compensation for late players

[unmerged(3571)]

Hi folks, question for you:

What do people usually do to compensate players who are late joining a game or whose country is controlled by the AI for a while?

I am somewhat torn. On the one hand, the player certainly would do a lot better than the AI did. Fairness might dictate some compensation.

On the other hand the player hasn't earned any changes that might be made in the save file, and it feels like "cheating" to me, even if it isn't. I'm kind of a "play the hand you are dealt" guy, and don't usually complain much.

Just wondered what others think?

 

[Prince Eugene]

If you are talking about what happened with JohnMK I don't consider undoing the misdeeds of the AI cheating. I have been through this 1,000 times and letting late players edit the save file is common.

 

[Mowers]

I do the following.

If a country is unplayable due to player maliciousness, incompetance and or inexperience then I invariably move to alter the file.

However, most of the time it doesnt need to be altered. Other players ought to be able to intervene and protect the balance of power if one particular country is far weaker than the others. However if you are not playing with players who can not make that strategic judgement then perhaps best to change it.

Also the game is about strategic analysis, not fairness. The game is designed to be unbalanced and for some countries in certain periods the play will focus on strategic decline. This can be interesting and why one would want to alter the files I cant see.

It may be that one country has got too strong but this can only really be to poor host management in ensuring that all players have competition to stop them dominating a game without any real effort.

 

[unmerged(3571)]

I said "cheating", not *cheating*.

As in I don't think it is really cheating, but it definately does not feel right.

 

[unmerged(3571)]

Originally posted by Mowers
I do the following.

If a country is unplayable due to player maliciousness, incompetance and or inexperience then I invariably move to alter the file.

However, most of the time it doesnt need to be altered. Other players ought to be able to intervene and protect the balance of power if one particular country is far weaker than the others. However if you are not playing with players who can not make that strategic judgement then perhaps best to change it.

Also the game is about strategic analysis, not fairness. The game is designed to be unbalanced and for some countries in certain periods the play will focus on strategic decline. This can be interesting and why one would want to alter the files I cant see.

It may be that one country has got too strong but this can only really be to poor host management in ensuring that all players have competition to stop them dominating a game without any real effort.

That is pretty much how I feel. I am very reluctant to alter a save game, but I CAN see the justification for doing so, even if I don't really agree with it.

In the particular case I am talking about the AI hasn't been grossly incompetent, but it has hardly been stellar either.

 

[JohnMK]

In my opinion you should edit the save file to reflect the fact that the delta between human and AI performance is usually quite large, especially in my case and in the case of many experienced players. In 1522 in your game, the OE hasn't expanded at all. Venice is converting her Greek possessions to Catholic, the Mamelukes hers to Shi'ite, etc, nor have DP adjustments been made. The goal of editing is to make the game seem, without going too far, as if the human player who just joined had been there all along. What's too far, that's debatable. But giving the human player [current year - starting year]/10 DP clicks + 3 DP clicks is, I think, eminently fair and reflective of the fact that the human would ordinarily have DP goals and ambitions. The AI doesn't, so it doesn't adjust these except via hard coded events. The AI doesn't get random events, so it similarly doesn't get the choice in forming policy in its reactions to random events. What I do with several good players here (including two who are taking part in the Mega GC AAR) is grant them the pertinent # of DP clicks, an erasure of BB points, zeroing inflation, and several thousand ducats. That's what we think is fair, considering a human player is usually much more focused and directed, and had they been there from the start, the country would usually have turned out vastly differently, usually (depending upont he player) for the better. Far better. This level of editing can be reasonable depending upon the circumstances. So to paraphase, we edit to an extent such that the human player feels he can undo most of the mistakes of the usually unambitions AI within a very few short years. Since the OE is one of the most ambitious nations around (or should be played that way, at least), what I requested from Satan was reasonable. My initial request was for 6 DP adjustments, 2500 ducats to finance my initial conquest armies and conversions of provinces that had been converted by the Mamelukes and the Venetians, and zeroing of inflation, which had been at 3%. 2500 ducats may seem like a lot, but consider, it's only a few years' income for most countries coupled with census taxes and such. What's 4 years out of 400? 1%? It's eminently reasonable.

 

[Prince Eugene]

Ultimately JohnMK is correct.

 

[JohnMK]

Why's that? Is that a not-so-subtle way of saying I'm arrogant? I admit I am, but I'm learning humility day by day . . .