about people not following through on agreements, you may want to recall promising Aneurin you'd move out of his home system, and not doing so. Or saying you'd move out of where that victory point is when I said I would prefer it to be empty so that we wouldn't have to fight. You seem fine with being treacherous when it suits you but act all indignant when it goes against you. It happens, fair enough be pissed about it at the time (like I clearly was at some points) but don't think it's done just because it's you. If anything, you not seeing it coming is noone's fault but your own, most likely due to inexperience with the game (as 3 more experienced people at the table all said what card Aneurin was going to give you), and maybe it's just something that you have to chalk off as learning from for the next time. Don't trust Aneurin.

Since Eclipse the only game I've played with you has been either Avalon or the 2 games of TI3. This is largely because I don't want to take 8hours over games that I would play in 4hours usually. It's jsut not how I like to play, which I think is fine. I don't think we've had a run in with Avalon (how could we), but the stuff in TI3 has been purely for in game reasons on my part, it's not personal, you just always seem to respond in a predictable way (in terms of wanting revenge, to destroy enemies etc).

Aneurin wrote:It's explicit in the rules that swapping of TGs is not a binding agreement and it works on table dynamics. Call it a lesson .

I still can't see how conning people out of their trade goods, adds anything to the game. Sure, it's in the rules, but for me, it does nothing but create an unpleasant vibe. I wouldn't do it. It's a strange one though, because while I feel that kind of thing is out of order (to my mind, it's a form of dishonesty that goes beyond the context of the game), I don't see any problem with, say, breaking an alliance on turn 8 in Eclipse; or lying in a game of Avalon (to my mind, both of those things are part and parcel of the game).

That's just how I see it, of course, other people may (will) see things differently, and 'draw the line' in a different place to where I do. It's an intresting one, and there's bound to be conflict where people have differing ideas on what's acceptable and what isn't.

Aneurin wrote:Plus - if you are referring to the single TG I took off you... I gave you that back pretty much straight away - and you still attacked home system... Not exactly an eye for an eye? Or am I missing something?

I can't remember the exact details. I suspect the deal was a Tom-esk "I get my TG back, and I won't spend the rest of the game on a mission to wipe you out". I don't think I would have taken it as a bribe not to attack your home system, when I was fully intent on doing so, in order to get 2 VP's (my preliminary and a public objective). I did move my War Sun out on the next round, and would have taken my flagship had it been able to move 3.

Did you see it differently?


John, thanks for taking the time to respond. I'll reply to your post in more detail once I've had time to digest and clarify my own thoughts.

Take care everyone, kind regards,
Jamie.

Jamie wrote:I still can't see how conning people out of their trade goods, adds anything to the game. Sure, it's in the rules, but for me, it does nothing but create an unpleasant vibe. I wouldn't do it. It's a strange one though, because while I feel that kind of thing is out of order (to my mind, it's a form of dishonesty that goes beyond the context of the game), I don't see any problem with, say, breaking an alliance on turn 8 in Eclipse; or lying in a game of Avalon (to my mind, both of those things are part and parcel of the game).

Mechanically speaking its a short-term vs long-term balance.

Stiffing someone on an agreement has a short term benefit of you not having to give up $whateverYouPromised but has the long term consequence that a) the stiffee will potentially be looking for revenge later on and b) everyone else will be wary of dealing with you in the future.

Meanwhile should you hold to your word you are worse off in the short term but potentially better off in the long run.

Given the nature of the game (admittedly I've only played the once) - this is extremely thematic (its a game of interstellar politics and domination after all - you would expect alliances and agreements to last exactly as long as it's beneficial for both parties and no further) and, as has been pointed out, enshrined in the rules - while it sucks to be on the receiving end you don't, unfortunately, have a great deal of right to complain about it.

DaveB wrote:...while it sucks to be on the receiving end you don't, unfortunately, have a great deal of right to complain about it.

I don't think I'm complaining about it. Oh god, maybe I am? I'm just saying I feel it doesn't add anything positive to the game, and that it creates a bad vibe. That's my opinion, and it's no less valid, for not aligning with what's written in the rules. Also, I'm not expecting anyone to change anything (neither the game, house rules or themselves) to suit me. Quite possibly other people have no issue with this particular aspect of the game; and that's fine. It's just one element of several which contributed to making the game a quite unpleasant experience for me..

There's a lot more to this than meets the eye; however, it's probably unwise and unfair of me to single out individuals and raise this stuff here (not least because it may reflect badly on the club). So, if I've handled any of this in an inappropriate or unfair manner; I apologise for that.

The solution is brilliantly simple of course; if something isn't working for you (for whatever reason), stop doing it. Complaining or bitching about anything, no matter how justified you feel, is pretty futile, and very rarely will yield a positive outcome.