excuses

[waltero]

Just want to know what some of you think.

You have a game with one player that is clearly winning.
And you then express your discontent to one of the other players, that you will do nothing but attack him being that he has not waged war on the winning player.

His response is...I can not see Red (winning player). With the assumption that if you can not see him than you can not attack him (Wage War).

Do you think that is a valid excuse?

[Gillipig]

Depends on the situation. If he can't reach Red without attacking you then it's perfectly good excuse.

[waltero]

Not the case. situation is...none of us can see red (Concealed...fog, trench).

[Symmetry]

Not being able to see what other players are telling you to attack seems like a good excuse. Of course, nobody is obliged to attack even if they can see, so excuse is perhaps the wrong word.

If none of you can see the player who's winning, demanding that another player makes a strike out to nowhere, with no reliable info on what he or she might encounter seems like a demand that they do what you don't want to.

[betiko]

if red is totally outdeploying both of you the other player should understand what you are telling is no bullcrap. tell him to read the log.

[Symmetry]

if red is totally outdeploying both of you the other player should understand what you are telling is no bullcrap. tell him to read the log.

It still doesn't tell him where to attack in a fog game. Also, discontent should be expressed to all of the other players as secret diplomacy is not allowed, even in fog games.

[waltero]

The game log tells all. A person can gain a good Idea what is going on, Just in the game log itself. Just because a players entire units are concealed...does not mean that you do not know where he is nor does it mean that you can not attack him.
I understand that there might be a situation that would prevent another player from knowing where a certain player is placed.

That is not the case. If it where, I would of understood this and Not accused him of making excuses.
Playing your own game. Then somebody calls you on it and you simply Say, I can not see red how can I attack him? That is a Lame Excuse...meant to be used (play) against rookies.

It was all spoken Openly.

[waltero]

It was not a matter of him attacking me in order to get to red.

It was him not waging War against Red.
Turns out that I was able to inform them On how to attack red with out being able to see red.
We just dump all our units and attack the Neutral that is in between our terit and red (Trench) Thereby Forcing red to Attack us. In the hopes that one of us might break through (red running short of unit to repel us).



Vets love this excuse. They use it all the time. Humm, maybe they got something. I think I will try and use it.

[betiko]

if red is totally outdeploying both of you the other player should understand what you are telling is no bullcrap. tell him to read the log.

It still doesn't tell him where to attack in a fog game. Also, discontent should be expressed to all of the other players as secret diplomacy is not allowed, even in fog games.

nonesense. If a player is holding a bonus which often takes a few rounds, you have good chances to understand exactly where he is if you are not too stupid and you follow the log with territory counts and bonus values. and why are you bringing up secret diplomacy, i'm only telling to mention in game chat to ask the other player to read the log.

[chapcrap]

If it is trench and he can't see red, how is he supposed to attack him?

[Metsfanmax]

if red is totally outdeploying both of you the other player should understand what you are telling is no bullcrap. tell him to read the log.

It still doesn't tell him where to attack in a fog game. Also, discontent should be expressed to all of the other players as secret diplomacy is not allowed, even in fog games.

In a fog game you can't be sure, but doing nothing and waiting for the inevitable is a worse option than making your best guess as to where the dominant player is, and striking that way.

[generalhead]

if red is totally outdeploying both of you the other player should understand what you are telling is no bullcrap. tell him to read the log.

It still doesn't tell him where to attack in a fog game. Also, discontent should be expressed to all of the other players as secret diplomacy is not allowed, even in fog games.

In a fog game you can't be sure, but doing nothing and waiting for the inevitable is a worse option than making your best guess as to where the dominant player is, and striking that way.

except if you guess wrong and attack through all of the wrong player. Then they will be really mad at you.

[Symmetry]

if red is totally outdeploying both of you the other player should understand what you are telling is no bullcrap. tell him to read the log.

It still doesn't tell him where to attack in a fog game. Also, discontent should be expressed to all of the other players as secret diplomacy is not allowed, even in fog games.

In a fog game you can't be sure, but doing nothing and waiting for the inevitable is a worse option than making your best guess as to where the dominant player is, and striking that way.

Waiting for the dude who's getting angry to make his own move can be a good idea. It's not a reliable option, sure, but all of the options discussed here are essentially gambles.

[waltero]

When one player holds half of the entire board 27 terits and Each of the three other players hold under ten terits a peace...What do you do.

Continue to attack the weaker players?

Simply saying I can not see him. How can I attack somebody I can not see, is a cop out. You might find that excuses like that will provoke others into attacking you if you continue with your stupidity. You are a veteran!

It is a excuse to be used on newbies.

There are many different ways to attack somebody whom you can not get to. Not able to see your enemy is not an issue.
You have a player that controls the board (player A). Maybe a good strategy would be (if you can not get to him) to looks at the game log and see what 'players' are attacking the big guy (player A).

So if you see player B going up against player A maybe you want to think twice before you attack player B. Why take player B's bonus away if he is using it to assault player A.

I only explain this to some of you who do not know what to do when you can not see a player that you are trying to War against.

Quote ''You can not attack a player you can not see (fog or otherwise). WRONG! Wage War Against him...that would be enough. Waging war is the same as attacking somebody! Maybe not in real life but in a game like this, It is.

If you do not hinder the player's who are battling the guy you can not see (attack)...that is equivalent to Waging war.

I really do not think I should have to try and convince high ranking players How to attack a player they can not see or get too.

P.S. We finally defeated player A. 7 rounds back and forth...Using our units as cannon fodder. Player A could not keep up.

Fog, trench, game with artillery and air.
Every time somebody stuck their head up, it got shot off.
Take terit every turn and it turn to neutral every turn.

[Symmetry]

Who won?