Quote:
Originally Posted by Baalz
Quote:
Originally Posted by Executor
Yes you fight stronger players at the begining before they get to powerful, and than you roll over the weaker nations after.
Eliminating the good players early on is much better IMO.
|
I think Executor is not alone in this feeling. I think I have a high profile because of my guides, in 5 out of my last 5 games I've been attacked at least 2:1 before the end of the second year and nobody was interested in negotiating - the responses I did get indicated I was assessed as a huge threat despite my average performance to that point. I think I'm gonna play my next game under a pseudonym... |
In MA Chron I was surprised you actually made no diplomatic efforts either before or after being attacked. It was initially 1 on 1, til Nehekara jumped on. In that case though I saw you had a rainbow vs my awake SC, and figured low MR made Ulm attractive to Illithid spam, even with those painful crossbows and bladewinds to mow down my chaff. I would have attacked whoever the player was in that match up. That said I would agree with Executor that generally its not a bad idea to take out a perceived threat earlier but it all depends on the cost/benefit ratio of early action vs. waiting. Usually if I see a rainbow I figure it will hurt more later but there are other circumstances to consider.
I have also seen high profile players try and use their perceived threat as an asset - bullying or seeming more threatening than they really are so it can work as an advantage as well.