2017-03-08 09:13:58

(Ogra the Player)
Leader Dumping

Chances are if you have played Succession Wars you are familiar with this term. No doubt invoking consternation and exasperation on your part when confronted with the action along with any other players invested in the game?

In Succession Wars (SW) Leaders are the glue that hold a Noble House together. In the SW game they grant the player control of the represented House. Lose your Leaders; lose control of your House. It is far easier to turn a House, gain control, if you capture the opposing player’s leaders rather than conquering every territory of a rival House. Naturally, players develop tactics to safeguard their leaders and to capture their opposite number. Once the first opposing House is captured the strategic balance is broken, and a front runner emerges signaling to the other players they need to begin to act.

Thus Leader Dumping…

First it is a ‘flaw’ in the SW game, written into the rules presumably to speed up play? Or, maybe just an oversight by the developers; who knows?

As a player I view ‘Leader Dumping’ as a legitimate tactic, and will generally disperse my leaders amongst the remaining players ‘if’ I am able to do so. Thus preventing any one player from gaining my House and upsetting the strategic balance. However, sometimes that cannot be done, and I must chose between the lesser of two evils, ensure a rival-allied House can retrieve my leaders or allow them to fall into the hands of the ‘B*st*rd’ beating me. I will generally choose the former. That is my privilege as a player. As it is yours….

No one likes to be told how to play a game; especially when it is to the benefit of an opposing player. If playing within the rules there should be no issue. If requested not to do so by the Game Owner (GO) then the players should honor that. I however, will not be joining those games.

As a player I only allow my leaders to be captured under the following conditions, if it can be helped:

• A player has fought honorably. No sneak attacks or broken agreements.
• I have fought dishonorably. I sneak attacked or broke agreements.
• Strategic balance will be restored. Another House has already been captured or economic disparity.
• The action will prolong the game.

Those are and have been my own conditions regarding leader capture. I do not expect anyone else to abide by those conditions, they are my own. If you have your own ‘conditions’… you think about this game too much?

It is equally annoying to receive a barrage of Private Messages (PM) requesting or demanding I not allow my leaders to fall to an allied or enemy House. If I presumably cannot stop my enemy from taking territory; how then am I suppose to stop what was a friendly House from snatching up my leaders whom are more than likely positioned on my ‘ally’s’ border far from my enemy? As an opposing player regardless of alliance it is a prudent action to snatch up an allied players leaders and deny them to a rival who in short order will likely become your enemy? You cannot win. There is no fair way to deny an opposing player your leaders.

Leader Dumping is simply a ‘flaw’ in the SW game if you view it as such. I view as an aspect of the game.

(Ogra the Admin)
As an Admin, Leader Dumping has been discussed on more than one occasion and at length with many of the issues players complain about being parroted by the Admins. However, there are no real solutions without fundamentally changing the game.
Examples:

• Removing Leaders
• Preventing Leaders from being exchanged
• Adding many Leaders
• Limiting Leader movement
• Etc.

None can really address or fix a mechanic that was built into the game… ‘Leader Capture’ shortens the game, which is why all players attempt to do so.

It can be frustrating as a player to watch as another player gains a House you have fought hard to obtain with little effort. However, deal making, subterfuge and sabotage were also meant to part of the game. Unfortunately it is hard to be on the other side of the table on the receiving end watching those precious leaders escape your grasp.

Any suggestions to prevent Leader Dumping are welcomed and will be given consideration.

2017-03-08 13:29:30

As both a player and an Admin I understand and respect your convictions regarding Leader Dumping.

2017-03-08 20:43:23

This will always be a hot under the collar topic.

As a Player and an Admin, it is a part of the game, and players need to attempt to circumvent it.

However (oh oh), I agree with the majority of the arguments originally posted, but not all the arguments.

Firstly, do I understand what it is like to feel that I am in a position to Leader Dump? Yes I have Leader Dumped at least once (can't remember any other times). Why? There were 5 players left (we were approx. balanced although it was my faction vs 2 factions), and then a 3rd player joined the 2v1 making it 3v1. I was not in a position to be able to defend, player 5 sat by idly, so I Dumped my Leaders to one of the fighting players who I thought fought with the most honour. In hindsight I wish I did not do this action, should have diplomed more, struggled to survive, and then someone might come to my rescue.

Secondly, for me the aim of the game is to "compete for domination. Each seeks to unite the others under themself as First Lord of the new Star League." (per RAW). Imo throwing the towel in early because you're not going well means you need to diplome more, and more, offer anything to be able to get back in the game. To me dumping ALL of your Leaders to one player goes against the aim of the game.

Btw I believe this thread was initiated due to a game where Amaris is making in-roads into Steiner territory, and Steiner is Leader Dumping to Marik. Cleary some view this as a horrible action to take, others will take the Leader Dumping thank you very much, others "tough luck Amaris ... you snake". Amaris has alerted some factions to the in-progress Leader Dumping, but has made no demands that Leader Dumping does not occur, nor has proclaimed unfairness - part of the game ... unfortunately. :)

Anyone has any ideas, we would love to hear them.

2017-03-13 21:39:05

I also understand the arguments against Leader Dumping. THe important thing is that we don;t force any player to take specific actions that they don;t agree with. Each player should play the game how they think best. Freedom of choice is as fundamental to a fun game as it is a happy society.

Sometimes there are situations where no amount of diplomacy will work. Players must ask themselves, at what point does the price for survival become too high? And there most certainly is a point. I play in many games and I win very few. I'm not complaining, The way I see it there are two factors at work:

1. I'm not a particularly good player, and
2. I seldom manage to have many allies.

Whether # 2 is because I've betrayed too many players or, for some bizarre reason, am viewed as too much of a threat I don;t know but that's the way it is. It has, on occassion, caused me to consider Leader Dumping in the past and sometimes I have done it. I will only do it as a very last resort. Many times I will drop only 1 leader to another player, or to multiple other players, simply to prevent to total capture of my House by one side. This I am comfortable with as it maintains the balance of power in a game. However, others think and act differently and I respect their choices, as long as the choice is not made due to rage quitting. That I am definitely against.

2017-03-16 12:28:59

Leader dumping doesn't bother me, really.  I've been the recipient and have felt the adverse affects, too.  I don't see it as a big deal.  I've only ever seen it done when a player saw the writing on the wall and decided to take inspiration from history, taking  alarge lump sum and handing control of his territory over to another faction to be annexed.

2017-05-05 22:03:18

First and foremost I would like to say that all the arguments for and against Leader-Dumping are absolutely valid, and I cannot argue against the logic that each contributor to this post has made. I also generally dislike it but am guilty of "giving up" when left with no alternative; when I am sandwiched between 2 or 3 rivals who are intent on dividing my realm with no prospect of negotiation/diplomacy (agree with Jim Samson that you should try to negotiate your butt off).

My main concern (from a relative Nooby's perspective, albeit an uber-keen one :-P ) is that it becomes the equivalent of "throwing one's toys" because things aren't going the way one desires. It therefore could become an implied threat to destabilising the fairness/"fun" of a game to be used when things are going badly. Yes, I acknowledge that this is a war-game and "All's fair in love and war" but it is a GAME, hence perhaps some conventions on fair play should apply, "House/gentleperson's rules" as it were (assuming that there is a mix of genders on this site, although I get the distinct impression that most of us are fathers rather than mothers).

Basically, any game would suck if there were players that you knew would Leader-Dump as soon as you got the upper hand (whether through good luck or good planning), at worst, imply that they would leader-dump if they were losing. In the situation of imminent loss, I think I'd prefer Jimmy's technique/strategy of distributing the leaders, hence maintaining some form of balance.

2018-12-04 21:43:21

Hello,

I was just reading these old posts from over a year ago. So I figure, what the hey.. I will respond.

I have an idea for an optional rule that would be interesting and add a little randomness to the game. It might even help with the leader dumping.

An optional rule that could allowed during game setup.

When the last leader of a house is captured, instead of the capturing house getting all the spoils (and territory and Jumpships, and palaces, etc..) make it random.

When the last leader is caught, this triggers a lottery system. This lottery system would mimic the power vacuum that happens after the last strong personality disappears. Some units might decide to follow a leader in exile, others might surrender to invaders, while others become warlords and take over a sector. Systems without a strong prescience (like military units) might also surrender, follow a certain leader, or heck, go independent.

For each unit (alive or destroyed), it is assigned to another house that has either another leader, is a neighbor, OR goes neutral (like Comstar). This could mean that a single territory could end up with 2 or more factions fighting for the same space. In this case, combat would be automatic (I suggest the highest unit “attacks” first and then the next highest) until one unit survives. This also means that units that share the same name could end up on different sides (unless it is easy to code them to be on the same side). Maybe the units themselves had a civic war to decide the direction of the unit. Conventional units would act the same way as mechs and they get to “pick” a side. Destroyed units would also “pick” a side or become neutral.

Jumpships would be captured by whoever owns the system at the end of combat. Just think there could be an independent system with a JS that is just waiting for you to take.

C-Bills, Cards, and Captured leaders from other Houses (for example, Steiner lost it's last leader to Marik and Steiner had a leader from Davion, then that leader would go to Marik) would follow the regular rules and go to the capturing House.

This could end up causing the invader to have to pause to consolidate their winnings while the person getting the leader doesn't suddenly get a whole bunch of units/territory for free. I suspect most of the time the units will be spread out among the different contenders for the defeated house.

But It does give some randomness of maybe the invader gets all the spoils anyway, or the house that the leader was dumped into, or maybe a third party that happen to have a leader gets it all...

OR maybe Comstar could be the big winner! ;)

2018-12-08 01:19:22

That's a really interesting suggestion mark2. It would certainly remove the concern about leader-dumping to another faction just to spite the successful/winning Invader. The downside would be that there would be little advantage (apart from territory and Tech) in conquering another faction; there's no unit gain, or Merc Leader to winning side.

But I really like the idea of the"power vacuum" scenario that does prevail in Real-life... I'm not sure how the Developers would be able to code for that as I'm quite the Luddite.

2018-12-09 19:04:35

Coding for a randomly selected faction for each unit and jumpship would be... arduous. However, an easier option would be to simply set the faction as eliminated but still retaining their own identity and they get fought the same way ComStar does.

The cons of having insignificantt material gain is still there but the pro is that units can't be combined, cards can't be played, etc.