Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

[The Resistance] Game 25: Monty Python's Flying Circus

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Falc is Resistance, which means my confirmed innocents are, at least,

Falc
Alxeu

Reject

Why accept aedan's proposal (no offense to aedan) when Falc and I are confirmed Resistance?
 
Ok, now I'm really starting to get worried that those two are spies. Madchemist and Dyranum is a possibility, but alxeu's refusal to check Dyranum, which would in turn shed light on Madchemist, instead examining Falc at his own insistence is troubling. Wait, that can't work, since then no one could've sabotaged the mission. So Falc has to be resistance. Which means Madchemist and Dyranum are the spies. Although, alxeu could be a spy, that cleared a resistance to build trust, and let his spymate madchemist or Dyranum sabotage the mission. Hmm.
 
I I'm a Spy then so is alxeu.

If alxeu is a spy then either he sabotaged and madchemist is covering for him, but mc can't be a spy OR he did not sabotage and either mc or dyr sabotaged, which is also impossible.

Conclusion, I must be resistance. Which I knew all along but it's nice to be proven :p


REJECT PROPOSAL

I would really like to suggest we send myself plus one other. We could, if worst come to worst, suffer a sabotage but it would mean cover blown. And if they don't sabotage, then the Spies have been forced to put us 2-1 ahead which isn't shabby either.
 
Falc said:
Dyranum, I like the fact you keep saying I did strange and suspicious things but you do not list any of them. You're not building much trust here.
Click to expand...

Eh, I was lazy. I think I was referring to you rejecting your own proposal, but as said I labelled that as "testing" (a hypothesis, or trying to draw out someone, but I do not know what), since it was a secret reject.

aedan777 said:
Ok, this is crap. My 'obvious reason' statement is to express that of course there was a spy on the team. I know I'm resistance, so by the sheer number of players there had to be a spy on the team. The fact you're trying to clear Falc for that is extremely odd. And I have described my reasons. Are you a spy trying to frame me, or a misguided resistance though?
Click to expand...

Well, that was my interpretation in light of the reasons that others have given for how they voted. I only remember Alxeu at the moment as making a rather generic voting statement. That said, your "obvious reasons" statement has been used in more than just this instance of three people, if I recall correctly (you may correct me if I remember wrong). Hence, I interpreted in such a way that it conveyed the same meaning for all instances of its use, i.e. "I'm not on the team", which is a natural reaction if one can't trust anyone. ;)

In regards to the allegation of me being a spy: Am I not a bit ... too unsubtle to be a spy? Really, if I were a spy, I would rather be ignored. Be subtle. Hence also why I primarily suspect those who seem to try and stay "out of the light", relatively speaking. Those who seem to be subtle. I think I have elaborated slightly on that in regards to Alxeu: He is too blatant to be a spy. That said, one can't rule out anyone, but no one can really suspect themselves---that would be schizophrenic.

EDIT: Reject. As is clear, I don't trust Aedan7777 at the moment. I might be wrong, but that is the current conclusion that I have arrived at. That said, one could also let it go through to test if Aedan is a spy or not, but ... eh.

Falc said:
I I'm a Spy then so is alxeu.

If alxeu is a spy then either he sabotaged and madchemist is covering for him, but mc can't be a spy OR he did not sabotage and either mc or dyr sabotaged, which is also impossible.

Conclusion, I must be resistance. Which I knew all along but it's nice to be proven :p
Click to expand...

Er, seeing as I am new to this game, I might be missing some part of your train of thought here. Could you elaborate, please?
 
Last edited:
Thinking further...

We send me and Aedan. Aedan sabotages. We know there was only one spy on the failed mission so it can't be alxeu. Result: two known resistance, one known spy. 50/50 to win if we don't get a good card.


We send me and alxeu, alxeu sabotages. If he also sabotaged the previous mission, then mc is his spymate. Game won. However, he may not have sabotaged it, in which case either mc or dyranum is his spymate. Either way, aedan is cleared. So basically the same result: two resistance, one spy, 50/50 to win.


Sending me and mc or dyranum won't remove nearly as many possibilities.


So right now I'm no longer certain I should be sent on this mission...
 
OK, so now Falc is guaranteed to be good. I find it most likely that the spies are Dyranum + aedan. Dyranum + alxeu is a not impossible combination, but a very unlikely one. I will accept any combination of myself, alxeu, and Falc on this next team.

Which means I will
Reject this proposal
 
OK, why?
 
Like I said, I'm not convinced that sending me and oen other is the best of ideas, I'd like to mull over the possibility that there's a better solution, some combination that would force the spies hand and reveal them both. Feel free to think along :)
 
Dyranum said:
Well, that was my interpretation in light of the reasons that others have given for how they voted. I only remember Alxeu at the moment as making a rather generic voting statement. That said, your "obvious reasons" statement has been used in more than just this instance of three people, if I recall correctly (you may correct me if I remember wrong). Hence, I interpreted in such a way that it conveyed the same meaning for all instances of its use, i.e. "I'm not on the team", which is a natural reaction if one can't trust anyone. ;)

In regards to the allegation of me being a spy: Am I not a bit ... too unsubtle to be a spy? Really, if I were a spy, I would rather be ignored. Be subtle. Hence also why I primarily suspect those who seem to try and stay "out of the light", relatively speaking. Those who seem to be subtle. I think I have elaborated slightly on that in regards to Alxeu: He is too blatant to be a spy. That said, one can't rule out anyone, but no one can really suspect themselves---that would be schizophrenic.
Click to expand...

I use 'obvious reason' whenever I feel it's clear why someone in my position would vote that way, such as being on the first team, or being in a position where it was literally impossible for there not to be a spy on the team. I'll be more clear from now on. And the 'unsubtle' thing is more crap; In a game of 5 people, staying out of things is too obvious and make you and obvious spy. Heck, just last game I was a spy and was one of the more vocal players, getting on 3 teams successfully. The only spies that stay out of things are bad spies.


Falc said:
Like I said, I'm not convinced that sending me and oen other is the best of ideas, I'd like to mull over the possibility that there's a better solution, some combination that would force the spies hand and reveal them both. Feel free to think along :)
Click to expand...

Any spy that might end up on a team with you will not sabotage, since they're then out of action, and it all depends on their mate, who may or may not be obvious. Basically who gets sent on the team depends on whether you want a passed team, or a team that gives information, with both having risks and possible rewards.
 
The way I see it, unless we put two of madchemist, dyranum, or aedan on a team, we aren't going to get much, and if we do that, there will be a traitor on any team we propose. I think we should keep it safe.
 
A silly thought I can't get out of my head: what if we try to pick the two most likely spies to send them on this mission but agree in advance that if no sabotages occur, we'll actually send the three other people on the next mission? That would hugely raise the odds that they double-sabotage.
 
Falc said:
A silly thought I can't get out of my head: what if we try to pick the two most likely spies to send them on this mission but agree in advance that if no sabotages occur, we'll actually send the three other people on the next mission? That would hugely raise the odds that they double-sabotage.
Click to expand...

Well that plan is hugely reliant on you being right about the spies. Send 1, he sabotages easily and we know little. Send 2 resistance and the next team is guaranteed sabotage.
 
Falc said:
Like I said, I'm not convinced that sending me and oen other is the best of ideas, I'd like to mull over the possibility that there's a better solution, some combination that would force the spies hand and reveal them both. Feel free to think along :)
Click to expand...

I don't think there is one. If you tried something weird just because you can, all it would probably do is give the spies a free sabotage that they otherwise wouldn't have gotten. And even if there was some really good mission that threw the spies into an awkward situation, they could just as easily pass the mission to try to gain credit for themselves. There's no point in doing something reckless here.
 
Yeah...

Team:

Alxeu
Falc

Approve
 
Well, both of them are trustworthy ... I think.

Approve.

That said, if there is a sabotage on this mission, then either Alxeu is a spy or both of them are---ruining my theory. So, the die has been cast.
If it succeeds, then that would mean that mc and Aedan are spies (well, of course, there's me too, but I know what I am---even if no one else does), but mc is approving it. Hmm.
 
Well Falc's cleared, so he's a good choice, but Alxeu? Well Madchemist could be covering for him, or he could've supported while his spymate Dyranum sabotaged. This team will only work if Madchemist and Dyranum are spymates, and I'm not sure Madchemist would've done that with his packmate. Maybe. Though, this team is not going to get sabotaged no matter what, so it's probably for the best.

Approve
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back