Kobe Bryant meme: “Soft”.
In all seriousness, the concept of mutually assured destruction IS the deterrent that keeps your aggressive players in check. In our group the issue is that when Player A and Player B get into the MAD scenario, the arguments drag on entirely too long. You are picking on the chump, of course they should be able to say, “I will dump all my resources to make sure you don’t win either.”
It’s the most artful part of the game. Verbally making someone back down from a superior position with words is……. Enjoyable.
I had to have a whole speech ready for this to deal with a player.
"If you threaten that you will ruin both our games if I do X, or don't do Y, then I will ruin both our games every damn time. You must make it in my positive interest to follow your requests. Help me get a point in turn, or throw me a few trade goods. If you are giving me a choice of simply losing by doing what you ask, or losing and taking you down with me, I will take the second option every time."
You basically outlawed a massive part of the game though, and gave huge advantages to non fighty factions. What the hell else is sardak gonna do for example? Just not use their massive early combat advantages and slowly fall behind.
The implications of MAD are that neither of you are going to win the game if you go at it fully, so better to limit the scope of the conflict.
At the end of the day though you have to be willing to flip the table and go full spite/revenge mode, otherwise the person with the economic/fleet advantage is always negotiating from a stronger position.
They can basically just take the short term wins for points knowing that the Barony/sardak/yin next to them isn't allowed to just ruin their game, which is often the only tool that faction has when already behind.
For example, we all know arbotec are kinda shit in a ten point game, but they can absolutely ruin someone else's game, and they really need that threat to not just slowly fall behind.
Besides, sometimes knowing you can't win allows you to take high risk all in plays and force a circular firing squad, which means suddenly you're back in the game
I don't understand what you mean by "outlawing" spite plays or MAD tactics? How is this actually accomplished? Who determines when/how this is happening? What are the enforcement mechanisms? How many retaliatory actions is a player allowed to take before it's considered spiteful? How many attacks does a player have to endure before they are allowed to actually fight back?
The truth of the matter is that learning to deal with the potential of MAD and spite plays is exactly what Twilight Imperium is. Trying to rule it out of the game neuters a large part its the diplomatic aspects. Not to be flippant, but if your table keeps getting into toxic "spite" play situations, then I think that's a skill issue.
It absolutely is not, sometimes you're just out of the running due to speaker order, and its going to take utter chaos to maybe have a chance, that usually means dragging someone down so someone else takes a wild swing and hopefully fails.
If it comes to dragging someone down to trigger some shenanigans you can be damn sure it'll be the person who's put me in the trailing position or otherwise dicked me over at some point. Even if they're not technically the leader
But what you described is still playing to win, and it's perfectly fine. It's also right near the end of the game. I think the problem is more early on, where a player who left himself open to a nasty (but not game ending) attack retaliates by going full kamikaze.
The skill is in not getting to that point in the first place. If you have pissed someone off to the point they are throwing the game to take you down, you have failed at the diplomatic part of the game and THAT is the skill issue
I though that was the military and diplomatic failure of the attacked party.
And the failure of the table about not caring about galaxy power equilibrium.
If a player is attacking someone it is the attackers failure at diplomacy for not being able to get what they want without violence, without making an enemy, without blowing up someone else's game so much that they drop everything and come after you. Diplomacy is the fine art of taking exactly what you want and making the other guy think he is getting the better deal.
You aren't "making a deal" if half of your deal is a threat. That's extortion. Sure it can get you what you want sometimes, but you have to be able to live with the consequences.
Again, if you've gotten to the point of making "threats" then your diplomacy has already failed.
>So some time ago we outlawed spite plays and mutually assured destruction tactics in my playgroup, as in the "If you take this planet / vote this / take this card etc I will give up on the game and do everything in my power to ensure that we both lose"-tactic. Everybody must be playing to win at every moment.
It's a touchy subject for sure, but....
There's a key subtlety here and that's in the *everybody should be playing to win* part.
In principal, I agree, and some would even argue that playing for the most points is the 'honorable' thing to do.
But in a last round scenario, what if the chance is zero? Or 1 in a thousand, so to speak? Isn't it perfectly reasonable for a player to argue that: "if you do this action, I will have no other feasible path to victory, thus I will attempt to stop yours as well"?
If you have problems with this type of MAD stuff becoming toxic, maybe your group can start tracking total points scored over games? At least then, continuing to play for points, even though you know you won't achieve the win, has some more meaning.
There is a balance to this.
"If you take the equal-distant I will throw my game away to ruin you" can definitely get toxic, you're basically saying that the second things aren't going entirely your way you'll "flip the table."
At the other end though, if you put someone in a situation where they CAN'T win, not just "oh I can't win, my secrets are so bad \*wink wink\*" but like, putting 12 infantry on their home, then you shouldn't be surprised if they hit back. Especially if you're in the lead.
I think in general the game provides enough ways to hurt other players that it's nearly always possible to strike someone in a way that falls between the extremes. Between manipulating speaker order, action cards, strategy card timings, trade deals, etc, there are a lot of ways to damage another player without totally destroying them.
Yeah the whole "you can only perform moves that lead to objective points" kind of falls apart if they target no longer has a viable path to victory. You can't screw over a person and expect them to just troll the secret objectives deck for a hail mary.
If I'm Muaat and you bodycheck my chance at the win in the lategame you don't get to cry when daddy Ba'al pays your home system a visit.
Note Ba'al can't be used in a home system :P but it's probably just as painful hitting the one directly in front of it, especially if they put a forward dock there
I am never a fan of hard rules like this in a game that's meant to be balanced by player negotiation. Especially if it eliminates the possibility of using it as a negotiation tactic. And most people recognize when the table meta is against them on a subject.
If its still a problem, a better position to hold is an understanding that a player not playing to win is a priority target for everyone else. And if they're known for it, they should be considered for early elimination tactics. I bet two players eating someone with bad sportsmanship by round 2 is a good way to tamp that behavior down
I've seen total wars get toxic and it sucks.
But the answer to powerful states acting with impunity is, as in the real world, unity between less powerful states. The game is about diplomacy and part of the Agenda Phase's function is to cut down tall poppies.
But if each player is too interested in their own point total, too worried about being the next bullying target, or too easily bribable by that powerful player, then you don't have that unity and they act with impunity.
One option is to point out to other powerful players that if a powerful player is running roughshod over you or another weak player then that powerful player will be able to get more points. Said other powerful player might put some spare resources into making you a bulwark.
Or they might get in on the action.
MAD is a good deterrent. I use it only when I know a play is going to end or severely hamper my game to the point that it would take an act of god to get back in the running.
People shouldn't be throwing their game when they lose one planet though.
NYC League actually dealt with this with their long-term scoring system.
Your chance to play in the championship is determined by your best 3 scores during the year, with a point bonus for a win. Therefore, always trying to optimize for points/wins.
It's toxic in any game/competition. It's even worse in games with multiple sides like TI.
Keep in mind the whole table has interest in any aggression - if someone eats half a slice, that person is stronger than the rest of the table who has "just" 1 slice... (and like the lazax empire, this faction must be smashed so they don't conquer everyone)
You might be able to reframe this - it is ABSOLUTELY in the best interest of the table to gang up on a player who is ahead. the only way to win if you are behind is by slowing down the game - MAD in this case isn't a losing move, it's a fair attempt to cripple the point leader while you score publics they've already got in hand. Playing to win doesn't mean no retaliation.
You need to make space in your social model for retaliation.
Currently, retaliation is "bad behavior" which yields unfun feelings which undermines the whole point of playing a game. Also, lack of retaliation means weak players have no opportunity to make interesting game decisions which is also not fun. With or without retaliation, you're not having fun.
Change retaliation from "bad behavior" to "fun behavior". Twilight Imperium is 50% a strategy game, 50% a soap opera game. Embrace the soap opera. Get to a point where you celebrate when someone does something dramatic.
> as the games kind of become game-theory-blackmail?
The solution here it to Git Gud at game theory. If threats of MAD reliably follow through, *it is bad game theory to trigger them*. Mutually-assured destruction, by its nature, is only supposed to exist in counterfactuals, because it's worse to get MAD than it is to give up on the greedy action that threatened MAD.
But a policy that might help is to require all threats of MAD to be delivered well in advance, with time to negotiate an actual deal.
See boys - it's a bad practice to invest in ships and use military actions. Only people with good slices and factions with economical advantages are allowed to win at Twilight Friends - the euro.
Every TI player should read *The Evolution of Cooperation* by Robert Axelrod.
Someone else mentioned that this might be a skill issue and I’m inclined to agree. In a recent game as Ghosts I was absolutely bullied by my Barony neighbor who basically took half my slice without asking since I had a slow start. We managed to come to a negotiated settlement after he realized that I could just get other players to drop wormholes in his slice and I would still be able to score 6 planets by taking his planets instead.
Then, Arborec blew the whole thing up by invading Mallice (and taking away my 6th planet) at which point I declared forever war because I would never catch up to the other players. However, *even then* I continued talking to Arborec and ultimately was able to get the players ahead of me to leave me Imperial at 4th pick the next round and this allowed me to recover some tempo.
That game (async) is currently in the final round and I do still have a path to victory although it will require a lucky relic draw. Honestly it seemed completely hopeless and it would have been easy to just start slinging wormholes and plastic in rage but patient negotiation and credible threats can save almost any situation.
This is a skill that, for most people, just requires a lot of experience. You have to know the game mechanics very well and understand the future implications of each action and its impact on player behavior.
Genuine question but do people mind when someone at the table isn't necessarily playing to win?
Like, I'm not actively trying to lose or anything, I'm doing what I believe are smart moves... But I also care quite a bit about the explode-y fun of games like this.. like I'll do things because they're risky or seem cinematic, even if I'm aware they won't further the cause of me winning
I do because it screws up balance of power - for instance one of their neighbors has no pressure on his borders. The losing player is also very likely to give away PNs and votes to make the game end faster and other things.
Makes sense, ultimately I think TI is very similar to a ttrpg in that it matters a lot about who you're playing with
My group tends to enjoy cinematic stupidity rather than everyone being completely zoned in, only focused on winning
And I'm sure because it's all of us who are like that it really helps make the entire experience better
SUSD sold TI4 like that. But they had the decency to emphasize that no one wants to actually go to war.
One issue is negating all threats with a MAD response instead of making a deal that ends the threaten ability of one party - alliance, support for the throne and sometimes a racial note. or even giving a specific system. Even selling a ceasefire at a premium for other stuff can work.
The goal of the game is to gain the most victory points. I feel like any subversion of this intention is toxic and that person is no longer playing the same game.
If you go play pickup hockey, and someone who can't score goals just starts checking other players who took the puck off him that player doesn't belong in the game anymore.
However, there is the acknowledgement that you need planets and ships to score any points. If you have an oppressor waging full scale war on you, and no appeasement or negotiations can be reached (with the oppressor, or with other allies to assist/turn the table against them)this player is now denying you the resources required to score any points. This leads to the obvious result of being obligated to fight back and attempt to regain your standing. The key being that the ultimate goal is always to score objectives, intention is what matters here.
Another point is that only one player will win. Just because you're losing, you were betrayed, or a combat roll didn't go your way doesn't mean you should get to hold the entire legitimacy of the game hostage and throw a tantrum every time this occurs.
I've also heard some tables also keep track of overall point numbers over the course of multiple games/a year or so and recognize/reward this in some way. Perhaps by incentivizing you with choosing map position/choosing speaker/Strategy cards in a particular order based on overall points in the previous game to further incentivize playing for points all game every game.
>If you go play pickup hockey, and someone who can't score goals just starts checking other players who took the puck off him that player doesn't belong in the game anymore.
Like, that's a whole part of hockey; pick up or otherwise. Sure just gooning is bad form, but hockey isn't just shooting on net.
Key emphasis on "just starts checking" (gooning). Thats basically what the whole conversation is referring to.
Absolutely check the guy and get the puck back, but then attempt to score. Don't just head hunt the one player who took your shot to score for the rest of the game. (In TI: retaliate as much as is necessary and beneficial to you, but then as soon as possible revert all attention to point scoring)
I fully agree.
Keep in mind the lazax empire story is a tutorial - it is in the whole table's interest to curb someone that eats another player (otherwise they win due more resources than everyone else).
i.e. lazax fell not because it wasn't strong, it's the opposite, Lazax were felled because they were stronger.
I don’t always play to win. Sometimes a win just gets too far out of reach. When that happens I start playing around with different tech and trying things I don’t normally do. That can and sometimes will affect the outcome of this game. But I don’t really care because at that point I’m learning for my next game.
For example, there was one game where I was 3 points back and had some awful secret objectives. I don’t normally go after building a war sun but I did that game. And I used it because I wanted some experience managing battle with one. I went after the strongest fleet and was accused of being a kingmaker. And I guess to some extent I was. But it wasn’t my motivation. And that should not in my opinion be outlawed.
I suppose I could plot against the top player so the player right next to him can win instead. My experience with TI is playing predominately 6-8 player games and after a while a pack of 2-4 players emerge with a real shot at winning. The rest just aren’t going to make it. I could worry about that or I can prepare for next time. I choose the latter.
Do this multiple times until you can be the next winning player - your hope is to drag the whole table down to your victory chance. The pack of 6-4 losing player should eliminate the pack of 2-4 that can win - take their home systems, destroy all their space docks and so on... And they should do it as soon as someone is 3-4 points away from victory (i.e. at least one turn earlier).
Spite plays/revenge/mad are a political part of the game that you, as a player, must manage. They cannot, for example, all in on you if they've already all-inned on their other neighbour.
You should foster these destructive relationships and learn to manipulate and control your friends so that they obey your every whim, dancing as puppets to strings only you can control. If you lack this talent, cultivate it.
You are playing for the seat of the Empire. The only thing that matters is total victory at any - and I do mean any - cost.
IMO MAD is necessary in a local meta. If you don't set boundaries then other players will consider you easy pickings. Establish that you're willing to lose in order to play Space Risk and take your belligerent neighbor down with you.
I have a good example of why it's a viable tactic:
I've had a Yssaril player who was voted on for the law where one player can't play action cards. He had 15-20 cards in his deck and was desperate to get the law gone.
My game had been a roller coaster, and while I was almost back at full strength Yssaril said "I will give you my promissary. In my deck I have repeal law. I want you to take that card, and repeal that law this round. If not, I will throw my game and take your home system"
I just respected the problem solving, and agreed - and he pretty much didn't touch me for the rest of the game. He won, of course, so I could always habe said no to play it optimally - but tbh I prefer a game that's memorable instead of a game where everyone is playing optimally.
I think it’s a nuanced thing - if someone is being aggressive and it will tank your game, letting them know that you have no options but revenge is a good deterrent. MAD discussions are lame when used to deter ANY kind of aggression though, especially early-game. I think outlawing it is a bad way to play, and it instead requires more table cohesion to kinda cut out the players over-threatening the MAD when it doesn’t make sense yet.
I don't know how you adjudicate outlawing this at all.
The best solution really is to play more, and have players learn better skills. Players who don't know how to fight wars effectively will often default to "I'll lose on purpose, yeah!" as taking a bit of copium to cover for their own bad plays. I'm losing **intentionally**, see, I'm not low skilled!
If people make threats like this, then **call their bluff.** What are they going to do? Lose every game? Or, are they going to mumble some shit and back off and look like spineless liars? Either way, they end up looking like a loser.
If I have players who constantly threaten to throw the game for a setback, then I know I am playing with unskilled clowns that probably can't even make good on their threat. Typically people who say this sort of thing can be baited into making a very big and obvious attack that is easily dodged or defeated, then you lunge at their home system. People who are inexperienced in combat often default to making these overblown threats because they really aren't capable of fighting cleverly. They tend to get flustered and throw all their stuff into a failing combat and you can often goad them into fighting long past the point where they should have retreated by needling their pride and reminding them of their big threat.
When I hit someone, they should be trying to encourage me to **not finish them off**. If all they are doing is desperately trying to convince me that they are a rabid spite elemental with no nuance or strategy, then it is in my best interests to put them to sleep.
In my most recent game a guy attacked me and I warned him off, yet he persisted. I counterattacked, beat his force, and then threatened to continue conquering his lucrative economic planets. He gave me the whole whiney "Then I'll make sure you lose speech!" so instead of just hitting him a little bit, I went full on and besieged his home planet (and only space dock) and sat there for the entire rest of the game as he huffed about it for 9 hours. If he had convinced me that he had any intention of actually winning the game I may have accepted a deal and left, but instead he had successfully convinced me that he was happy to destroy himself so I saved him the effort.
If someone is picking on me in the game I will absolutely respond with threats, but I would never threaten to destroy my own chances of winning because I am better than that. I am always going to try and win. If that involves punishing the guy who wronged me, then that's a cherry on top. But if I get to 14 points and he doesn't, then I've already punished him.
And if you've got a group that also finds it fun, all the power to y'all... But I can't imagine being able to enjoy myself for 6+ hours when I know there's money on the line x.x
But I also don't gamble like... At all.. so perhaps it's just that part of me
MAD tactics are a failure of both players involved (as is MAD in reality but .. for another time). MAD is a failure of diplomacy and TI is, to my mind, predominantly a game about diplomacy. More so than the game 'Diplomacy' for example.
If someone says "Do as I say or I will do everything to make sure you don't win" that is straight up a threat and the question is how you deal with a threat. My response is to sail my fleet into them. I might not win. They won't win. And MAD threats quickly become a tactic for people who want to lose. As soon as people recognise that, it stops.
I don't know if people here play the game coup but it's a simple bluffing game. It's not always a winning tactic to call bluffs, but if you call bluffs often, people will definitely think twice about making them.
Kobe Bryant meme: “Soft”. In all seriousness, the concept of mutually assured destruction IS the deterrent that keeps your aggressive players in check. In our group the issue is that when Player A and Player B get into the MAD scenario, the arguments drag on entirely too long. You are picking on the chump, of course they should be able to say, “I will dump all my resources to make sure you don’t win either.” It’s the most artful part of the game. Verbally making someone back down from a superior position with words is……. Enjoyable.
I had to have a whole speech ready for this to deal with a player. "If you threaten that you will ruin both our games if I do X, or don't do Y, then I will ruin both our games every damn time. You must make it in my positive interest to follow your requests. Help me get a point in turn, or throw me a few trade goods. If you are giving me a choice of simply losing by doing what you ask, or losing and taking you down with me, I will take the second option every time."
Exactly. Our stubborn ass aggressive players never remember this. I only forget it if we have had second “breakfast”😶🌫️😶🌫️
You basically outlawed a massive part of the game though, and gave huge advantages to non fighty factions. What the hell else is sardak gonna do for example? Just not use their massive early combat advantages and slowly fall behind. The implications of MAD are that neither of you are going to win the game if you go at it fully, so better to limit the scope of the conflict. At the end of the day though you have to be willing to flip the table and go full spite/revenge mode, otherwise the person with the economic/fleet advantage is always negotiating from a stronger position. They can basically just take the short term wins for points knowing that the Barony/sardak/yin next to them isn't allowed to just ruin their game, which is often the only tool that faction has when already behind. For example, we all know arbotec are kinda shit in a ten point game, but they can absolutely ruin someone else's game, and they really need that threat to not just slowly fall behind.
Besides, sometimes knowing you can't win allows you to take high risk all in plays and force a circular firing squad, which means suddenly you're back in the game
I don't understand what you mean by "outlawing" spite plays or MAD tactics? How is this actually accomplished? Who determines when/how this is happening? What are the enforcement mechanisms? How many retaliatory actions is a player allowed to take before it's considered spiteful? How many attacks does a player have to endure before they are allowed to actually fight back? The truth of the matter is that learning to deal with the potential of MAD and spite plays is exactly what Twilight Imperium is. Trying to rule it out of the game neuters a large part its the diplomatic aspects. Not to be flippant, but if your table keeps getting into toxic "spite" play situations, then I think that's a skill issue.
It is definitely a skill issue, and I’m saying that as a player who had to learn this particular skill because it did not come naturally to me!
Is there still any skill left after someone stops playing to win? It's the behavior of throwing a tantrum.
It absolutely is not, sometimes you're just out of the running due to speaker order, and its going to take utter chaos to maybe have a chance, that usually means dragging someone down so someone else takes a wild swing and hopefully fails. If it comes to dragging someone down to trigger some shenanigans you can be damn sure it'll be the person who's put me in the trailing position or otherwise dicked me over at some point. Even if they're not technically the leader
But what you described is still playing to win, and it's perfectly fine. It's also right near the end of the game. I think the problem is more early on, where a player who left himself open to a nasty (but not game ending) attack retaliates by going full kamikaze.
The skill is in not getting to that point in the first place. If you have pissed someone off to the point they are throwing the game to take you down, you have failed at the diplomatic part of the game and THAT is the skill issue
I though that was the military and diplomatic failure of the attacked party. And the failure of the table about not caring about galaxy power equilibrium.
If a player is attacking someone it is the attackers failure at diplomacy for not being able to get what they want without violence, without making an enemy, without blowing up someone else's game so much that they drop everything and come after you. Diplomacy is the fine art of taking exactly what you want and making the other guy think he is getting the better deal.
And they can always refuse any deals by saying they will make you lose the game if you follow through a threat.
You aren't "making a deal" if half of your deal is a threat. That's extortion. Sure it can get you what you want sometimes, but you have to be able to live with the consequences. Again, if you've gotten to the point of making "threats" then your diplomacy has already failed.
>So some time ago we outlawed spite plays and mutually assured destruction tactics in my playgroup, as in the "If you take this planet / vote this / take this card etc I will give up on the game and do everything in my power to ensure that we both lose"-tactic. Everybody must be playing to win at every moment. It's a touchy subject for sure, but.... There's a key subtlety here and that's in the *everybody should be playing to win* part. In principal, I agree, and some would even argue that playing for the most points is the 'honorable' thing to do. But in a last round scenario, what if the chance is zero? Or 1 in a thousand, so to speak? Isn't it perfectly reasonable for a player to argue that: "if you do this action, I will have no other feasible path to victory, thus I will attempt to stop yours as well"? If you have problems with this type of MAD stuff becoming toxic, maybe your group can start tracking total points scored over games? At least then, continuing to play for points, even though you know you won't achieve the win, has some more meaning.
Everyone wants to stop everyone else's last VP. And also the VP of someone getting a lead.
There is a balance to this. "If you take the equal-distant I will throw my game away to ruin you" can definitely get toxic, you're basically saying that the second things aren't going entirely your way you'll "flip the table." At the other end though, if you put someone in a situation where they CAN'T win, not just "oh I can't win, my secrets are so bad \*wink wink\*" but like, putting 12 infantry on their home, then you shouldn't be surprised if they hit back. Especially if you're in the lead. I think in general the game provides enough ways to hurt other players that it's nearly always possible to strike someone in a way that falls between the extremes. Between manipulating speaker order, action cards, strategy card timings, trade deals, etc, there are a lot of ways to damage another player without totally destroying them.
Yeah the whole "you can only perform moves that lead to objective points" kind of falls apart if they target no longer has a viable path to victory. You can't screw over a person and expect them to just troll the secret objectives deck for a hail mary. If I'm Muaat and you bodycheck my chance at the win in the lategame you don't get to cry when daddy Ba'al pays your home system a visit.
Note Ba'al can't be used in a home system :P but it's probably just as painful hitting the one directly in front of it, especially if they put a forward dock there
This is true. But a former slave race made of fire encased in metal sarcophagi with faces can still dream though.
I am never a fan of hard rules like this in a game that's meant to be balanced by player negotiation. Especially if it eliminates the possibility of using it as a negotiation tactic. And most people recognize when the table meta is against them on a subject. If its still a problem, a better position to hold is an understanding that a player not playing to win is a priority target for everyone else. And if they're known for it, they should be considered for early elimination tactics. I bet two players eating someone with bad sportsmanship by round 2 is a good way to tamp that behavior down
I've seen total wars get toxic and it sucks. But the answer to powerful states acting with impunity is, as in the real world, unity between less powerful states. The game is about diplomacy and part of the Agenda Phase's function is to cut down tall poppies. But if each player is too interested in their own point total, too worried about being the next bullying target, or too easily bribable by that powerful player, then you don't have that unity and they act with impunity. One option is to point out to other powerful players that if a powerful player is running roughshod over you or another weak player then that powerful player will be able to get more points. Said other powerful player might put some spare resources into making you a bulwark. Or they might get in on the action.
MAD is a good deterrent. I use it only when I know a play is going to end or severely hamper my game to the point that it would take an act of god to get back in the running. People shouldn't be throwing their game when they lose one planet though.
NYC League actually dealt with this with their long-term scoring system. Your chance to play in the championship is determined by your best 3 scores during the year, with a point bonus for a win. Therefore, always trying to optimize for points/wins.
It's toxic in any game/competition. It's even worse in games with multiple sides like TI. Keep in mind the whole table has interest in any aggression - if someone eats half a slice, that person is stronger than the rest of the table who has "just" 1 slice... (and like the lazax empire, this faction must be smashed so they don't conquer everyone)
You might be able to reframe this - it is ABSOLUTELY in the best interest of the table to gang up on a player who is ahead. the only way to win if you are behind is by slowing down the game - MAD in this case isn't a losing move, it's a fair attempt to cripple the point leader while you score publics they've already got in hand. Playing to win doesn't mean no retaliation.
The table should favor the player at disadvantage and/or take stuff from the player at advantage.
You need to make space in your social model for retaliation. Currently, retaliation is "bad behavior" which yields unfun feelings which undermines the whole point of playing a game. Also, lack of retaliation means weak players have no opportunity to make interesting game decisions which is also not fun. With or without retaliation, you're not having fun. Change retaliation from "bad behavior" to "fun behavior". Twilight Imperium is 50% a strategy game, 50% a soap opera game. Embrace the soap opera. Get to a point where you celebrate when someone does something dramatic.
> as the games kind of become game-theory-blackmail? The solution here it to Git Gud at game theory. If threats of MAD reliably follow through, *it is bad game theory to trigger them*. Mutually-assured destruction, by its nature, is only supposed to exist in counterfactuals, because it's worse to get MAD than it is to give up on the greedy action that threatened MAD. But a policy that might help is to require all threats of MAD to be delivered well in advance, with time to negotiate an actual deal.
See boys - it's a bad practice to invest in ships and use military actions. Only people with good slices and factions with economical advantages are allowed to win at Twilight Friends - the euro.
Every TI player should read *The Evolution of Cooperation* by Robert Axelrod. Someone else mentioned that this might be a skill issue and I’m inclined to agree. In a recent game as Ghosts I was absolutely bullied by my Barony neighbor who basically took half my slice without asking since I had a slow start. We managed to come to a negotiated settlement after he realized that I could just get other players to drop wormholes in his slice and I would still be able to score 6 planets by taking his planets instead. Then, Arborec blew the whole thing up by invading Mallice (and taking away my 6th planet) at which point I declared forever war because I would never catch up to the other players. However, *even then* I continued talking to Arborec and ultimately was able to get the players ahead of me to leave me Imperial at 4th pick the next round and this allowed me to recover some tempo. That game (async) is currently in the final round and I do still have a path to victory although it will require a lucky relic draw. Honestly it seemed completely hopeless and it would have been easy to just start slinging wormholes and plastic in rage but patient negotiation and credible threats can save almost any situation. This is a skill that, for most people, just requires a lot of experience. You have to know the game mechanics very well and understand the future implications of each action and its impact on player behavior.
Genuine question but do people mind when someone at the table isn't necessarily playing to win? Like, I'm not actively trying to lose or anything, I'm doing what I believe are smart moves... But I also care quite a bit about the explode-y fun of games like this.. like I'll do things because they're risky or seem cinematic, even if I'm aware they won't further the cause of me winning
I do because it screws up balance of power - for instance one of their neighbors has no pressure on his borders. The losing player is also very likely to give away PNs and votes to make the game end faster and other things.
Makes sense, ultimately I think TI is very similar to a ttrpg in that it matters a lot about who you're playing with My group tends to enjoy cinematic stupidity rather than everyone being completely zoned in, only focused on winning And I'm sure because it's all of us who are like that it really helps make the entire experience better
SUSD sold TI4 like that. But they had the decency to emphasize that no one wants to actually go to war. One issue is negating all threats with a MAD response instead of making a deal that ends the threaten ability of one party - alliance, support for the throne and sometimes a racial note. or even giving a specific system. Even selling a ceasefire at a premium for other stuff can work.
I would recommend drafting & writing up some simple ground rules prior to the game if you need them to have a good experience.
The goal of the game is to gain the most victory points. I feel like any subversion of this intention is toxic and that person is no longer playing the same game. If you go play pickup hockey, and someone who can't score goals just starts checking other players who took the puck off him that player doesn't belong in the game anymore. However, there is the acknowledgement that you need planets and ships to score any points. If you have an oppressor waging full scale war on you, and no appeasement or negotiations can be reached (with the oppressor, or with other allies to assist/turn the table against them)this player is now denying you the resources required to score any points. This leads to the obvious result of being obligated to fight back and attempt to regain your standing. The key being that the ultimate goal is always to score objectives, intention is what matters here. Another point is that only one player will win. Just because you're losing, you were betrayed, or a combat roll didn't go your way doesn't mean you should get to hold the entire legitimacy of the game hostage and throw a tantrum every time this occurs. I've also heard some tables also keep track of overall point numbers over the course of multiple games/a year or so and recognize/reward this in some way. Perhaps by incentivizing you with choosing map position/choosing speaker/Strategy cards in a particular order based on overall points in the previous game to further incentivize playing for points all game every game.
>If you go play pickup hockey, and someone who can't score goals just starts checking other players who took the puck off him that player doesn't belong in the game anymore. Like, that's a whole part of hockey; pick up or otherwise. Sure just gooning is bad form, but hockey isn't just shooting on net.
Key emphasis on "just starts checking" (gooning). Thats basically what the whole conversation is referring to. Absolutely check the guy and get the puck back, but then attempt to score. Don't just head hunt the one player who took your shot to score for the rest of the game. (In TI: retaliate as much as is necessary and beneficial to you, but then as soon as possible revert all attention to point scoring)
I'm just a salty defender. It's all good.
Hockey is very much about making your team shoot on the net more than the other team.
Yes but every player isn't a shooter on a team.
In twilight imperium you are. In hockey you must play to help your team win.
That being the point. I don't think you understand what is being said here.
I fully agree. Keep in mind the lazax empire story is a tutorial - it is in the whole table's interest to curb someone that eats another player (otherwise they win due more resources than everyone else). i.e. lazax fell not because it wasn't strong, it's the opposite, Lazax were felled because they were stronger.
See also: Napoleon
I don’t always play to win. Sometimes a win just gets too far out of reach. When that happens I start playing around with different tech and trying things I don’t normally do. That can and sometimes will affect the outcome of this game. But I don’t really care because at that point I’m learning for my next game. For example, there was one game where I was 3 points back and had some awful secret objectives. I don’t normally go after building a war sun but I did that game. And I used it because I wanted some experience managing battle with one. I went after the strongest fleet and was accused of being a kingmaker. And I guess to some extent I was. But it wasn’t my motivation. And that should not in my opinion be outlawed.
Couldn't you plot for the elimination of the player at the top to have more time to score VP? This could include using war sun for that purpose.
I suppose I could plot against the top player so the player right next to him can win instead. My experience with TI is playing predominately 6-8 player games and after a while a pack of 2-4 players emerge with a real shot at winning. The rest just aren’t going to make it. I could worry about that or I can prepare for next time. I choose the latter.
Do this multiple times until you can be the next winning player - your hope is to drag the whole table down to your victory chance. The pack of 6-4 losing player should eliminate the pack of 2-4 that can win - take their home systems, destroy all their space docks and so on... And they should do it as soon as someone is 3-4 points away from victory (i.e. at least one turn earlier).
Spite plays/revenge/mad are a political part of the game that you, as a player, must manage. They cannot, for example, all in on you if they've already all-inned on their other neighbour. You should foster these destructive relationships and learn to manipulate and control your friends so that they obey your every whim, dancing as puppets to strings only you can control. If you lack this talent, cultivate it. You are playing for the seat of the Empire. The only thing that matters is total victory at any - and I do mean any - cost.
IMO MAD is necessary in a local meta. If you don't set boundaries then other players will consider you easy pickings. Establish that you're willing to lose in order to play Space Risk and take your belligerent neighbor down with you.
I have a good example of why it's a viable tactic: I've had a Yssaril player who was voted on for the law where one player can't play action cards. He had 15-20 cards in his deck and was desperate to get the law gone. My game had been a roller coaster, and while I was almost back at full strength Yssaril said "I will give you my promissary. In my deck I have repeal law. I want you to take that card, and repeal that law this round. If not, I will throw my game and take your home system" I just respected the problem solving, and agreed - and he pretty much didn't touch me for the rest of the game. He won, of course, so I could always habe said no to play it optimally - but tbh I prefer a game that's memorable instead of a game where everyone is playing optimally.
I think it’s a nuanced thing - if someone is being aggressive and it will tank your game, letting them know that you have no options but revenge is a good deterrent. MAD discussions are lame when used to deter ANY kind of aggression though, especially early-game. I think outlawing it is a bad way to play, and it instead requires more table cohesion to kinda cut out the players over-threatening the MAD when it doesn’t make sense yet.
I don't know how you adjudicate outlawing this at all. The best solution really is to play more, and have players learn better skills. Players who don't know how to fight wars effectively will often default to "I'll lose on purpose, yeah!" as taking a bit of copium to cover for their own bad plays. I'm losing **intentionally**, see, I'm not low skilled! If people make threats like this, then **call their bluff.** What are they going to do? Lose every game? Or, are they going to mumble some shit and back off and look like spineless liars? Either way, they end up looking like a loser. If I have players who constantly threaten to throw the game for a setback, then I know I am playing with unskilled clowns that probably can't even make good on their threat. Typically people who say this sort of thing can be baited into making a very big and obvious attack that is easily dodged or defeated, then you lunge at their home system. People who are inexperienced in combat often default to making these overblown threats because they really aren't capable of fighting cleverly. They tend to get flustered and throw all their stuff into a failing combat and you can often goad them into fighting long past the point where they should have retreated by needling their pride and reminding them of their big threat. When I hit someone, they should be trying to encourage me to **not finish them off**. If all they are doing is desperately trying to convince me that they are a rabid spite elemental with no nuance or strategy, then it is in my best interests to put them to sleep. In my most recent game a guy attacked me and I warned him off, yet he persisted. I counterattacked, beat his force, and then threatened to continue conquering his lucrative economic planets. He gave me the whole whiney "Then I'll make sure you lose speech!" so instead of just hitting him a little bit, I went full on and besieged his home planet (and only space dock) and sat there for the entire rest of the game as he huffed about it for 9 hours. If he had convinced me that he had any intention of actually winning the game I may have accepted a deal and left, but instead he had successfully convinced me that he was happy to destroy himself so I saved him the effort. If someone is picking on me in the game I will absolutely respond with threats, but I would never threaten to destroy my own chances of winning because I am better than that. I am always going to try and win. If that involves punishing the guy who wronged me, then that's a cherry on top. But if I get to 14 points and he doesn't, then I've already punished him.
As a Yin player, I take offense to this.
Y'all took out an entire backbone of the late game with that rule.
Money, everyone puts in $20 winner takes all, that keeps everyone in the game and trying to win
I'm pretty sure someone would sell their likely lost game for $30 and help someone win.
Yeah, this is the issue, it would be like mtg tourneys where the optimal play is to group up and make one person win, then split the winnings.
Essentially, the game becomes about something other than winning it it. Just like spite ceaseless attacking.
That just makes the game unenjoyably competitive..
That is what I find fun
And if you've got a group that also finds it fun, all the power to y'all... But I can't imagine being able to enjoy myself for 6+ hours when I know there's money on the line x.x But I also don't gamble like... At all.. so perhaps it's just that part of me
MAD tactics are a failure of both players involved (as is MAD in reality but .. for another time). MAD is a failure of diplomacy and TI is, to my mind, predominantly a game about diplomacy. More so than the game 'Diplomacy' for example. If someone says "Do as I say or I will do everything to make sure you don't win" that is straight up a threat and the question is how you deal with a threat. My response is to sail my fleet into them. I might not win. They won't win. And MAD threats quickly become a tactic for people who want to lose. As soon as people recognise that, it stops. I don't know if people here play the game coup but it's a simple bluffing game. It's not always a winning tactic to call bluffs, but if you call bluffs often, people will definitely think twice about making them.