View Single Post
  #6  
Old December 12th, 2003, 05:10 AM
Slynky's Avatar

Slynky Slynky is offline
General
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 3,499
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Slynky is on a distinguished road
Default Re: [OT] The Art of Winning Games

Quote:
Originally posted by geoschmo:
Slynky, I don't think anything you said contradicts what I said, except maybe the Last sentance. Noone should trust me implicitly. They can trust me, but always keep an eye on me. That's what I am doing to them.

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.
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...
__________________
ALLIANCE, n. In international politics, the union of two thieves who have their hands so deeply inserted in each other's pocket that they cannot separately plunder a third. (Ambrose Bierce)
Reply With Quote