Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 11/03/84 (WLS Mods); site fisher.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxr!ulysses!allegra!princeton!astrovax!fisher!david
From: david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin)
Newsgroups: net.games.pbm
Subject: Re: Austria
Message-ID: <685@fisher.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 23-Jun-85 09:10:15 EDT
Article-I.D.: fisher.685
Posted: Sun Jun 23 09:10:15 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 24-Jun-85 06:21:49 EDT
References: <5230@ukc.UUCP><5233@ukc.UUCP><677@fisher.UUCP><5257@ukc.UUCP>
Organization: Princeton University Department of Statistics
Lines: 97

[">>" = David Rubin, ">" = Nige Gale, "" = David Rubin]

>>There is no such thing as a respectable second place finish.  If you
>>do not win or draw, you lose, whether you end with zero centers or
>>sixteen.  Therefore, I would have taken the slim chance that the Russians
>>would come to their senses and stabbed France rather than be an
>>accessory to my own loss.  A 1% chance of sharing a five way draw has
>>a greater expected return than a 100% chance of finishing second to a
>>solo winner.

>The trouble was that Russia had no common border with French occupied
>territory.

It is hard for me to conceive how France could have reached 16 centers
without coming into contact with Russia.  Since you've said that
England was not overrun, we have at most France (3), Low Countries
(2), Iberia (2), Italy (3), and Tunis (1), for a total of 11.  It
seems that France must have dominated Germany (bringing us to 14
French centers), giving Russia a common border on which to exert
considerable, if not maximum, pressure.

>           In order for Russia, England, Turkey and Austria all to bring
>the maximum number of armies to bear on French frontiers (as was necessary,
>and very quickly, too), Russia would have to
>a) abandon her homeland to the mercy of someone the player hates and has
>been persecuting throughout the game

First, maximum pressure often is not necessary; Russia might be able
to apply sufficient pressure from the Baltic to the Alps.

Second, it seems plausible to me.  Assuming that no one wishes to lose
(perhaps too great an assumption), Russia would be perfectly safe to leave
supply centers unguarded, as the power that seizes them destroys
themselves.  Of course, if someone is known to enjoy second-place but
losing positions, one cannot win no matter what one does in that
circumstance.

>b) move through my own similarly undefended homeland without snatching
>a couple of supply points from someone the player hates

See above. 

>Not 1%
>much, much less.

Not if all the players fully understand what the rules have to say
about what constitutes a win and a loss, and act accordingly.

>What the Hell is a five-way draw anyway?
>We were playing to conclusion

The conclusion is not necessarily a win by one power.  If, by mutual
agreement, the game ends without a single power winning, all players
with any units share equally in the draw.  A five way draw occurs when
the powers who still have a chance to win outright are weaker than the
powers who do not if the latter group remains collectively as strong.
Rather than accept a defeat, the weaker powers band together to demand
that the stronger share the victory with them.

Only if someone makes a serious miscalculation can someone win
outright.  A well-played game on all sides will usually result in a draw,
either static or dynamic.

>Immediately after that game, we started a new one, and I was placed
>right next to the player who had been playing France (who I decided
>not to backstab and allowed to win in the previous game).
>He was Turkey, and I Russia.
>Now if I had just done a vicious backstab, I wouldn't be in a very
>good position in this game, would I?
>In my first year at University, there was this person whose first
>action, whenever he formed an alliance, was to betray it. Eventually
>everyone else's first action, whenever a game started, was to ally
>against him & put him out of the game.
>Personal and emotional considerations must be taken into account when
>playing against people you have to see the next day.
>Trust does carry between games.
>So if your chances of winning the current game are zero or less, perhaps
>it is a good idea to plan for the next...

Reputation does carry over, and is legitimate cause for concern.

However, abandoning one game so as to maximize your chances in the
next in unsporting; there ought to be no linkage (other than appraisal
of style) between two games.  Your chances of winning any game is
ALWAYS above zero; trading off that chance, tacitly ("I'll get on his
good side for the future.") or overtly ("If you help me win this game,
I'll help you win the next.") for a better chance in a different game
is to create a connection between games that ought not be there.

If it was critically important to you for reasons of style to be
deemed trustworthy, the sporting thing to do was not to allow the
French player to win, but to inform the French player that, as it
appeared he was not going to equitably share his victory with you, you
found yourself compelled to oppose him.

					David Rubin
			{allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david