by tahitiwahini on Wed Feb 21, 2007 10:38 am
I think the "contribute to the cause or I suicide on you" gambit probably isn't as successful as an alternative.
I try to analyze why the non-contributing player is behaving the way he is. Is he just not paying attention? Is he very inexperienced? Does he really not see who the dominant player is in the game? Is there something he wants but hasn't been able to get (control of a continent perhaps, hopefully one of the smaller ones)? Has he given up on the game but doesn't want to deadbeat.
When I think I understand why he's doing what he's doing, then I try to craft a pitch to get him to do something that will benefit him. Of course, if he accepts the pitch then you can be sure it's in my interest as well.
If he's not paying attention, I call his attention to the dominant player.
If he's inexperienced I point out to him how bad our positions really are (how many turns before we get eliminated).
If he doesn't really see who the dominant player is then I identify that player for him. This works best when the dominant player protests that he's not dominant. A very bad move, by the way, because then I respond with the facts and figures (e.g., more than twice the number of armies we have combined, he's getting 10 armies a turn, he's one card set turn in away from capturing another continent, etc). This gives me instant credibility because everything I say can be verified from the game board. I'm now in a strong position to advocate a strategy to deal with the dominant player.
If there's something he wants (say control of South America) I try to accommodate him (how about a North-South America NAP?).
If he's given up on the game, I try to show him how he can make a comeback (one more round and he'll have a card set, etc.).
Why should I do all this work? Because I want to win the game and I'm saddled with a not very good player as my only ally in accomplishing that goal. If he were a good player almost none of this would be necessary would it?
I'm all about carrots because I don't find the stick a very useful tool in this game. Piss off a player and he can always suicide on you. Of course, there's the really big stick that I'm in favor of. If the player continues to play badly, I try to isolate him from the dominant player (if possible). I want to be the one to finish him off after all. It's like they say: keep your friends close, but you enemies closer, and keep your idiot brother Fredo closest of all.
One other possibility to consider. Your non-contributing player is not an idiot but is intentionally following a strategy of feigning not to understand what you're doing (tryng to reduce the dominant player's advantage), meanwhile reinforcing his position instead. He lets you do the dirty work for him and then when the dominant player is subdued he's in a stronger position than you and he becomes the new dominant player. Or you exhaust yourself against the dominant player and then he (the non-contributing player) finishes you off. Sometimes appearing not to understand doesn't indicate that the player in fact doesn't understand.
Of course, non of these ideas work if the non-contributing player doesn't read game chat. If I suspect that's the problem, then I PM him to ask him to look at the game chat. If none of these efforts works, then I plot how I could possibly eliminate this player before the dominant player does.
Sometimes, none of these options pans out, but I'm loathe to even consider suicide. I would certainly never threaten another player with suiciding on him. It's just counter-productive, and not how I want to be remembered by the player who eventually wins the game.
Cheers,
Tahitiwahini
