Surrendering vs Kingmaking

Forum rules
Please DO NOT POST BUGS on this forum. Please report (and vote) bugs on : https://boardgamearena.com/#!bugs
Post Reply
User avatar
Jban
Posts: 2
Joined: 06 June 2016, 16:28

Surrendering vs Kingmaking

Post by Jban » 20 August 2020, 23:37

In a 3/4 player game, surrendering in the final ages (especially) while in a war always changes the game in the favour of the non-military strategy. This more or less always decided the game in favor of players that run a high culture strategy. Which can be considered as kingmaking, since the resigning player decides the outcome of the game.

Are there ways to have this fixed?

Ideas: Game control options (Surrendering during a war (check box), Surrendering after age 2 (check box). I'm also open to other viable solutions.

It happened too often to me now that a game which takes over 2 hours is decided by a kingmaking move of the player who's resigning.

User avatar
Ranior
Posts: 6
Joined: 30 September 2011, 19:39

Re: Surrendering vs Kingmaking

Post by Ranior » 21 August 2020, 22:55

Don't play this game at 3/4 players if you don't like that aspect. But resigning is a very important part of the rules. TTA without resignation would change the game such that military would be THE dominant way to win, and games could too often be decided by who drew wars earlier.

Basically if there is a very weak opponent at the table who doesn't keep up militarily, why should someone be handed the win because they got the 1st War over Culture and got to launch it at them? It isn't kingmaking to resign, that's part of the rules. The resign mechanic is there to provide a catch up for those players in poor positions as it should encourage you to attack someone who is in contention and not launch it at players who will/should resign if you attack them.

Honestly my complaints usually run the other way--I wish some players would resign. There are some who never will, and do just hand games to players. If I have a war and expect you to resign if I aim it at you, then instead I will and should launch it at whomever the other competitor is (unless I do want to force you out of the game). But sometimes I do that, and then some other player launches the war at the weakling and gets tons of easy culture and that's pretty annoying since the better play would be to resign.

Finally your question is a bit interesting to me anyhow because in general the high culture players should be the ones you want to war anyhow--they have lots of culture that you need to steal in order to beat them and they probably invested more in to culture than military. I'm not sure how you think this always results in wins for the high culture players. (Unless you are at a table of 3 players running high culture and you are the only military player...then sometimes the culture players can still win. In those cases if you only have one War over Culture try saving it for the Age 3 to Age 4 crossover--players cannot resign on their turn if it is Age 4 so you should still be able to get a ton of culture with a well timed war and possibly win.

User avatar
Jban
Posts: 2
Joined: 06 June 2016, 16:28

Re: Surrendering vs Kingmaking

Post by Jban » 22 August 2020, 19:42

The final part of the age change was not known to me. I didn't know that you cannot resign in age 4. Targeting the higher culture players is the likely choice and I do aggree that the game shouldnt be a race over drawing war over culture first. Consider the following examples, M applies a military strategy, C applies a culture strategy.

3 Players:
M/M/M --> scrappy game with likely a winner under a 100 (all fine)
M/M/C --> Race for 'War over Culture' (Undesired as well)
M/C/C --> You cannot war against 2 players in the same turn, and if either of them resign when a war is applied. (Frustrates me a lot)
C/C/C --> Rush for points with likely a winner over 200 (all fine)

4 Players:
Similar I guess.

Rooster6975
Posts: 18
Joined: 20 April 2020, 17:43

Re: Surrendering vs Kingmaking

Post by Rooster6975 » 14 September 2020, 21:07

Man, I learn something new about this game all the time. @Ranior, thanks for posting. I have NEVER looked at resigning that way before, in fact it never even occurred to me. I have always played (and taught my kids) to complete a game, even if you can no longer win. Not just in TTA, but in every game. It shows good sportsmanship, yadda yadda yadda. I have at least 50 games of TTA under my belt and no one has ever made that comment about resigning before. Even when someone was getting hammered by Aggressions and Wars, they stuck it out to the bitter end. Thanks, I'll bring that up in my next game night.

MoiMagnus
Posts: 4
Joined: 17 March 2020, 20:15

Re: Surrendering vs Kingmaking

Post by MoiMagnus » 20 September 2020, 18:25

Ranior wrote:
21 August 2020, 22:55
Don't play this game at 3/4 players if you don't like that aspect. But resigning is a very important part of the rules. TTA without resignation would change the game such that military would be THE dominant way to win, and games could too often be decided by who drew wars earlier.
Same as Rooster, thank you for this post. Resigning never ever came to my mind. For me, resigning was "I'm bored of this game, let's do something more productive". But I would never have considered resigning for balancing the game before reading this post. I think the rules should have been much clearer about it if that was the intended use of resigning, as the text present it as "if you fumble your development, you will not enjoy the remaining of the game" more than "you will be unbalance the game".

NCJeff
Posts: 1
Joined: 18 April 2020, 21:30

Re: Surrendering vs Kingmaking

Post by NCJeff » 21 September 2020, 18:58

It helps to think if it as a nation-state voluntarily becoming part of a second nation-state due to the military aggression being waged on it from a third nation-state. They don't want to be "food" for their war-like neighbor so they find common cause with a different more peaceful neighbor.

Plus it requires players to manage their build strategy to be in sync with those of the other players. If you're playing against 2 players going for culture than going big on military may not be a winning strategy. You could have a win the battle/lose the war kind of situation.

Post Reply

Return to “throughtheagesnewstory”