Moderator: Community Team
jimboston wrote:Question... if you have this kind of Team, and you play this kind of game regularly...
How is this "fun" for the people under you?
Yes... they may win more... so if someone derives all his/her fun from victory and points... then it would make sense for this sort of person to join your team.
I have played Team games with people who have tried to dictate my every move. It wasn't fun.
(Though partially this was due to the Map... which required I do nothing but build troops for umpteen turns, and then hand them over to the "dictator".)
(It was a little more fun on a map like World 2.0.)
I am always open to suggestions and collaboration when playing a Team game... but I don't want to be micromanaged.
I suggest that CC would be better-off without these followers... and instead letting you play as Players 1-4 (or 1-2 or 1-3) in a Team game against four other people.
What's the joy to you in being able to dictate or control others??? If you could instead play all Team roles yourself you would never fear a coup... and would have the satisfaction of beating not one opponent, but 2, 3, or 4 "heads". Surely that would be more fun.
(... um... so how can I join your Team?)
maasman wrote:I do enjoy your posts changsta and I'm glad you're back on here writing them. Do you feel that the dictator is the correct path for team dominance, or do you think a more strategy by committee given that everyone knows what they're doing would work better? Obviously the committee would require a strong enough leader to not get muddled in debate, and this would also require the correct group of people, something no different than your main approach.
Mr Changsha wrote:
My final point though concerns you. Your rank and the fact that you are obviously smart (from your writing) makes you the cc-equivalent of gold dust for the kind of dictator who does want to have a personal high score. If you are genuinely interested in playing team games you should find a dictator, you should become the 'third' (and just concentrate on playing your moves to perfection) and you should learn. Accept that some do know more about this game than you, don't rile up against orders from afar. Find a top player, stay as quiet as a mouse and play out that player's orders as well as you can. You might find that you enjoy it. There is honor in being the third in a trips team. It is an important role.
jimboston wrote:Question... if you have this kind of Team, and you play this kind of game regularly...
How is this "fun" for the people under you?
Yes... they may win more... so if someone derives all his/her fun from victory and points... then it would make sense for this sort of person to join your team.
I have played Team games with people who have tried to dictate my every move. It wasn't fun.
(Though partially this was due to the Map... which required I do nothing but build troops for umpteen turns, and then hand them over to the "dictator".)
(It was a little more fun on a map like World 2.0.)
I am always open to suggestions and collaboration when playing a Team game... but I don't want to be micromanaged.
Denise wrote:In the democratic game with quality teammates it is often whoever gets to the game first, who will point out the nuances of the game and talk about what they'd like to see done. Then, each in turn will give their take before any opening move is made, even if it's only to agree with what's been said. Throughout the game, each player will talk about both his turn and make suggestions for her teammates turns. This is a good way to get lots of ideas and to narrow down which is the best move to make. It sometimes takes compromise but often it doesn't, as long as the team remains open minded to the possibility that their idea might not be the best one.
Mr Changsha wrote:maasman wrote:I do enjoy your posts changsta and I'm glad you're back on here writing them. Do you feel that the dictator is the correct path for team dominance, or do you think a more strategy by committee given that everyone knows what they're doing would work better? Obviously the committee would require a strong enough leader to not get muddled in debate, and this would also require the correct group of people, something no different than your main approach.
I am interested to see if any player from the 'all high-ranking democratic ideal' kind of teams will stop by and give their views on this. The kind of teams who often say 'we play silently'. Personally I have always felt that the weakness of those teams might well be in the consistency of the opening, the ability to form up destructive chained stacks in the early game and the capacity to abandon orthodoxy when it is required. For sometimes it is.
You however postulated on the committee-led team. In my view that is far from the ideal and you actually brought up the reason why. Either teams play effectively silently and react on the basis of the previous move, or a dictator sets the plays. Three or even four players all giving their ideas between moves seems to be to be a recipe for confusion. As you yourself said, there would be the need for a chairman-style figure to arbitrate. But who sets the opening move? The guy who has the first turn? So many teams I play against have an unfocused round 1. This is directly due to the issue we are writing about here.
Fruitcake wrote:Mr Changsha wrote:maasman wrote:I do enjoy your posts changsta and I'm glad you're back on here writing them. Do you feel that the dictator is the correct path for team dominance, or do you think a more strategy by committee given that everyone knows what they're doing would work better? Obviously the committee would require a strong enough leader to not get muddled in debate, and this would also require the correct group of people, something no different than your main approach.
I am interested to see if any player from the 'all high-ranking democratic ideal' kind of teams will stop by and give their views on this. The kind of teams who often say 'we play silently'. Personally I have always felt that the weakness of those teams might well be in the consistency of the opening, the ability to form up destructive chained stacks in the early game and the capacity to abandon orthodoxy when it is required. For sometimes it is.
You however postulated on the committee-led team. In my view that is far from the ideal and you actually brought up the reason why. Either teams play effectively silently and react on the basis of the previous move, or a dictator sets the plays. Three or even four players all giving their ideas between moves seems to be to be a recipe for confusion. As you yourself said, there would be the need for a chairman-style figure to arbitrate. But who sets the opening move? The guy who has the first turn? So many teams I play against have an unfocused round 1. This is directly due to the issue we are writing about here.
I agree with Mr C on this point. As so often, cc can reflect real life in more ways than are obvious. In any team there has to be some one who is comfortable with decision making and is relaxed with carrying the can if everything goes pear shaped. The issue, as in real life, is that often, there are false dictators who will talk the talk, but don't walk the walk when things get tough. As for decision by committee??? Yer avin a larf.
Having given my opinion on the previous point, I want to take this a stage further. Often, the Dictator will also be the person who can turn a game round when it looks shaky. This person will have the capability of seeing more facets of the situation than pretty much everyone else. However, it is often at this point, the 2ic (second in command for those with no military background or knowledge) will show their real worth, pointing out the weak points in a plan of action. This brings huge benefits it that it allows the Dictator to then review the possibilities freed from the confines of worrying whether they have managed to think it all through to the best advantage. Once again, as is often found in real life, the Dictator will have that clever chap/female by their side who is (often) actually cleverer that them, but it is the Dictator who can, often through force of character, take those good thoughts and ideas and ensure they are put into action in the best possible way for all concerned. Which brings me neatly to the next point I want to make. As, once again, in real life, the true Dictator knows when to stamp their authority but also knows when to look to that vital 2ic for advice, thoughts and feedback. I actually prefer to call this personality the 'benign Dictator'. I am fully cognisant of the ultimate downfalls of the pure Dictator types I have seen on cc. One last point about my 'benign Dictator'. This character will always be aware that others may not see what they see, and will often be asked why they have made a certain decision. As in real life, it is that skill of explanation, teaching if you will, that marks them out as the real deal.
It is also of great interest when two 'benign Dictators' get together. I have seen this at work in a triples game. The human interaction, even through this medium, is startlingly akin to real life...once more. This developed to the point that the third member of the team, a Sergeant, (the other 2 were Generals) popped a note in asking if wine and refreshments were required while discussion took place between the other two (very respectfully) as to the best play. The game was won in a trice, unsurprisingly. The Sergeant admitted to having difficulty understanding the logic behind certain moves but stated that he had learnt a huge amount by just being 'on the team'.
Referring right back to the point about 'how many games can be lost before the questioning may begin', once again, one only has to look to real life to see the reflection of this. A good CEO, General etc. will always know that there is a chance things may go wrong. The key is in the ability to have a complete grasp of risk awareness. Only by having this skill (being able to weigh up the odds from all the information in front of them, often including input from that 2ic) can a benign Dictator ensure those occasions are rare enough that the loyalty they enjoy remains strong. Conversely, the pure Dictator will rely totally on themselves, not seeing that by not paying heed to advice from well chosen quarters they are ultimately sowing the seeds of their own destruction.
Crazyirishman wrote:Very well written Mr. C, I think you are on to something here greater than just a dictator personality. What would be interesting is a psycho-analysis of the types of team players on CC in general, but that would be its own article. In terms of dictatorship I can only find myself to be marginally successful due to constraints on time, game load, natural ability ect. Do I only put myself in that role in certain conditions though I may have the ability to perform dictatorship duties in other areas as well
AndyDufresne wrote:I've only played a few games with Dictator types, and I recall just not being very fond of the gameplay. It was more like the math homework I never wanted to really do when I was young lad, so I tend to kind of line up with JimBoston.
Mr Changsha wrote:Would Denise be happy as a second knowing really that no matter the level of her input her role is still FAR below the first?
Denise wrote:AndyDufresne wrote:I've only played a few games with Dictator types, and I recall just not being very fond of the gameplay. It was more like the math homework I never wanted to really do when I was young lad, so I tend to kind of line up with JimBoston.
How many banana's will I need to bring to make you a willing underling? Before you name your price, keep in mind 1 banana will be deducted for every mistake you make and for every time you try to think for yourself.
Denise wrote:In seriousness, I bet most players agree with you. It's not easy for a dictator to find his team. He must find players who are competent and willing. Most players want to be in charge of their own games, or at least have an equal say in how a game is played out. They care less for a game being played to perfection than they do for their own sense of control over their game. If these players find themselves in a game with a dictator, they become resentful and angry at him, not understanding that there is nothing wrong with how the dictator chooses to play his game. It's just not for them.
Denise wrote:For me personally, I like variety and a steady diet of being on only one kind of team or another isn't for me. I love aspects of both. Being in charge (or on equal footing) prevents me from becoming lazy and dependent, and I do understand that thrill that comes from leading a team to victory based on my own excellent skills (in my own mind at least).
Mr Changsha wrote:....
I would like to bring to fruitcake's attention what I felt was one of the key issues of my OP, the link between the dictator's pursuit of win percentages and the team's desire for points. I suppose one would hope that the dictator could find partners who had an equal regard for percentages. However, I reject this proposition as while the team are sharing in those, the actual responsibility for the win is due to the dictator. Therefore, the team can surely not take great pride in those results. Hence my determination that the dictator MUST provide points for his team to keep the team together. My point here of course is that if the dictator has a whopping great points total he will struggle to make points for anyone, unless he play with terribly low ranks. Yet of course there are dangers in playing with such players, no matter how well-meaning they may be. It seems to me that the logical conclusion is that the extremely high-ranked dictator must limit his gaming to, in the main, clan-wars. For here the team has another goal higher than mere points. They desire to WIN THEIR CLAN GAMES, to not let the side down etc etc. Here the high-ranked dictator can keep his team together (for example I play as a second for Fruitcake in BpB games). But I think in public games the dictator with a very high rank would struggle to keep his team together no matter his win percentages, as the team wouldn't be making any points.
BigBallinStalin wrote:Mr Changsha wrote:....
I would like to bring to fruitcake's attention what I felt was one of the key issues of my OP, the link between the dictator's pursuit of win percentages and the team's desire for points. I suppose one would hope that the dictator could find partners who had an equal regard for percentages. However, I reject this proposition as while the team are sharing in those, the actual responsibility for the win is due to the dictator. Therefore, the team can surely not take great pride in those results. Hence my determination that the dictator MUST provide points for his team to keep the team together. My point here of course is that if the dictator has a whopping great points total he will struggle to make points for anyone, unless he play with terribly low ranks. Yet of course there are dangers in playing with such players, no matter how well-meaning they may be. It seems to me that the logical conclusion is that the extremely high-ranked dictator must limit his gaming to, in the main, clan-wars. For here the team has another goal higher than mere points. They desire to WIN THEIR CLAN GAMES, to not let the side down etc etc. Here the high-ranked dictator can keep his team together (for example I play as a second for Fruitcake in BpB games). But I think in public games the dictator with a very high rank would struggle to keep his team together no matter his win percentages, as the team wouldn't be making any points.
First, I've been immensely learning from the heavy-hitting posts of this thread, so thanks everyone for contributing.
Second, in the above paragraph and generally throughout this thread, it sounds like you're describing not a dictator, but a captain of a pirate ship. The Pirate Captain is analogous to the OP; whereas, the Dictator is not.
From what I've read about Caribbean pirates, the captains were generally "benign dictators," some of whom were also harsh enforcers; however, the key to maintaining control was a tempered inclination to the advice of his seconds and also the ability to maintain profits for the crew (or points, in this case). Without maintaining the balance, the pirate captain was bound to fail, and this description of the pirate captain fits precisely your "dictator." Nevertheless, the real dictator enjoyed much greater chances of survival by dispersing the costs of his follies onto the governed through very different means, and this is hardly analogous to your "dictator," as shall be explained.
If a captain proved too demanding or unjust, and if his harsh rule was not offset by the marginal benefits (e.g. plenty of booty), then the captain would be threatened by mutiny, or if at port, desertion. In your case, mutiny is representative of people opting for another 1ic, and desertion is represented by your followers voluntarily leaving your command (or team/ship). The capability for the crew to overthrow the captain or to "vote with their feet" provided the captain the proper incentive to align his interests with his crews' interests.
The dictator faces different constraints and incentives than the pirate captain and the "dictator" of your OP. The real dictator enforces his rule by control over the military, which stomps out the incentive which would have aligned the interests of the dictator with the interests of the subjects. The dictator can simply beat down dissent with his army of goons--and usually gets away with it, more so than the pirate captain, because the costs of overthrowing a dictator are vastly greater than overthrowing one captain and his fraction of loyal mates. The dictator hides behind his armies and fortifications; the pirate captain has a gun and sword, and so did his loyal mates, and so did the dissenters.
So, the incentives of the pirate captain are analogous to your "dictator," while the incentive of the real dictator in no way matches your title. Furthermore, the difference in the means may seem irrelevant to CC, but since the costs of resisting/deserting the pirate captain are closer to your "dictator" model, then this paragraph supports the pirate captain analogy more so than the significantly costlier dictator analogy.
In regarding to teaching, the dictator, and even the benign one, can simply ignore the advice of his seconds and make his fantasies reality (only in his mind) while continuing business-as-usual with little risk of mutiny or desertion, for the people and his 2ic are bound to obey the dictator and his other goons. Saddam Hussein comes to mind. The real dictator fails to teach for his word is truth, always. If anyone says otherwise, they're executed or given an amused smile and then blatantly ignored. This in no way represents the CC "dictator," or rather the CC pirate captain.
Another difference is related to the means of generating revenue. The revenues of the dictator are extracted from his subjects while hardly any revenues (or points) are distributed to the subjects. The dictator sometimes wars with other nations and collects profit, but most of his profit is derived from his people. Does Mr. Changsha extract the points of his teammates? I dare say he doesn't. Granted, "the people" don't apply to the Changsha "dictator" model, but without the people, the dictator analogy falls apart. With the pirate captain, profit is arguably derived from the crew (in the form of a relatively lower salary, or lesser benefits, e.g. food and rum), but in all actuality the profit or points are derived from the conquering of other ships--or CC teams, if you will. In this analogy, there are no governed/people, so the analogy holds more aptly in favor of the pirate captain.
Finally, the pirate captain operates in a competitive market for labor and capital; whereas, the dictator quashes the market and monopolizes the production and distribution of practically everything within his domain. Nevertheless, you may object that your "dictator" does the very same with your team because he controls their production and plots their every move. However, this would be based on a misconception because the pirate captain acts in this very capacity--but only for his ship, i.e. his firm, or "little pocket of socialism" in the market of piracy. The pirate's firm is representative of Mr. Changsha's crew. But still you may press ahead and argue that the dictator has a "firm" which operates in a market of governments, but this would be more analogous to ConquerClub in a market of Risk-based games. With this improper analogy, it follows that the dictator would control whole swathes of CC teams, kick out AndyD and lackattack, and simply force everyone to play rigged games with him and his cronies while effectively preventing the users from easily leaving conquerclub.com.
Therefore, Mr. Changsha, you're not describing the despicable dictator for you are truly describing the commendable Pirate Captain. I imagine that you are a man like me in certain respects. One of our mutual respects may be a quest for knowledge and truth in order to improve ourselves and to willingly lend ourselves as more useful to others. If not, then at the very least, I know you spend a respectable time creating an appropriate title. If I am correct in this judgment, then I humbly recommend you switch to a more appropriate thread title.
As always, I enjoy our discussions.
-BigBallinStalin
Mr Changsha wrote:
Well, I chose the title 'the dictator' on the basis of to what exent the leader of a team dictates the plays in a game. I actually agree with you that overall (in terms of the relationship between players) the team leader might well have more in common with the leader of some sort of gang, than the leader of a nation. However, this thread is about control of a strategic game and as I feel 'dictate' is the best word to describe what a genuine team leader does - though remember that I rejected that term due to my disdain for lower management - then 'the dictator' seemed the most apt. I would also point out that other contributors have been able to comfortably use the term, though Fruitcake felt compelled to introduce his 'benign dicator' (a distinction I basically reject) in an effort to express his own meaning as well as possible. Further, 'The Pirate Captain' while certainly evocative might have actually confused the message of this thread most terminally, leading to the surely horrendous prospect of various armchair generals trying to decide whether Blitzaholic had more in common with Long John Silver or Jack Sparrow. While this would surely trump the general quality of a GD thread these days, I am still unwilling for my own thread to degenerate in this fashion....
catnipdreams wrote:Mr Changsha, thank you for this thread. I thoroughly enjoyed reading your posts, and the varied responses your words elicited.
The dictator - a true leader, who can, if desired, dictate every move to the most minute detail, with complete cooperation and acceptance by the rest of the team... How rare is this type of player on CC?
In my experience, extremely rare. And an absolute joy (for me) to play with when I have been fortunate enough to find such a leader. However, the dictator must be a player of extraordinary strategic skill, with the ability to visualize outcomes several turns (and rounds) ahead. Communication is also key, as you have said. It is almost impossible to dictate every nuance of a turn, so the rest of the team must understand the plan, to fit their moves seamlessly into the whole. I don't see this as micromanagement; I see this as creating a masterpiece of fine art, with my contribution being small brushstrokes here and there, adding to and building upon the brushstrokes of my teammates, the organic whole of our joint creation being shaped and directed by the dictator. My enjoyment is derived from being a part of this creation, a part of a well played game, of seeing something unfold that I may not have been capable of creating on my own. Points and rank are (almost) irrelevant to me. The joy of thinking, feeling, being in the flow of the game, seeing the strategy unfold, is what keeps me here. Winning the game is nice, but poor dice can destroy any game. I accept this, and would not look askance at a dictator's less than perfect win record if it was due to the vagaries of the dice.
I also see players on a spectrum, or bell curve; the dictator is at the extreme end of the curve. Many people I play with fit somewhere between evenly balanced 50% alpha/50% beta, and the 100% alpha/dictator end of the spectrum. I am fortunate to team with top players; I can't actually think of anyone I team with regularly who is more beta than alpha. I don't know if this is because of the select group of people I team with, or if this is representative of the type of people who are drawn to CC. (Assuming there is an equal distribution of alpha and beta tendencies among a large random sample of people.)
The strategy for most of my team games is generally arrived at on a cooperative basis, with each player contributing ideas, and the best idea being selected for a given turn. This works well when all players on the team contribute frequently to team chat, are somewhat equally knowledgeable about strategy, and when individual egos can be kept in check. In practice, this is somewhat more challenging than it should be, and when a wanna-be dictator is added to the mix, disastrous. The entire team must have respect for the dictator, must clearly agree that the dictator's strategic vision is either equal to or superior to their own strategic vision, and must be able to willingly and wholeheartedly follow the dictator's lead. I don't know anyone who would follow a dictator simply because they want to be led by an alpha/dom. The relationship must be there, the respect for the dictator's superior strategy must be there. I am not actually all that convinced that the alpha/beta mix of an individual's personality affects the relationship with the dictator. I have seen very alpha personalities follow the lead of a dictator, because the alpha recognized the superior strategic vision of the dictator. Perhaps cooperation with a dictator is based more on the recognition of superior strategy, and the mature willingness to accept another's lead in this situation?
You describe the experience of being a successful dictator as "intoxicating"... Is this because you have controlled the actions of others, or is this because you have organized a group of individual efforts into a harmonious whole? There is imo a world of difference between having an obedient slave obey your every command, vs. a valued member of an orchestra, that you lead/control as the conductor.
You also say that you firmly believe that 3 active players simply do not work within the dictator model.
What is your definition of an active player? How does that player blend with the team? Does that player want a vote in the final result, and have a hissy fit if the play moves in a different direction? That would indeed be disruptive, and likely would lead to frustration for everyone. However, I am a great believer in getting as much input as possible for a given turn. We are all human, even dictators, and you have already acknowledged the value of an active, involved second in command. I think that all players, including the dictator, should be involved in the discussion about a move. Teaching/learning can occur if there is a large difference in strategic ability, catching errors can occur if there is a greater uniformity of skill level. The ultimate authority is the dictator, but why not have the dictator evolve and grow as well, perhaps learning something from the (seemingly) basic question asked by the most beta of teammates?
I respectfully disagree that dictators inherently take responsibility away from the team members. When playing on a team with a dictator, one can certainly simply "take orders" and play mindlessly, but why do that? I guess that could be the player who is only interested in points. That to me is sleepwalking through the CC experience in a near coma. I am 100% agreeable to following the lead of a dictator that I have decided to allow to dictate to me, however, I take responsibility for my moves. Unless I am exhausted or rushed for time, I always look at move strategy, and make my own comments as I see fit. I could care less if the move is done my way or another way, as long as the move is done the "best" way. Perhaps this is why I am fine with playing on a team with a dictator - I have no ego need to be in charge. Does this make me a beta/sub? Perhaps, perhaps not. Perhaps I have not actually played on a team with a true dictator, having simply encountered super strong alphas?
Fascinating subject - I hope more folks add constructively to this thread!
Return to Conquer Club Discussion
Users browsing this forum: No registered users