When CTP2 comes out

[TheBirdMan]

Well - what do you say (US pbem)?

Don't mention too much about misspellings an so.....

------------------
Woodstock was here!

[TheBirdMan]

As I have wrote before:

A tread of AH has to used to something useful.


Now: St Jon wrote, that i APQS, Swissy was in lead until the rest joined and gave him a kick.?! What had he done before to deserve this

By accident, the same has just happened to him in US pbem. And I can tell you why - it's simple. He was in lead and he didn't want anyone to finish The Internet (he had both LE and Edisons). We had no other choice.

But one thing came out of this game - and I do think a lot about it. We shouldn't in any game join up all against one - this isn't really fair. Not unless "the one" is far-far-far ahead of the rest - something the double or more in ranking. Personally I'll stick to this in the future.

In other words:
8 players - max. 6 ally against 2,
7 and 6 players - max. 4 ally
5 players - max. 3 ally
and so on down.

No commitments to do so - but the games has to be fun too .

[St Jon]

Sorry Birdman, but I think you are way off the mark with this one. You cannot put arbitary rules on the tactics that Players adopt in a Game or attempt to force them into adopting policies that will lead to defeat in the name of 'fair play'.

It is true that Swissy stood no realistic chance when the rest of us attacked him in APQS but had we not, I am the one cast as the villain again because nobody would move until I did, his ultimate victory was assured. It was turning into a walk in the park for him and the simple choice was to either accept defeat and surrender or attempt to redress the balance and turn it back into a Game! This is the way the 'real' World works and CtP is nothing but a grand simulation of the Centuries long struggle for ultimate Global suzreignty and should function in the same way.

If you rise to the top of the pile you are there to be shot down, as you would be in reality, and not expect everyone else to just say 'well done' and give up. As a Global Superpower you should expect this and plan accordingly. It's no less dangerous for the weakest in the Game as there is always someone looking for an easy kill, is this unfair? Life's a ***** and CtP should, and does, reflect this!

Jon

[TheBirdMan]

You are right Jon.

That's what I write too.

If any is in the lead - sole and clear - then everything is allowed.

[quinns]

Wow! What a good exchange! Just read it today.

[TheBirdMan]

CTP - delinquent or not?

This is from a e-mail echange with Quinn about above.

I have addes some smilies to the post, that's all:


To Steve Quinns

I have no expiriences in the ranking system. As for the delay of sending turn, it's not unusual . I know the "names" for 5-6 players, that are just so #§¤ X¤& # to play with, cause they often forget to take their turns or they take it and forget to forward it. Often the reason is, that they are busy - but that happens to all of us from time to time .


Max/thebirdman

-----Original Message-----
From: Steve and Jeanette Quinn
To: Max Reiff
Sent: 17-11-2000 02:47
Subject: Re: CTP - delinquent or not?

Hello Max,

I don't know what's wrong with Solver. I sent him the below message.
What
do you suggest? You've had more experience with this. (Personally, I'm
starting to get tired of all this administrative turn tracking and
prompting
that I seem to do now.)

Best regards,

Steve

----- Original Message -----
From: "Max Reiff"
To:
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2000 11:56 AM
Subject: CTP - delinquent or not?


> Info:
>
> Can't post on the forum right now - only read .
>
> I have recieved turns from Solver both the 14th and today. But only
turns
> for Do Some PBEM (also called SOW).
>
> Max/thebirdman
>


Now I'll start a tread called "I'm not here" where to submit a small post if busy for more than a day or so. Then this could be the first place to check if the turn is late. Would the turn be taken within a reasonable time? Yes . Maybe . No .
[This message has been edited by TheBirdMan (edited November 17, 2000).]