The Cheapest Trick in the Book!

[Illuminated One]

Originally Posted by Dragar

There is a strategic purpose to being spiteful - you will very likely play against your opponents again. Who would you attack, all else being equal? A player who goes AI as soon as they are losing, or someone who fights tooth and nail to the end and sows his fields with salt as the enemy army invades?

That's a bit the same as I will never trust that guy that backstabbed me once.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by vfb

You're not going to improve your game much by always fighting the guy who goes AI.

I really think it's best to ignore which player is playing which nation, and just base your decisions on the individual circumstances of each game.

In a multiplayer game do you try and take out an (in your estimation) easy target first to grow, or fight an equally sized and skilled opponent such that you both fall behind?

Absolutely you have to look at a lot besides the player, but it is almost never irrelevant. I've got a couple of games now where I'm on the way out, but I never want people to think I'm a pushover..

[vfb]

Originally Posted by Dragar

In a multiplayer game do you try and take out an (in your estimation) easy target first to grow, or fight an equally sized and skilled opponent such that you both fall behind?

I'll fight a larger opponent if I have a temporary or national advantage against him, and leave smaller nations alone if they are not a threat. If I'm at a disadvantage for whatever reason, then I'll do some diplomacy and see if I can get someone else to gang up on my perceived enemy. If there's a nation who is both bigger than me and has a national advantage, and I can't convince anyone else to go to war with him, then I'll be likely to leave him alone, if peace is an option.

The one thing I won't do is attack (or not attack) a nation because of the person who is playing that nation.

Absolutely you have to look at a lot besides the player, but it is almost never irrelevant. I've got a couple of games now where I'm on the way out, but I never want people to think I'm a pushover..

Of course, I agree that the threat posed by (or vulnerability of) a nation depends on who the player is. I just won't base my decisions on that.

[Executor]

Yes you fight stronger players at the begining before they get to powerful, and than you roll over the weaker nations after.
Eliminating the good players early on is much better IMO.

[Lingchih]

Originally Posted by Executor

Yes you fight stronger players at the begining before they get to powerful, and than you roll over the weaker nations after.
Eliminating the good players early on is much better IMO.

Heh, not always. You can get yourself killed that way.

[Baalz]

Originally Posted by Executor

Yes you fight stronger players at the begining before they get to powerful, and than you roll over the weaker nations after.
Eliminating the good players early on is much better IMO.

I think Executor is not alone in this feeling. I think I have a high profile because of my guides, in 5 out of my last 5 games I've been attacked at least 2:1 before the end of the second year and nobody was interested in negotiating - the responses I did get indicated I was assessed as a huge threat despite my average performance to that point. I think I'm gonna play my next game under a pseudonym...

[chrispedersen]

Originally Posted by Baalz

I think Executor is not alone in this feeling. I think I have a high profile because of my guides, in 5 out of my last 5 games I've been attacked at least 2:1 before the end of the second year and nobody was interested in negotiating - the responses I did get indicated I was assessed as a huge threat despite my average performance to that point. I think I'm gonna play my next game under a pseudonym...

Pseudonyms aren't allowed here.

But instead perhaps, a no diplomacy game. Besides Baalz, you *are* an expert at the game and a known threat.

It sorta like saying "I really hate it that my opponents didn't give me time to crush them"

[DonCorazon]

Originally Posted by Baalz

I think Executor is not alone in this feeling. I think I have a high profile because of my guides, in 5 out of my last 5 games I've been attacked at least 2:1 before the end of the second year and nobody was interested in negotiating - the responses I did get indicated I was assessed as a huge threat despite my average performance to that point. I think I'm gonna play my next game under a pseudonym...

In MA Chron I was surprised you actually made no diplomatic efforts either before or after being attacked. It was initially 1 on 1, til Nehekara jumped on. In that case though I saw you had a rainbow vs my awake SC, and figured low MR made Ulm attractive to Illithid spam, even with those painful crossbows and bladewinds to mow down my chaff. I would have attacked whoever the player was in that match up. That said I would agree with Executor that generally its not a bad idea to take out a perceived threat earlier but it all depends on the cost/benefit ratio of early action vs. waiting. Usually if I see a rainbow I figure it will hurt more later but there are other circumstances to consider.

I have also seen high profile players try and use their perceived threat as an asset - bullying or seeming more threatening than they really are so it can work as an advantage as well.

[Baalz]

Originally Posted by DonCorazon

In MA Chron I was surprised you actually made no diplomatic efforts either before or after being attacked. It was initially 1 on 1, til Nehekara jumped on. In that case though I saw you had a rainbow vs my awake SC, and figured low MR made Ulm attractive to Illithid spam, even with those painful crossbows and bladewinds to mow down my chaff. I would have attacked whoever the player was in that match up.

heh, I did negotiate extensively...with Nehekara. He reversed his position at the lat second to attack me instead of you because he decided MA Ulm was a bigger threat than MA R'yleh long term. I (apparently correctly) assumed there was no point in negotiating with you...

[DonCorazon]

Originally Posted by Baalz

I (apparently correctly) assumed there was no point in negotiating with you...

Not necessarily. I probably would have had less fear fighting Ulm in the endgame than Nehekara - with its high MR units and amphibious capability, not to mention Executor is no pushover