2 points of view. What do they mean to you?

[Rabid bunnies]

This thread was inspired by A.sub's post in another topic:

Of course, the ultimate goal is to win. However, good conversation can also make a game enjoyable, win or lose. Also, great competition where everyone is actually working for that win (which means everyone keeps ganging up on the board leader, even as it changes) can make a game enjoyable, win or lose.

To mirror this comment, I've seen a few of "Codeblue1018"'s games and there is a bit of another point with a little bit of a different attitude, paraphrasing:

You played stupid... I'm attacking only you from now on and will let_______ win.

Both attitudes are fairly justifiable I suppose. I always enjoy a good game where lots of people attack and a game goes back and forth but there is also the type of game whether in fog or not where people find a place to be comfortable and build their armies.

What games do different players run into most often? Do you play games where everyone constantly shifts and openly attacks the game leader until the end is defined by someone who's lucky enough to shift the balance and hold it for a few rounds and ends the game?

Or... do a better deal of your games end with someone winning because of lack of trust among the other players in terms of fighting the game leader?

If you attack someone... and that player tells you to leave them alone passing you an ultimatum and you refuse it... do you believe that player to be in the wrong? What strategy is the right one? What strategy is wrong?

Basically...

If you interrupt someone who's trying to accomplish something and they respond by aggressing against you for what you've done, do you hold it against them by foe-ing them or leaving them a bad remark?

Given A.Sub's post... yes, when everyone contributes to fighting the common enemy and the common enemy keeps shifting, the game becomes pleasant for everyone to some degree... but there is also the strategy of trying to come out on top of the cooperated war. When you don't devote your troops to fighting the game leader and instead you build and prepare to fight the winner so that when they do remove the game leader, you become a momentary target but there is probably only little that can be done.

Given that this is legitimate strategy, is it worthy of foe-ing? Do you believe it is against the spirit of the game? Obviously in history, nobody beginning a war cried when their opponents fought back. They might have felt cheated or frustrated, but they knew they could not hope for any other result.

Sometimes 1 player refusing to participate in bringing down the game leader leads to the others becomming skeptical as well and before you know it, the game leader isn't being attacked by anyone because nobody wants to show their back. Of course... this leads to a whole new level of the game. The original "skeptic" the original player hoping to take advantage of the leftovers would feel frustrated if the war he was hoping to vulture from never occured and he watched the game leader grow so big in front of him because nobody attacked.

I've noticed some spite on this site as well. Nobody gets mad at the game leader but players can then end up arguing with each other over why nobody's attacking the leader lol. Then at some point the leader's victory is assured and the bitterness between all the other players remain.

What do you do as a player?

Do you attack the game leader at all times?
Do you try to vulture from a war against the leader?
Do you not worry about the leader until the leader confronts you?
Are you active in trying to implement others in diplomacy against the leader?
Do you feel bitter against someone who doesn't participate in fighting the game leader?

Jazzy

[Bob_1171st]

Well I guess this is a games tactic question. I doubt I could put myself in a single camp however I do like to operate a tit-4-tat procedure to games, initially offering a player who I think may be in need of help to 'stay in the game' or with somebody who I think is going to be well established for the first 4 turns or so.

After making an 'ally' hopefully. By giving them territories by moving away troops to other locations and offering them a gentelmens agreement to somthing which I will honour for the entire game. You show other players that you are resonable, and do not wish ultimate defeat of other players even if it would cost you the game.

I enjoy games where there are a number of players who make it to the end game, at least 3 and it will be a single turns smart attack that will claim the game. The big question for me is not who I am going to attack, but where do I want to attack. For instance in one of the games I am playing now. 2 turns back I held North America 1 unit strong, except for strongpoints at the entry to the continant. The Pink player however broke my hold on NA with a massive onslaught, which although suspected, I didn't believe that he/she would take that move, due to odds at the boarder. I don't know the exact die rolls but I wasn't expecting a push over...

Anyhow I ramble. The point I was going to convey is that having suffered for that attack (which still may cost me the game) I dicided that I would play my cards at breaking his continant in a semi-peusdo attemp of suicide. If I had made the acheivement then the game would have been close, as it happend it wasn't, and I lost out.

So in all, I don't like attacking the leader, only those who are sat next to me on the board, or within site of my current objectives. Even then I won't try bold risky counter attacks unless there may be some chance of me making it through. At the end of the day I know when I have lost, and will make a declaration to that affect. But I play the game for the key move, rather than a niggle piggle squable for game leadership...

Bob

[a.sub]

wrong post lol
that came from HERE

Do you guys play CC to win?

Of course, the ultimate goal is to win. However, good conversation can also make a game enjoyable, win or lose. Also, great competition where everyone is actually working for that win (which means everyone keeps ganging up on the board leader, even as it changes) can make a game enjoyable, win or lose.