Playing on Morals not strat

Rahm Es Hestos · Post by **Rahm Es Hestos** » Fri May 11, 2007 11:47 pm

I recently was in a 3-man rt game where i controlled NA, the blue player controlled aussie, and the green player controlled africa. After about 3 rounds of both the green player and blue player breaking me with an "unspoken" alliance, i made an agreement with the blue player to team the green player who at that point was dominating half the board with a fortress in africa. In response to this, the green player takes 40 armies and delibertaly suicides me so the blue player would win. Perosnally, I believe that playing a game for morals is wrong. I'm not saying that u should be an unfair cheater, but i think its rediculous for one player to throw a game he still had a chance at wining in revenge of his morals.....what do you all think, is it better to play a game based on how you feel or based on tatics and strategy? And just so you all know the blue player asked me for the alliance first to deal with green.... i just agreed to it.

safariguy5 · Post by **safariguy5** » Fri May 11, 2007 11:53 pm

It's possible that green wanted your cards. Also, when you get down to 3 players, it might be beneficial to eliminate a player. By getting a lot of territory and probably a few continents, you trade space for time against the other person. Especially if its escalating cards, the other player has 1 opportunity to beat you until you use the sheer number of territories plus whatever continents you still hold and the cards to overwhelm him.

Rahm Es Hestos · Post by **Rahm Es Hestos** » Fri May 11, 2007 11:55 pm

No my friend you dont understand. Green had no shot at all in killing me....he deliberatly attacked me knowing he couldnt kill me just so blue would win to get vengence for the supposable wrong i did agianst him for teaming him with an alliance i didnt even start!

Miller_Time · Post by **Miller_Time** » Sat May 12, 2007 12:00 am

first, there was no unspoken alliance. i was breaking up both of your bonuses, not just yours. You have more countries and more armies then me at the time of the alliance. You took advantage of a newbie who admitted he did not know what he was doing. I fount this alliance for several turns till you backed me into a corner where I had only 2 shoices, fight out or sit and wait for you to attack me. i had 33, you 36, you would have knocked me out next time. no way I was going down with out a fight. i struck, I lost.

Guess you shoudl think twice about resorting to an allaince in a 3 man game next time, especially when you have to manupulate a newbie to get it.

What did you want me to do, sit and wait for you to destroy me and hand the game to the one who resorted to dirty strategy to defeat me??? Not me, no way!

Rahm Es Hestos · Post by **Rahm Es Hestos** » Sat May 12, 2007 12:03 am

He asked for the alliance. ASKED FOR IT. I simply was trying to convince him to stop attacking me and to attack you so u wouldnt win the game! In return you kill me for some abstract wrong u think i did. And couldnt win, plz u had 33 men in SA 3 cards and blue was going to attack me and his turn was b4 mine. U bloody well coulda won u just choose not to fight for the possibilty to get ur upsurd vengence.

Miller_Time · Post by **Miller_Time** » Sat May 12, 2007 12:04 am

U didn't start??? LMAO!! You were working on him the entire time!

ericwdhs: I don't know... but you made a good case for going after green... lol...

You talked him into it. The game caht shows the whole thing. Sure he offered to team up against me after you pounded him for goign after you (when you were STRONGER!!)!

Miller_Time · Post by **Miller_Time** » Sat May 12, 2007 12:05 am

Rahm Es Hestos wrote:He asked for the alliance. ASKED FOR IT. I simply was trying to convince him to stop attacking me and to attack you so u wouldnt win the game! In return you kill me for some abstract wrong u think i did. And couldnt win, plz u had 33 men in SA 3 cards and blue was going to attack me and his turn was b4 mine. U bloody well coulda won u just choose not to fight for the possibilty to get ur upsurd vengence.

No I fought! I just fought you! If the dice worked for me, I still coudl have won, they didn't, and I'm Ok with it......You going to continue to cry about this......it's kinda funny hearing you cry liek a freshman school girl....so please do, it's quite entertaining.

Rahm Es Hestos · Post by **Rahm Es Hestos** » Sat May 12, 2007 12:09 am

What dice were you hoping to get buddy dice from GOD? U said urself i had 36 men on central america and not to mention the 13 on greenland and 13 on alaska plus about another 10 random armies of one throughout the rest of the map. If u killed me with 36 men agianst 72 i would have eaten my computer mouse!

Miller_Time · Post by **Miller_Time** » Sat May 12, 2007 12:13 am

Rahm Es Hestos wrote:What dice were you hoping to get buddy dice from GOD? U said urself i had 36 men on central america and not to mention the 13 on greenland and 13 on alaska plus about another 10 random armies of one throughout the rest of the map. If u killed me with 36 men agianst 72 i would have eaten my computer mouse!

All I had to do was knock the 36 out, buy me some time. The confrontation was coming, it was simpy was I goign to initiate it or you, your just sore it was me who struck. I'm not saying it wasn't revenge, bet your ass it WAS!!! Pin a dog into a corner and they are going to bite. You did this to yourself, next time maybe decline an alliance in a 3 man game if you don't want to deal with the revenge factor at the end.

You shoudl be happy, the guy you teamed up with won!!!! That was your teammate after all!

oVo · Post by **oVo** » Sat May 12, 2007 12:27 am

When do we discuss morals? or is the cornered dog thing the moral to this tale?

Rahm Es Hestos · Post by **Rahm Es Hestos** » Sat May 12, 2007 12:29 am

my arguement is that he threw the game to the other player to do vengence for his morals when he could strategically have won. im asking if u guys think this is right.

elad51 · Post by **elad51** » Sat May 12, 2007 1:15 am

I just finished a game and didn't use morals. One guy was dominating so i teamed with another person. We brought the other guy halfway down, but my teamate was going to win when we beat out the first guy, so I had to switch alliances.

While I took over most of the board...the other two people fought each other, leaving me to finish them both off in the end.

Felt bad for it (especially since both of them are my friends), but at least I won

Miller_Time · Post by **Miller_Time** » Sat May 12, 2007 11:17 am

oVo wrote:When do we discuss morals? or is the cornered dog thing the moral to this tale?

The moral to the story is don't cross a guy with a name of "Miller_Time" in the early morning hours......good chance that you won't get a sober reaction.

RobinJ · Post by **RobinJ** » Sat May 12, 2007 3:09 pm

Well I can't blame Rahm Hestos for persuading a n00b into a truce - you should have done it yourself. But, in my opinion, if it was 33v36 and you (Miller Time) were going to get eliminated then I agree with you for attacking him. You never know when you could get lucky

oVo · Post by **oVo** » Sat May 12, 2007 3:39 pm

Since morals are the standards or principles which establish what might be perceived as right or wrong, it confused me a little to see it associated with strategy. Is there really such a thing as a just moral strategy when it comes to war? In this game it's usually an action that causes a reaction which is occassionally thought out, but with few --if any-- moral implications.

You win some and you lose some...

so it goes.

AAFitz · Post by **AAFitz** » Sat May 12, 2007 11:22 pm

Well, vengence is a very important part of the game. Knowing that someone may attack you for something you say, taking his territory or any other action in the game should be partially expected. Im not suggesting suiciding into everyone that attacks you, but players do need to know that if you hurt them deeply, you may hurt them back...

again there are limits to this, but when playing the same people over and over, you definitely do not want to be known as a pushover, because you will be repeatedly attacked game after game.

I play many games at once, and my score depends upon winning many, not one or two, so I have no problem sending back an attack on someone, but suiciding is a different story, and im not advocating that...only saying that it will happen occasionally, and will always be more likely if you slight a player somehow...either in chat or game play...therefore...it is part of the strategy to an extent

snufkin · Post by **snufkin** » Sun May 13, 2007 12:04 pm

oVo wrote: Is there really such a thing as a just moral strategy when it comes to war?

In the old days when many european kings were related to each other it could happen, and also during supposedly religious wars.

If you were in a town under siege and knew you had no chance, it was not uncommon to make a deal with the besiegers.
Free passage out of there with no casualties or prisoners.

This was beneficial to all involved except for the attacking soldiers who got screwed - no looting opportunities..

hmm maybe you meant something else and I´m just having a rambling sunday..

In game I´d say 1/4 of my moves are influenced by moral strategy.