Human puppet

[unmerged(14249)]

I was playing an interesting MP game this week (see China resurgent). Horse joined us for a session in 42 and took over USSR which had been abadoned by heinonen for USA when Germany had overrun most of it. With a human taking over USSR again, Germany (Cicero) decided to puppet the USSR, to save the time and labour of fighting his way to Vladivostok.

When USSR was made a puppet it joined the Axis and regained its prewar frontiers. This seemed like a good deal to me but Horse didn't like this. He started to sabotage the Axis position by:

a) removing military access for Germany
b) taking military control of Rumania and disbanding its divisions
c) DOWing every neutral country to make them part of the Allies

This behaviour seemed quite unethical to me because Horse was no longer playing to win or acting in the interest of his country. But Horse said that Cicero shouldn't have puppeted him - that this was an understood rule for MP game - that you don't puppet humans.

This disrupted the game a fair bit and so MP groups should be aware of this issue. Myself, I think that, if the game allows it then it should be allowed as it's not an exploit or unhistorical. The puppeted player should play along and, while he might be a reluctant ally, he should not try to sabotage the alliance in a blatant way because that is an exploit - in the real thing, he would have been deposed or shot quite quickly.

Andrew

 

[unmerged(4747)]

The rules should be discussed prior to the game. The default line of behavior should be that the puppeted player switches sides. There are arguments for both ways of playing but it is poor sportsmanship to try and ruin the game because you were beaten.

 

[jgbaxter]

Rules be damned, unethical is just that, an exploit is just that as well.

There's no excuses for sabotaging a game like that IMO.

 

[Majorball]

Shouldnt puppet human players!!!

 

[unmerged(14249)]

Originally posted by major ball
Shouldnt puppet human players!!!

You're welcome to your opinion but I'm not seeing any reasons. In the real life, being puppeted was the usual outcome - it was annexation that was unusual. And to be puppeted, a country has to lose its capital and most of its VPs so it's not that easy. What's the problem?

Andrew

 

[juv95hrn]

DEG house rules prohibits puppetting of human players.

Its a decision based on game balance, not trying to be realistic or historically correct.

 

[unmerged(14249)]

Originally posted by juv95hrn
DEG house rules prohibits puppetting of human players. Its a decision based on game balance...

Please expand on this. How is puppeting unbalanced? And are you saying that, if somone plays France, then Germany can't install a Vichy govt?

Andrew

 

[unmerged(13894)]

Yes, please elaborate on the balance issues.

I always assumed that it was ok to puppet humans, and they should go along like good sports

But I've never actually seen it happen, so I am ignorant as to how it could unbalance a game.

 

[Vissarion]

I think a puppeted player should either continue on as his new country (and for its alliance) or quit/change nation.

As for balance, if i recall correctly a puppeted nation will only have a max of 50 IC's (and if it has a land path to its master it will give all its resources). Its army shouldn't cause too much unbalance either, after all he did lose enough to get puppeted.

 

[Vissarion]

Please expand on this. How is puppeting unbalanced? And are you saying that, if somone plays France, then Germany can't install a Vichy govt?

Andrew

Installing Vichy govt doesn't puppet France, only Vichy France.

I haven't experienced this either, maybe the DEG folks have.

 

[unmerged(15723)]

Having a puppeted UK fighting against example the US would be silly. Yes, UK could have been forced to a (possibly humiliating) peace but they would never have actually changed side.

This doesn't go for all nations but puppeting majors isn't good for neither game balance nor historical reasons.