Ethical dilemma (yeah, yeah...)

[Fake Boris]

The other day, I was playing the Age of Discovery scenario (that included with the game) against my friend.

We had pretty much colonized every part of the map. But then, I saw a little island (Iceland iirc) that he had been improving with a settler for quite many turns.

I loaded an engineer in a frigate and brought it to the island, stealing his spot (in the same turn, given the two movement points).

Should I or ?

[Rasputin]

do it @@@@@@ if he too lazy to build a city then you should. but beware the backlash, war has started for much less ....

[rah]

No-brainer, SETTLE.

[-Jrabbit]

The key phrase is "against my friend."

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by -Jrabbit
The key phrase is "against my friend."

He was quite pissed off when I settled. I managed to give him another city in exchange to calm him down. Anyway, I did it more for the laugh than for real strategic purpose.

[rah]

Are you two the only humans in the game?
If so, I think your goal would be to have him be pissed.

[-Jrabbit]

a little island (Iceland iirc) that he had been improving with a settler for quite many turns.

Anyone who pooks around improving the land for centuries before settling a city (what? for an extra food from his first worker?) is wasting valuable resosurces and deserves whatever they get -- whether competitive encroachment or barb attack.

How tough would it be to drop another 40 shields for a 2nd settler?

Not only was your play ethical, I would say taking advantage of that opportunity was ethically mandatory!

If you're friend is pissed, it's because you exposed the weakness of his approach.

[Zylka]

oh look the RACIST showed up

[War4ever]

who's racist?

[-Jrabbit]

Originally posted by Zylka
oh look the RACIST showed up

the only posters in this thread are Oncle boris, rah, Rasputin, and me.

WTF you talkin'/trollin' about, Zylka?