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

[CiverDan]

Yeah I agree I need more challenging opponents. 60-70% of the games I have played I have have had multiple cav armies while my oppponents still have pikemen.

[delmar]

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

Originally posted by CiverDan
I think backstabbing is just part of the game.

I wouldn't even call it "backstabbing" what you describe here. Maybe it's just my English, but I thought backstabbing is when you promise to do X and then you do Y with the intention to harm the other party. Trading tech for tech or for lump sum is not something that promises ethernal peace and friendship. If you get tech for gpt, and then you attack before the 20 turns are over, that's backstabbing. But as you said, even that's part of the game (with all the consequences of receiving similar treatment in subsequent games).

[Gregi]

Why don't you look at it from a purely pshycological view. The guy was being constructive, trying hard to rid the map of AIs. Along comes the only ally for the job to be done and demolishes his "work". I also do not agree with what he did, but I know it would be the alst game I would make a trade with you that wasn't heavely in my favour...

[purvisxiii]

In most games I've played, convention is to handle AI first, THEN start smacking each other.

But all's fair, you just took a bit of a lobbyreputation hit.

No biggie.

[DrFell]

Ais really just get in the way. Might as well play without them unless you want some kind of a buffer... 1 on 1 human games should really be just that, 1 on 1.

[Gregi]

The funniest thing I've come across in PTW MP is when someone came up to me and said... "allright, gimme all your tech or I'll tear you to pieces, I've got 15 unit just outside your capitol borders"... My reply "Fine... no techs, just do your thing"..

And his reply... "Darn!"

[Egbert]

It is accepted that eventually you will fight your human opponent. Either of you can choose to start the fight at any time without prior notice. You chose when to start and that is acceptable. Sneak attacks (aka backstabbing) are part of the game. It is even acceptable to ROP rape, break peace treaties, cancel trade and break alliances if you also accept the possibility that some humans may refuse to play you because of it.

OTH If, before or during the game, you had agreed to take out the AI first then breaking that personal agreement would be a reflection on your character.

BTW If you did that to me I would have quit and refused to play you again. It is one of the reasons I will never play MP. I would say neither of you did anything "wrong". He was not an idiot for trusting you if you had played many times before without backstabbing him. That does make it easy to understand why he refuses to play you though.

[Zero]

Why refuse to play with civer? He did something ingenious. I'd applaud for shaming me if I was the guy, since I was being ignorant. I love pointing out my friends their ignorance when it comes to video games. Especially in Fighting games. People get so caught up in informally agreed rules that they forget you can do something unconventional and they get pissed cause they werent prepared for it. I think all brilliant war leaders all knew this.

[Gregi]

Although I quiet agree with Calc, just please note that there are players who want opponents who play a gentlemans game. Yes, backstabbing is part of the game, but not all player like to play backstabbers. That's what it's about...

[DrSpike]

Jesus are we still on this. You want a gentleman's game then take up polo or something. The object of civ3MP is to beat your opponent.......and it has been rumoured that attacking him/her may be a good way to go about it.

[Egbert]

Originally posted by Calc II
Why refuse to play with civer? He did something ingenious. I'd applaud for shaming me if I was the guy, since I was being ignorant. I love pointing out my friends their ignorance when it comes to video games. Especially in Fighting games. People get so caught up in informally agreed rules that they forget you can do something unconventional and they get pissed cause they werent prepared for it. I think all brilliant war leaders all knew this.

I would refuse to play because, if I may quote Gregi who summed it up nicely:

"Although I quiet agree with Calc, just please note that there are players who want opponents who play a gentlemans game. Yes, backstabbing is part of the game, but not all player like to play backstabbers. That's what it's about..."

OTH I think civer played did nothing "wrong" because, if I may now quote DrSpike:

"The object of civ3MP is to beat your opponent.......and it has been rumoured that attacking him/her may be a good way to go about it."

I would want a peaceful game competing on score or spaceship without having to worry about a human executed ROP rape. (Umh if someone agreed to a peaceful game and then ROP raped that would not be skillful play and it would be "wrong". It would be nothing more than an abuse of trust).

[Pyrodrew]

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 agree with Delmar & various others. This is NOT backstabbing. A RoP Rape is not backstabbing either... a "Right of Passage" is just that "Right to Pass", not a Peaceful Alliance. Everyone knew that even in SP. If he had verbally agreed not to attack him & then did claiming he was only backstabbing "in character roleplaying" than that would be different.

Unless both players agreed not to battle each other, than he should have no reputation hit. Fear of this player should develop from his skill, as his tactics were fair. When I play MP, no one ever attacks another human (per their request, not mine) - but this is always clearly announced before the game starts.

The flaws with this unspoken "Gentleman's Agreement" philosophy is that NO agreement was officially made & everyone has their own opinion of what is included in this "Gentleman's Agreement". Good communication between players before a game is started is a better philosophy than hoping another player is following the same unspoken "Gentleman's Agreement" as you.

[DrFell]

If you made an agreement before the game not to attack each other (say you were going for space race), then sneak attacking your opponent might be wrong in that case. Otherwise there's nothing bad about breaking treaties... in the cutthroat world of civ MP a treaty is not worth the bytes of RAM it's stored in (except perhaps an alliance).

[DrSpike]

Hehe you don't have to wait to 'kick ass' any more Fell......have you tried civ3 MP yet?

[DrFell]

Damn my location field needs updating