Was this "bad form" or just part of the game?

[CiverDan]

I was playing an MP game with 2 other humans, 5 AI standard map. I was with one other human and 2 AI on small/medium continent. I had an iffy starting spot with jungle directly north and a few crappy chinese cities just North of there on a penninsula. The human opponent was ottomans and due South of me and had lots of grass/hills. Greeks were to his west though not bordering me. I was aztecs with flood plain desert and plains mostly.

We ran out of expansion room fairly quickly and other human player was fighting the Greeks. I decide to Sword rush him by building tons of jag warriors and upgrading them prior to attacking. To get the money i had to lower science rate and fell behind on tech. I traded tech with human opponent so I could then trade with AI. Then I backstab him by attacking his capital with 18 vet swords. The city had GL and Pyramids. Then he quit on me and says He wont play with me again (we've played about 25 games together, he was a reg playing partner for me).

I think backstabbing is just part of the game. There were no alliance of any kind we had agreed to..I was just doing what I felt I needed to do to win. Was this Bad form? I do this to the AI all the time. Am i not supposed to attack a human player like this...

[Zero]

Backstabbing is like any other strategy. It has its pros and cons. looks like in this case, u used it well to minimize the cons.

[Omnipa]

Part of the Game.

This is part of it, being a ruthless leader will serve your Civ well. Being smart helps too, and I think you have that atribute as well CiverDan.

Looking forward to a rematch, beware...I am knocking the rust off my MadSkillz!

Om

[DrSpike]

If you were the only humans in the game then of course you should attack him. This is ridiculous.......it's a computer game.....you don't need a UN resolution to launch an attack.

[Acemo]

That is definitely part of the game, but what it does show is that you can't be trusted. I suspect this will have carry over to other games.
I know that if I play you I will be on my guard.

[DrSpike]

If you start a game 'trusting' your sole opponent you are incredibly naive and deserve what you get.

With more players there is some leeway......you have to decide whether the person you have allied with is trustworthy........and yes, people who are betrayed have long memories.

Conventions spring up over time; in civ2 breaking a peace treaty happens a lot, and no-one would turn a hair, but breaking an alliance would sully your reputation. Similar guides will develop over time for civ3 if MP has sufficient longevity.

[Franses]

Definitly part of the game for me. I would have laughed, congratulated you with your success (and really mean that) but be careful with you in my next games meaning e.g that if I have to make a choice between an alliance with you and somebody else, I will in most cases take the somebody else.

[reefer addict]

i would expect you or anyone else to attack at all times, this is a game of conquest (if i see a settler walking around alone, its dead. no regrets).
if you pull this on me i'll be laughing and talking sheet, and you better bring more men

[bigfree1]

Originally posted by reefer addict
i would expect you or anyone else to attack at all times, this is a game of conquest (if i see a settler walking around alone, its dead. no regrets).
if you pull this on me i'll be laughing and talking sheet, and you better bring more men

EXACTLY!

LOL!

[CiverDan]

Thanks for the input. He was probably pissed he had basically just built two key early wonders for me and the fact that in most games I have played with him I have Cav armies while he still had pikemen.

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by DrSpike
If you were the only humans in the game then of course you should attack him. This is ridiculous.......it's a computer game.....you don't need a UN resolution to launch an attack.

who says we need them in RL?

[WarpStorm]

Personally, I think that move was 'good form'.

[Boris Godunov]

Frankly, you played smart. The object is to win, after all. If the game permits a certain method of playing, it's ok to use it. Did that make your civilization "evil"? Yeah, I guess so. But historically, plenty of civilizations have been just as dastardly to their friends. I say you were smart. Your friend is being a big baby. He should laugh at it (it is only a game, after all), learn from it, and next time take his revenge. Or at least be prepared for such treachery.

So don't feel a bit of remorse.

[FNBrown]

Well, he was an idiot for trading techs with you and not being better aware of your offensive intentions while he was already at war with the A.I.

That said, I don't think there's much honor in taking advantage of a fool. You ought to try playing with more challenging opponents.

[DrSpike]

My cat for instance.