Re: [OT] The Art of Winning Games
 

Slynky, I don't think anything you said contradicts what I said, except maybe the Last sentance. Noone should trust me implicitly. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif They can trust me, but always keep an eye on me. That's what I am doing to them. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

In your example about the waeker ally, you would still be helping me to win, so I would likely keep you around. The only difference is being the weaker empire myself I would always be keeping an eye out for an opportunity. Since my objective is to win, and I can't win if I am knocked out of the game I will continue being the best ally I can be for you. In the hopes that at some point our common enemy will be weakend or destroyed and I can then turn on you and end up winning. This point may come at some time before you think the common enemy has been defeated. It will be the point at which I think the best opportunity exsists for me to turn the tables.

Re: [OT] The Art of Winning Games
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Well said! Only difference again (LOL) is this: In the course of "our" alliance sweeping over the enemy, I usually recognize who has done the most in that effort and I decide who in "our" alliance has helped our alliance earn the impending victory. And I won't go against them.

It DOES come with problems, though, and that is this: Let's say the alliance that has vanquished (mostly) all the other enemies on the map consists of 4 players...as the strongest member of the alliance, a person has to worry about the other 3 deciding it is NOW a game between the remaing 4 and the "lessor" 3 may decide to "even" things out by ganging up on the stongest member. Therefore, what you have said makes much sense. And I agree with you. As for my part, I wouldn't join in but I know (and expect, since it is a Last man standing affair) others to consider that approach. I would always stand with the person being "ganged up" upon.

But of all the various discussions about gaminess, I don't consider what I have listed in that Category. When alliance victory is at hand, it's only natural for one to be concerned about who among the winning alliance will be the Last man standing.

Hope that makes sense... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: [OT] The Art of Winning Games
 

Note to Self :- Remember to become Geo's enemy in the next game, and not his ally, so I won't have to watch my back. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

[ December 12, 2003, 03:14: Message edited by: Baron Grazic ]

Re: [OT] The Art of Winning Games
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">LOL...not sure I'd do that...hehe. Geo can, more than most, in my opinion, be quite the wild card. I'd rather look at that idea from game to game instead.

Re: [OT] The Art of Winning Games
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">LOL...not sure I'd do that...hehe. Geo can, more than most, in my opinion, be quite the wild card. I'd rather look at that idea from game to game instead. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Geo and yourself Slynky are two players, who I've never come across in any game, but I'm looking forward to the day. It might come sooner, if I get the nerve to challenge either one of you. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Every game I play it is to Win.
I have nothing against back-stabbing someone, but I prefer to find those 1 or 2 allies who will assist me to take the gold. I prefer the 'Gentlemanly' game, and that is why I usually play Koth or Alliance Win games.
Mind you, the 1 active Roll-Playing game I'm in, I'm the insane EEEvil EEEmpire, in 1st place, bossing around every other Empire, bending/breaking every agreement, have conflicts on all borders, abusing the AI empires in every way I know and am pretty much doing what-ever I feel like and loving it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif