Do you think a player has an obligation to attack another player's undefended borders if no alliance has been announced?
I pointed this out to a player in a game, and of course he felt like I was telling him whom to attack, and refused to attack the other player's undefended borders. Disclosure, of course: the player with the poorly defended borders was attacking me and deploying all of his armies on my front.
Any thoughts?
Apologies if this has been covered before, I spent some time looking through the forums but couldn't find anything...
It might be the best strategic move, but you are not obligated to play well - as long as you are not purposefully playing badly as part of a secret alliance or some such.
And it may not always be the best move. If Red is beating on you, Green might be wary of incurring his wrath. Or, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Between tactics and psychology, I would expect there to be several possible explanations.
There is absolutely no obligation to attack undefended boarders, and it is not always the best strategic move. For example doing this could spread a player too thin, or if they attack and move back it could leave an easy card for their opponent.
KennyC wrote:There is absolutely no obligation to attack undefended boarders.
Which is just as it should be.
If your boarder is paying his rent and just simply hanging out and watching TV, why would you want to attack him/her ?
cicero
No, no - he's talking about when you're competing for the best wave off the break point; just because the guy's got his head turned is no reason to whack him with your Dr. Zog's.
Last edited by Sparqs on Thu Jun 07, 2007 4:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
A player has only one obligation, to do what is best for him of herself. There are plenty of good reasons to leave someone alone. For instance, perhaps they're in better position than you to break up another player's larger bonus. If you take away their bonus, you may undermine their ability to do this.
