Poll on 3 v 1 and 4 v 1

[kevindusi]

In 108, DuPont, my recollection was you were essentially up against BL for the bulk of that contest. DE was defending against a GI attack in 8, and all I did (as SO) was take your city and let you raise my gold production.

[DuPont]

The initial attack that knocked me down was a 3 way. Taking my largest population center was not a small thing. It's true that after I was down, I was mostly facing off against the BL, but having the DE/SO join in on the initial attack was what gave him such an advantage. This is a perfect example of the rationalization that goes on to justify 3v1 attacks.

[HeadHoncho]

My BL in 108 was my first game back, so I was a newbie going against an experienced player -- the one who wrote the political emissary article in the Oracle, no less, and I was honestly a bit terrified -- so yes, I was more than happy to go in with experienced allies. This was also the game that taught me, however, that 3 on 1 results in too much of a split, to the extent that it isn't really worth it.

My conscience is clear in that, and also in games after that. I think the only other arguable case is 121, where my UN is going up against The Gray Mouser/Ry Vor/Rick's EL Kingdom, and even then only after I made repeated entreaties to EL work with him, and then heard multiple reports that EL was coming after me, and my only response to about three or four e-mails was complete and utter silence.

Given that my Kingdom in a head-to-head with EL is weak to begin with, and given that my agents had been suffering for multiple turns under a coding problem (which was eventually fixed but never adjusted or compensated for the wasted time, by the way), I sent out a call for allies, because in a non-anonymous game, I hear that's part of how you're supposed to play. WA, a relatively new player, responded, and so that was a 2 on 1. And I hope we're not complaining about 2 on 1's now, are we?

I subsequently found out one or two turns AFTER our attack began that AN, another relatively new player, also decided to go in, and so rather than stumble all over ourselves, of course I'm going to reach out and try to coordinate. Because I hear that's what negotiations are about. Even that coordination hasn't exactly been a model of efficiency, however, given time and travel demands for each of us, so much so that even after about half-a-dozen turns of conflict, EL has never once lost control of the region. (And the fact that my agent actions are all seeming to fail again, against all odds, isn't exactly helping either the attack or my mood.) So we're not exactly going like gangbusters, here.

Meanwhile, I've been on the receiving end of 3 on 1's twice so far, and in each case, I sucked it up and rallied allies to go after my opponents.

Look, anyone is welcome to raise an issue on the forums whenever they want. You don't need a poll to do that. But I'm also finding more and more that some people don't seem to want to take personal responsibility for their own actions, or lack thereof. In a negotiations game, you need to negotiate, and if you don't do that, you'll more than likely find yourself on the receiving end of an attack, and ultimately do poorly.

Don't like that? Then either start negotiating or play anonymous games.

[kevindusi]

The initial attack that knocked me down was a 3 way. Taking my largest population center was not a small thing. It's true that after I was down, I was mostly facing off against the BL, but having the DE/SO join in on the initial attack was what gave him such an advantage. This is a perfect example of the rationalization that goes on to justify 3v1 attacks.

I'd say it is also a perfect example of the rationalization that goes on to justify not negotiating with one's neighbors.

I'll take ownership of my jumping over to take your lovely, lovely city while BL went on the attack. I'll not take ownership for your not engaging in diplomacy. The game requires skills in strategy as well as diplomacy.

[DuPont]

Well, the SO and GN are not generally considered 'neighbors' as they are on opposite sides of the map and it was in the early part of the game.

[Brogan]

Well as the RA in game 121 I find it humorous that those wailing about the way we were playing end up using the same tactics against me. So you have a problem with 3 friendly kings removing a neighboring kingdom? It's a freaking war game for Pete's sake. So to "fix" the problem, you convince the BL, DE, GN, and WA to single me out for retribution? So who is jacking whom here? Lol, at least our fight was more fair. And, you could have communicated with one of us but I don't think your motives are altruistic, this is just a thinly veiled excuse for your kingdoms to expand.

Anyway, I agree that all of this would have gone down differently if there was more diplomacy for the start, that is no ones fault, but it does make going to war easier.

[kevindusi]

Well, the SO and GN are not generally considered 'neighbors' as they are on opposite sides of the map and it was in the early part of the game.

I was referring to DE and BL as being your neighbors. I was just a guy that wanted a city.

[DuPont]

I had certainly spoken to the DE about working together, he just chose otherwise.

[HeadHoncho]

Whoa, it's time to make popcorn, this thread is going nuclear

Yeah, whoever could have guessed that this thread and poll, worded the way that they were, might lead to some strong opinions and hard feelings?

[Brogan]

My BL in 108 was my first game back, so I was a newbie going against an experienced player -- the one who wrote the political emissary article in the Oracle, no less, and I was honestly a bit terrified -- so yes, I was more than happy to go in with experienced allies. This was also the game that taught me, however, that 3 on 1 results in too much of a split, to the extent that it isn't really worth it.

My conscience is clear in that, and also in games after that. I think the only other arguable case is 121, where my UN is going up against The Gray Mouser/Ry Vor/Rick's EL Kingdom, and even then only after I made repeated entreaties to EL work with him, and then heard multiple reports that EL was coming after me, and my only response to about three or four e-mails was complete and utter silence.

Given that my Kingdom in a head-to-head with EL is weak to begin with, and given that my agents had been suffering for multiple turns under a coding problem (which was eventually fixed but never adjusted or compensated for the wasted time, by the way), I sent out a call for allies, because in a non-anonymous game, I hear that's part of how you're supposed to play. WA, a relatively new player, responded, and so that was a 2 on 1. And I hope we're not complaining about 2 on 1's now, are we?

I subsequently found out one or two turns AFTER our attack began that AN, another relatively new player, also decided to go in, and so rather than stumble all over ourselves, of course I'm going to reach out and try to coordinate. Because I hear that's what negotiations are about. Even that coordination hasn't exactly been a model of efficiency, however, given time and travel demands for each of us, so much so that even after about half-a-dozen turns of conflict, EL has never once lost control of the region. (And the fact that my agent actions are all seeming to fail again, against all odds, isn't exactly helping either the attack or my mood.) So we're not exactly going like gangbusters, here.

Meanwhile, I've been on the receiving end of 3 on 1's twice so far, and in each case, I sucked it up and rallied allies to go after my opponents.

Look, anyone is welcome to raise an issue on the forums whenever they want. You don't need a poll to do that. But I'm also finding more and more that some people don't seem to want to take personal responsibility for their own actions, or lack thereof. In a negotiations game, you need to negotiate, and if you don't do that, you'll more than likely find yourself on the receiving end of an attack, and ultimately do poorly.

Don't like that? Then either start negotiating or play anonymous games.

That is so accurate. Diplomacy is hard too and time consuming. But it's a dog eat dog game. I have been on the receiving end of H's diplomacy and it ain't pretty. And yes the anonymous are zero diplomacy which works great for a purely tactical experience.