Does this ever happen?

IIRC you cannot take over another country unless someone has taken over your original country.

Thanks Ivo - but should it be allowed at all?

(What does IIRC stand for, BTW? IDK that one)

If I Recall/Remember Correctly.

As it is, I believe the system doesn't keep track of who used to be in a game once they have been replaced. I hope that area of webdip is improved at some point. Not allowing you to rejoin as a different country when you wee previously in the game would certainly be one benefit of such tracking. I do not think you should be able to do so since it gives you two different countries information which can be a substantial advantage.

I agree, Alderian. Plus in the scenario I described, it also gives you a second chance at winning a game you were heading for defeat in.

There's a thought - does going CD affect your Ghost Rating? I'm going to presume it doesn't...

From a certain perspective I believe it is more logically consistent this way (not saying I approve of it on a personal level).

Once you've gone CD you're no longer part of the game - you've effectively lost - and that's the end of the story. Then, if a few turns later you see this same game with another CD why should you be 'profiled' and prohibited from taking it over?

For the sake of the argument consider this scenario - player A goes CD in game X and player B goes CD in game Y. What would be the objective of prohibiting player A from taking over new CDs in his original game X, but letting him take over in game Y - and what will be the expected improvement if it was player B instead? I can't see any.

Are such cases common? Never seen it actually, only saw it discussed in the forum.

CDs should be counted as a loss also, aren't they?

I don't see how this could ever be a problem. Let's say you're an Italy about to lose, and a well placed Russia goes CD. In order to take control of Russia you will have to go into CD yourself, which needs you to miss several turns. You then get a lovely resigned mark to go on your record. If by some fluke the CD Russia hasn't been taken over by this time, and by an even greater fluke is still in a good position, you will need to spend a likely larger amount of points than your original stake buying it. No one with half a brain cell will ever even try to do all this, as it's never going to be worth it, so there is no need to stop it. It'd be like building a huge fence across the US/Mexican boarder... Time consuming and rather pointless

OK, here is why it is a problem. Italy is about to die. He is privy to a lot of communication about what is about to happen to Russia. Russia is in better chape but goes CD, so Italy goes CD, creates a second accoutn or talks a noob into taking it over, then joins as Russia. He now has information that, had he been an outsider joining the game, he would not (and should not) have. That is the difference between taking over in the same game and in a different one. It is also ripe for a cheater to create a second account just to take over his CD position just so he can buy into the other one.

@ draugnar

The problem highlighted there is traditional multi-accounting. If someone wishes to cheat via the capital offense of a second account he'd do better to play with both from the start. I'm not entirely sure what useful information they would take with them into the new Russia, either. I think I speak for most people when I say my plans would change hugely if a nation with many supply centres switched from being CD to active. The only useful information this player would take with him is that he's not as good at the game as the other players :p.

He doesn't have to multi, just get a friend/noob to take over the spot. As far as info, whether he gains from it or not, it is unfair metagaming because he is bringing knowledge that could include secret plans into the game from another position.

Ignoring the whole multiaccount issue, I think that this can get added to the 'fix it when you get the next release out' thing - assuming it isn't already in there.

Reason: In order for this to be a feasible problem, you have to have two countries in CD - the second nation going CD in order to take over the first. In order for the person who used to run nation #2 to take over nation #1, someone *else* has to take over nation #2.

If there are two CDs, and #1 is presumably in such a superior position that someone effectively resigns in order to take it over *two full turns* after it's been sitting around, then why would *someone else* take over the #2 country instead of country #1?

Granted there's a *possibility* of shenanigans, but I would imagine the coders have higher priorities than this particular issue. Even if it's a trivial change, there are plenty of trivial changes on the list I would assume...

stratagos +1

Secret plans that would now be completely bunk because they were made when a great big nation was CDing, and now they're active. If he's getting friends to play as his guaranteed allies then he is cheating and should be banned whether he does this via them taking over CD nations or whether they all start from year one. The gains from just taking over a CDing nation in a game where you're about to lose, assuming you're not cheating (and we must assume all players are innocent of cheating unless proved otherwise) are minute.

I really must learn to type faster :p

What if little guy nation CDs and is taken over, then the player notices that Big nation is about to CD and snags it as soon as it does. Only one CD at a time and a very feasible possibility. albeit, the info he has may not be useful, but it may yet become useful. I just think it shouldn't be allowed.

Draugnar - do you really believe this could be a valid strategy or are just arguing for the principle? :)

I can only see this happening as a random event.

nub question - what does CD stand for exactly?
i just assumed it means disconnect when playing my games

Principle only - I'll agree. But if you allow someone to do something, some unscrupulous individual *will* eventually do it. Hell, I'm the one who got the rule writtent hat you can't use a pause to hold a game for ransom. I and another player forced a draw doing it. Now it is considered cheating.

And what is worse is that you can be eliminated and, because you are the player of record, you can't get back into the game as a CD takeover, but a quitter can. If you can't take over a new power when you have been eliminated, you should be banned from doing so when you walked away from a different one.

What you are asking for is a rule that will limit someone's ability to do something - sort of a punishment.

I have a different point of view - I don't care whether someone else can go CD and then take over another country - even if they can do it (in theory) more than once per game.

What interests me is whether the other people in the game will suffer from it - and I see no difference if the CD is taken over by an ex participant or a totally new one (the knowledge argument is not a strong one for me).

If someone is actually so stupid to do this intentionally what do I care - they can contribute to as much points as they want - why stop someone when they are only doing damage to themselves?

The only reasoning for having such a rule would be if someone else does not like this particular player and don't want to see them again after they were killed - but that's a different story - and definitely not a valid reason.

But is it fair that some one be able to *quit* and take over another position yet someone else who was simply *eliminated* can't?

In an anonymous PPSC game, they aren't necessarily hurting themselves as they may be able to recover some of the points they would have lost with a total defeat from the other abandoned position. All they have to do is end with 1 SC more than they took over the position and they are in better shape than they were before.

Oh, and rules aren't punishments. Punishments are penalties for breaking rules. We have rules (aka laws) regarding our everyday behavior and punishments for when we break those rules (laws). I'm asking for a rule that keeps a level playing field and doesn't encourage quiting versus playing the game out. Right now, the status quo gives the quitter an advantage that the righteous, play it to the end player doesn't get. So the lack of this rule technically encourages quiting and destroying the game versus playing it out and seeing what you can do.

Dude, I'm sorry, but you're clearly unable or unwilling to see things with some perspective.

The problem with people going CD is that the penalty for CD is not big enough. Taking over another CD has nothing to do with it. I am not sure why it is so hard for you to understand this.

Such a rule will make no practical difference to the other players in the game - hence it's a useless rule.