Two points for discussion for whomever is interested: Being an International Relations Graduate student, I have had occasion to discuss during games on chat with other like-minded polisci geeks the systemic microcosm that kdice best represents. Although multiple opinions exist, the best representation appears to be Kenneth Waltz' neorealist paradigm (see Theory of International Politics, 1979) which predicts that within an anarchic, self-help, and security-driven structure, "like" states will seek to balance each other and choose defection over cooperation--in the kdice world, a) this explains the rather large outcome of 1-2 truces and 2 big powers picking off smaller ones and being left to fight it out; and b) that other exongenous factors such as PGAs, oddly shaped geography, etc. are responsible for the exception to the rule, that being multipolarity, where 3 or 4 relatively even powers remain to determine the outcome. Was wondering if anyone strongly agreed or disagreed with the above?

The second point: we often have IR undergrads read Machiavelli as one of their first texts. Among many acute observations, ol' Niccolo has the following to offer in the Prince.
On love and fear
This gives rise to an argument: whether it is better to be loved than feared, or the opposite. The answer is that one would like to be both, but since it is difficult to combine the two it is much safer to be feared than loved, if one of the two has to make way. For generally speaking, one can say the following about men: they are ungrateful, inconsistent, feigners and dissimulators, avoiders of danger, eager for gain, and whilst it profits them they are all yours. They will offer you their blood, their property, their life and their offspring when your need for them is remote. But when your needs are pressing, they turn away. The prince who depends entirely on their words perishes when he finds he has not taken any other precautions. This is because friendships purchased with money and not by greatness and nobility of spirit are paid for, but not collected, and when you need them they cannot be used. Men are less worried about harming somebody who makes himself loved than someone who makes himself feared, for love is held by a chain of obligation which, since men are bad, is broken at every opportunity for personal gain. Fear, on the other hand, is maintained by a dread of punishment which will never desert you.

The questions that arise from this are a)on the kdice board, is your general strategy one where you seek to be loved or feared? b) which do you feel works best? c) although we have discussed on a prior thread who we believe is the "best" kdice player, who would you say you most fear and who do you most love?

If the answer to c is the same person, I would say unequivocably that this is the best kdice player. But for my money I'd have to go with Grun for most feared (and there is nothing normative about this statement, i.e., doesn't imply that he in some way plays "mean", but that his style of play raises fear in others because he rarely truces, attempts disadvantaged attacks if pressed, and often thinks outside the box from the general thinking on safe expansion and racing for the tranquility of corners). For loved, I would have to say Hatty--the "lay off the penguin rule notwithstandng, lol--I've played with him many times, and as a native English speaker and non-German have held no prior affinity towards him. At least from my experience, if he kills you, he does it with subtlety, and I have seen on more than one occasion him flag for a second if he feels his opponent has played the better strategic game even if he has a shot at the top spot.

* This has been reposted to remove the slash in the title of the original post

[Editorial Liberty: SECRETLY, RND IS MY MOST FEARED AND LOVED KDICER, THOUGH.]