We all debate continuously through different threads how we think the game should be played. We make rules, guidelines; talk of gamey, cheating and other such things all the time. Probably half of the posts on the forum are really a debate on how you think the game should be played.
This thread is here to sum up the big picture of what the game means to you. You can probably categorise players roughly into certain camps. Economists, warmongerers, diplomats etc though the truth is a lot more complex. All players are unique as people are and im interested to here from everyone. In one of my ‘debates’ With Daniel he expressed his view that I am a conservititive. Although I wouldn’t agree with this the fact that im a bit of an old timer (though not the oldest by far ) does by definition mean I have the advantages and disadvantages of experience. New players have perhaps the advantage of a fresh outlook?
Anyway I will start with my view of an ‘ideal EU game’
First of all im fundamentally against treating country’s a certain way because you know the player. For example trusting that a player will never break an agreement/will break an agreement because of past actions. Another example would be dowing weaker players because you know you can win. This is idealism at its extreme of course as its impossible to simply forget who you are playing. I don’t claim innocence in this respect.
Ill take the example of my current BNW game. I am france and im playing alongside Eskimo who plays England. I don’t know him that well and am not familiar with his style. He seems to me an ideal type of player as he is aggressive but also reasonable etc. He has recently shown interest in peace and perhaps an alliance with me though im not sure I cant trust him. If there was an alliance it would be an uneasy alliance. This unknown factor means that even if we do ally we will both have to check that neither becomes too powerful. As in real life both trust and friendships were finite.
Imagine a game where all players were anonymous. There was some contact on icq however names would simply come under as france, England etc. In this case you would only be able to judge nations on actions within that game. Also imagine that the environment had more incentive to be competitive. Lets say it was an official paradox league. There wernt vps however the whole thing was documented and set on a perm record. This is something like my ideal game. Friendly but uneasy. Always watching your back though gangbangs would be rare. Wars would be frequent but not too harsh. RP would be there also but not too strict.
This thread is here to sum up the big picture of what the game means to you. You can probably categorise players roughly into certain camps. Economists, warmongerers, diplomats etc though the truth is a lot more complex. All players are unique as people are and im interested to here from everyone. In one of my ‘debates’ With Daniel he expressed his view that I am a conservititive. Although I wouldn’t agree with this the fact that im a bit of an old timer (though not the oldest by far ) does by definition mean I have the advantages and disadvantages of experience. New players have perhaps the advantage of a fresh outlook?
Anyway I will start with my view of an ‘ideal EU game’
First of all im fundamentally against treating country’s a certain way because you know the player. For example trusting that a player will never break an agreement/will break an agreement because of past actions. Another example would be dowing weaker players because you know you can win. This is idealism at its extreme of course as its impossible to simply forget who you are playing. I don’t claim innocence in this respect.
Ill take the example of my current BNW game. I am france and im playing alongside Eskimo who plays England. I don’t know him that well and am not familiar with his style. He seems to me an ideal type of player as he is aggressive but also reasonable etc. He has recently shown interest in peace and perhaps an alliance with me though im not sure I cant trust him. If there was an alliance it would be an uneasy alliance. This unknown factor means that even if we do ally we will both have to check that neither becomes too powerful. As in real life both trust and friendships were finite.
Imagine a game where all players were anonymous. There was some contact on icq however names would simply come under as france, England etc. In this case you would only be able to judge nations on actions within that game. Also imagine that the environment had more incentive to be competitive. Lets say it was an official paradox league. There wernt vps however the whole thing was documented and set on a perm record. This is something like my ideal game. Friendly but uneasy. Always watching your back though gangbangs would be rare. Wars would be frequent but not too harsh. RP would be there also but not too strict.
) and variations, like a DU version where the GM plays musical chairs with the players. But of course, the players have no idea who winds up where when the music stops. 
