The Dictator

[thegreekdog]

I admittedly didn't read every post here, so I caveat what I'm about to type with that.

If the ultimate goal in a team game is to win, one would assume that teammates would look to the most skilled player to direct their actions (I believe Changy referred to points as #5 on his list of five reasons for dictators, I believe points is likely numbers 1, 2, 3, and 4 as well). I digress. In the real world, if one wishes to succeed in a customer or client service line of business (for example law or accounting or engineering), one necessarily defers to those who have more experience, talent, and/or skill. This is a natural occurrence if a team wishes to be successful. For example, if I am in a meeting with a client regarding the reduction of their overall tax liability through planning in order to win work from the client, I will certainly not interject my thoughts on a tax technical item when someone with more experience, talent, and skill is in the room. We are more likely to win the work if the person with the most experience, talent, and skill talks about his or her area of expertise than if I interjected my own opinion, however valid that may be. There are likely many more examples of this phenomenon in real life.

In most CC games, I will defer to other players. I'm submissive, to borrow Mr. C's term, in CC games because my expertise in that area pales in comparison to those with whom I play games. Therefore, those of you who may be offended by Mr. C's use of certain terms, which imply a lack of assertiveness, shouldn't be. When my teammate has spent more time, energy, and intellect on the play of this game, I will defer to that teammate so that we can reach our ultimate goal of winning points. And that happens in real life too.

But in some circumstances, you possess relevant knowledge which may be extremely useful for the team and which no one but you possess; however, since you feel inferior to the superior's "expertise," you'll fail to act on the incentive to disseminate such knowledge (of course, there are many other reasons/incentives too).

The last 3-4 paragraphs in this deal with the above in more detail.

For what it's worth, I think Mr. C may agree with you.

Given the number of maps and types of gameplay, does this phenomen that you describe happen often? Will there be three players (including one dictator) all of whom have expertise on Waterloo, trips, freestyle, trench, flat rate?

I'm sure you have more experience in this regard, but when I have participated in clan war-type games, the "home" team picks its maps and setting primarily on what maps and settings its players have expertise with. And this tends to be one player having an expertise and the other players joining along. Now, you may have had different experiences than me and there are certainly other considerations (e.g. gameplay restrictions; pairing effective teammates). But I think if it's acknowledged that I am the expert on the Waterloo map, I'm going to be on the team that plays the Waterloo map, and I'm probably going to be the dictator.

[Viceroy63]

Back again with some thoughts to add. But first let us consider the objective of Team Games? As I see it, the purpose for a team game is to create a superior mind than what one could create himself. Just as four or six pairs of eyes will see more than just two so also can two or more linked minds be more creative and powerful when link into a single unifying purpose. The problem is that human beings/minds, just don't link naturally. For example the concept of sacrificing oneself for the good of the team is something that is simply hard to do among humans. It is something that is learned and approached from a history of seeing the effects in others. It does not come naturally to us to sacrifice ourselves for the good of the whole and neither does playing in team games. This has to be learned.

Team games also do not exclude the need for a Dictator but requires them in the creation of this "Super Mind." In the example given where the "Trips" are permitted independent play that form three empires the lost is not just the power that can be achieved from the three focusing all of their troops strength and power on one of the players to be their point of contact man but the lost of the "Super Mind" as well as they are not thinking as much for the whole team but for themselves. Ultimately this type of mind set loses more often than wins, generally speaking. At least I would think so.

In a doubles game that I am currently playing on the Atlantis Map my Doubles Team is now bringing the game to a win but the way it was done was by implementing a strategy that just does not come naturally to most. I became less and less so that my team mate could become more and more. (It may sound crazy and probably appear crazy to some but as long as we win the game I don't really care how crazy it may seem.) The sacrifice of myself permitted my partner to gain an early income in troops that is more then all of the rest of the players including myself, put together. As a result my team established A BZ (Bonus Zone) in Round 04 and now we have several and the opposing team still has none and never did.

In team games, it matters not how many numbers, I absolutely hate being the last to play. This is because if I play first then I can generally start the ball rolling in the general direction that I want the game to go. I often will drop and fort to the player [directly] after me with the best position and encourage the rest of the team to do likewise. In this brand of Strategy which we shall here by call the TPM (The Point Man) strategy I try to rally everyone behind the player who is in the best position (other than myself) to go for the scraping run attack in an area heavily populated by opposing forces. In games where I don't go first and have no time to make any input, what I mostly see is the first player, playing for himself carding and fortifying to another player indiscriminately. This is the individual play that comes naturally to us even in a team game. We don't naturally think about the over all position of the team but of our own position in the team.

The Dictator knows that the way that people naturally play is weak and so directs the action to a more stronger plan. Every team game has such a person but where we call this person "The Dictator" others refer to him as Team Coach or Team Captain. If this was a football game, we would all obey the instructions of the football captain without question, but here in CC we have no such thing and no playbook for the team captain to base his decisions on. Otherwise it would not be such a daunting task to be, "Dictator!" Everyone loves to blame some one other then themselves and this shy's away many from approaching the position of Dictator.

In the end, the finest of "Super Minds" is created when all the players, on an equal level, are contributing ideas to the success of the team and not their own success in the team. The "Dictator" knows however that the truly superior mind can not be achieve or is rarely achievable among players who can not see past the numbers of their own troops strength statistics. (Everyone wants to be the superstar.) The only recourse that the Dictator really has at his disposal is to form at the very least just one team mind rather than to allow three separate minds who will most likely form three separate empires. "United We Stand, Divided We Fall!"

When the choice is three regular empires with three separate minds behind each or one team and one mind out of three even if not a "Super Mind," then the team with the one mind, even if not a "Super Mind" will ultimately win the game with just the one solid empire and one solid team mind set behind it. It matters not how this is achieved, either willingly or by deception and coercion, only that it is achieved and that is why the Dictator is an integral part of the team and what really determines who wins and who loses.

Vic.

[emelar]

quote]

checked through my previous wins and found that almost always one of the three players became an overwhelming dominant force. Interestingly, it was a fairly even split between the first and the second as to who became the dominant force, while the third incredibly rarely took on that role. That is important in itself. So it seems to me that the dictator model works in that sense.

I tend to disagree with this. A true dictator who finds himself much more often dominant than the others is playing his own pieces and missing his teammates'. It is the dice and the drop that decide which of the teammates' positions should be "dominant". The dictator in your model should find a random spread among his three with no significant tendency towards his own pieces being dominant or else he is not playing objectively and optimally. You shouldn't be dropping the aces out of player B's hand just so you can play the jacks in player A's hand when you are A. If you play optimally, then you should not (in your mind) HAVE the "A" hand. I always kept playing in team games when "my" pieces had all died, and I didn't have pieces to personally move from my account during most team games. I'm certain you don't stop when "your" pieces are gone. Unless your 3rd is truly an awful player (which is the antithesis of the model you propose- all must be very good even when not in the "dictator" role.), then the tide of the games should be determined much more by the drops, cards, and dice than by the quality of each teammate's individual turns which should be consistently high. My point, therefore, is that if your pieces were most often dominant, then in optimally played games it represents your random dominance, not a principal or pattern "important in itself"

On a separate note, in so absolutely a dictatorial model to keep your most frequent teammates in a finely tuned team at their sharpest, most interested, most invested, and most entertained - I would submit that a minority percentage of your games should formally rotate #'s 2, 3, and (if there is a 4th) 4 into the role of dictator and rotate yourself, infrequently but surely, into the role of 4th. I believe that in the long term this would also improve, not decrease, the overall point/percentage wins advantage for that specific team. #3 might dictate 5% or 10% of the time and #2 10% or 20% of the time. I do not know which mix would be optimal, but some degree of rotation I suspect would have multidimensional benefits. Again, I do not mean rotation within or during an individual game, but between games with the dictator who begins a game remaining so throughout the duration. Also, I get that the usual dictator might tend to gather more sway from his position in his off-top games, but the benefits still accrue. A CEO must be very smart, that's a sine-qua-non. However, the best CEO is the one who best utilizes his resources even when they are very much smarter than he(or she).
The above applies to the use of the dictatorial model. I think it one best suited to a team with one strategist who is obviously head-and-shoulders above his team-mates. It is the communication of a clear strategy that has been proposed and can be seen by all to be optimal that should dictate what is best to do. When that is accomplished, it doesn't matter which accomplished it. The proof in this pudding is that I think a dictator-general with 2 majors will tend to beat a lone general controlling all three accounts on his team given essentially equivalent generals.
These are my thoughts. I didn't read the entire thread, I didn't have time which is why I wrote such a long post instead of a short one (brevity being the soul of wit). So forgive me if it was already addressed. I am not as adamant about them as perhaps it sounds and would defer to your 4 years of experience using that model. (LOL, perhaps you would then jump upon my disclaimer itself as proof that I really agree with the basic premise of your model, but just consider and comment upon my points first).

Finally, I followed a friend's posts to this forum. The points have incisiveness to them and so grabbed my attention. However, I'm not "supposed" to be playing CC and doing THIS, strategizing in these forums, is just as much playing as actually being in a game. I greatly miss and regret not playing with you, Cat and Mac and many of you from the SoC.[/quote]

[macbone]

Emelar, it's awesome to see you posting here again. =)

Remember the Pelops games with Blitz? I wonder how much of a dictator-top method they employed. Josko may employ a similar style in his games. In most of my team games, we employ a committee-type leadership model. In the games I've played in the past with a dictator-style leader, our record wasn't all that great, but perhaps I just haven't found the right dictator yet. =)

[Viceroy63]

A Committee-type leadership model is the way to create a sort of "Unified mind." That would be a team where all of the members are actively giving feed back on a nearly constant basis and the Player who's turn it is would decide on his turn for his turn, which course of action to take after much deliberation with in the 24 hour time limit of course. That would provide for the best play possible without a Dictator. But I still believe that a Dictator or Team Captain making the calls is better still.

The problem as I see it from my limited experience in team games, players don't like to talk much. Especially when they don't even know each other or are playing for the first time. Some even seem to want to play on a "Read my mind" or "Non communication" approach. On the other hand, I have even had it mentioned to me from some where they like to play with so and so because they already know each others thoughts and how they play??? This to me denies the "Super-mind" onset. No matter how well your eyes see if both are looking in the same direction then they are missing out on something. The point of the "Super-mind" is for one to look this way and the other to look the other way. This takes communication. And someone (the Dictator), is the one who says, "You look that way and I will watch this way."

But I absolutely agree that if all the players in the team are providing active feedback on every turn then that is the best way to go. The Committee-type model does create a powerful "Super-mind" but even so, the need for one team captain to call the play based upon all that feedback would in my opinion be the absolute best way to go. If the play is based on votes by committee or letting the individual decide on his turn from all the feedback, then something is being lost in the way of the creation of a "Super-mind." It would be a powerful mind but not the best. At least I think so.

[persianempire]

I have to agree with everything youve said here , bravo. especially about planning the first few turns as those are crucial, and plotting the movement of your troops the rest of the way , just like a real general moving his tiny tanks and battalions across the board in the war room. the dictator must be strong willed , but open to hear ideas from his right hand man and lower level advisors , there will be no commitee during battle as someone mentioned , a commitee possibly for clan matters politics if you will , but in battle there the dictator ALWAYS must have the final word . In the end it is simple keep your troops happy and well fed (points) and you will have a long succesful reign , but make one too many mistakes the the doubts will spread like wildfire, that being said even the greatest dictator can not fight the dice gods, all the preperation, strategy and tactics will do nothing if you are destined for shitty dice.

[Gillipig]