A question of Honor

[Robert]

or as Patton said, attack in both directions

Only if you can defend your north and southern borders

[snoopy369]

This was a game in which I, the whiner, clearly was non-aggressive to humans while RAH (with his obvious clan of half-wits) began claiming the ground around him. Person 'B' could/should/would have attacked RAH had he been any other person except his 'boss' or 'real life friend'. No, this was a clear and evident gang bang as the Friday night games have become. "Invite someone to the game to attack while the rest of you take up the AI's land and resources". Simple and to the point: this 'game' consumed time and energy I now have returned to my business which has already rebounded within 2 weeks of returning attention to it. The scenario is: In the previous 3 games, I showed I was the 1st/2nd strongest player and the only way to prevent my victories was to hit me while I'm in the middle of attacking. 'If' I were to ever play this group again, it would be by bypassing any and all AI and simply taking out who was obviously much weaker (by power, land, resources) human opponent. This style of vulture game play is reminiscent of a band of thugs taking turns on a single opponent in a dark alley. I prefer to play games of wit and chivalry; of warrior strength and gladiator fortitude; not games where each of the other players are real life friends and business associates and it is clear they will not attack each other until reducing their single other human opponent through cowardice attacks. RAH/Ming/whoever else runs this site now, you can say, do, post whatever. You can remove the account, you can write any number of 'scenarios' for others to ***** and moan about 'the whiner', but what you cannot do is contend that these actions were a sign of true valor from a valiant warrior mind executing a tactical battle in open field. Weak, pathetic, and the sign of a coward. That's what this was and it shows the true nature and character of the other player(s) in said game. I have more intelligent and profitable endeavors to pursue. Enjoy your little fantasy worlds.

I'll bite. I was the attacker.

Freakmon, you obviously came into the game with a misapprehension. That misapprehension, is that I play precisely how you expect me to.

I don't know why you think I should have attacked rah rather than you. Neither of you were particularly close to me; thus, early on, I attacked neither of you. I saw two AIs nearby, and, playing Genghis Khan, thought "hmm, i'll rush straight to horseback riding, and see what I can do with Keshiks."

By the time I had a couple of keshiks, and was getting ready to go after Charlemagne, lo and behold I saw a human player (you) suddenly attacking him - and occupying territory a dozen or less tiles from my capital.

Now, you're saying I should see an aggressive opponent to my east, near my capital, and say "nah, i'll not go after him; instead I'll attack someone well west of me, not particularly encroaching on my territory, not making any aggressive moves."

See, that's not how I play... because I'm not an idiot. If I was attacking charlemagne, and you decided to attack me, I would not be surprised; first off I'd have brought more units, but even if I hadn't, I would simply have retreated and shored up what I could hold. I certainly wouldn't have been surprised... it's the logical strategic move. Live by the sword, die by the sword; and don't ****ing whine about it afterwards. Nobody likes a ****ing whiner.

I can't speak for anyone else we play with other than me, but for myself, I make no bones about being willing to attack anyone who is aggressive, or who encroaches on my territory. I leave the weaker players alone usually, as long as they don't make moves that limit my expansion of course; certainly the fair thing to do in my mind. I don't need to attack them to feel good about myself. However, everyone else is fair game. I attack rah when appropriate; perhaps not as often as others, because he isn't as aggressive as certain others. Like you. I got my job by beating up on him regularly, I'm certainly not going to stop that any time soon.

But if it makes you feel better about yourself, feel free to keep thinking whatever works.

[rah]

Hmmm have a civ with their cap 8 squares from my cap and put the only copper in sight between the two caps, even god doesn't get a pass, I'm going to fight for that copper.

If I have a border with Snoop, check to see how big a force I put on that border. In fact there have been a few games where having to keep a defending force on that side has kept me from being more aggresive on other fronts. (yes, i have been gutted from behind before, and I choose to learn from the experience)

Now the more touchy topic, playing with your brother. Ask about two weekends ago when the copper example above occured. We have eliminated each other frequently. I do know he expends a lot of resources in defense and if I'm going after him, I've either got to catch him with his pants down or go in with a larger force than I might use on other less defensive minded players. There are usually easier targets.

But after saying all that, I will admit that I have a treaty with him at a SLIGHTLY higher percent than others. The reason is not that's he my brother, but more that past experience showed that he stands by his agreements.
And our agreements our clear. The trick is coming to an agreement. In some games, no agreement is possible because we're fighting over the same things and compromise is impossible.

Snoop will also faithfully live up to his agreements but sometimes our agreement means something slightly different for each of us. It's all in the details

Barono is also a close friend who lives up to his agreements, but ask him how many times we didn't have an agreement and I decided that his land looks juicy and I didn't believe he was prepared to defend it.

Generally I'll lay off the weaker players if they're not encroaching on my territory but not always .
The main exception being DeityDude because he loved encroaching. AND he usually built wonders instead of military units which always made him too tempting a target.

But to suggest that we never fight each other is ludicrous. My favorite was sneaking out to the garage for a smoke and coming back to find I was short a few cites to Snoops forces. Smoking kills.

And finally by suggesting that you lost because of anything besides lack of proper planning shows just how little honor you have.

[-Jrabbit]

Wow, hadn't been back here since freakmon's good-bye post. Interesting stuff.

I'm a longtime friend of the twins (35 years or so, OMFG), and I can certainly attest to the fact that they will indeed trash each other when the time is right, without hesitation. (He who hesitates is lost.) But they also have long and detailed knowledge of each other's playing styles, so a lot of stuff happens that is not apparent on the maps. I've see it in bridge, in Civ, in D&D, and a wide assortment of board games over the years. Both place an high level of importance on gaming honor -- keeping treaties/agreements in particular. Trust me, I know.

Being a relatively weak CIV player, I have enjoyed the tender mercies of my friends as I slowly come up to speed. (It sucks to suck.) But I've been trashed my share of times in the "friendly" Friday game.

Anyone who thinks friendship buys compassion in this group when an opportunity presents itself and/or the game is on the line, is kidding themselves.

[Metaliturtle]

I played 4 or so of these games as well. As I see it, a human is always more dangerous than AI because a human is less predictable. If you can take out a human while he's having difficulty beating AI, that is the best move because it gives you an advantage over the more dangerous player. Same reason I like to have an Alliance in RISK, it helps to eliminate another player.

To look at it in another light say there are 5 players including you. That means your opponent is producing at 4x the rate you are. The mathematical odds are 1:4 Ganging up changes the odds to 2:1 if the remaining opponents are too far away or indifferent to your situation. Eliminate that opponent and the odds become 1.5:3.5 or if you backstab quickly 2:3. Either way it's an advantage, make one alliance at this point and you have set either 2.5:2.5 or 3:2 odds in your favor.

Your objective at this point is to gobble up more opponents than your ally so when it's down to the two of you you've got the bulk of the power and can achieve victory.

[rah]

I played 4 or so of these games as well. As I see it, a human is always more dangerous than AI because a human is less predictable. If you can take out a human while he's having difficulty beating AI, that is the best move because it gives you an advantage over the more dangerous player.

Agreed. The tactics that work so well against the predictable AI do not work as well against thinking players.

So it leaves a few options. Take out an AI and leverage that later against a Human players, or try to jump the human player when he's committed elsewhere. Either works well.

If you're in the middle of the board though, you'd better have some agreement before you lean too far one way since there's a high potential that someone will take advantage of it.
You can see this in SP very easily. As soon as you move your SOD out of your territory an AI will usually try to take advantage and declare war. When this happens, reload from a previous turn (not the last one) and leave your SOD in your territory. Most of the time the AI that declared won't this time.

[Ming]

Early in the game, AI's can be really easy to pick on. However, if you see that your human neighbor has only a few weak units in his border cities with you, and that they are cranking out wonders... BONUS!

And I will admit that I very carefully watch what wars are going on. As long as I don't have an agreement with somebody, if I see them running into problems with another civ, I have no problem taking advantage of that and skimming off a few border cities. If it's an AI, you can take a few cities, and then get some free gold when you make a quick peace treaty with them. If it's an human player, you have probably eliminated a future problem on your border

I like to have a solid agreement with at least one of the human players on my borders... somebody I can trust to keep to the deal. That way I can lean a little bit if needed and not worry about my back. If I don't have an agreement, it usually limits what I can put onto the field against somebody else... because I've been gutted more than enough times when I stretched myself...