Quote:
Originally Posted by Micah
Wraith: Any top player would behave the same way, it's clearly the right play.
Oh, and if we're talking about "things rand is supposed to prevent" I'd say that the chronic gang-the-leader phenomenon is up there as well. Everyone's insistence that people messed up for not doing so is a little silly in my eyes, since it shouldn't be a bad thing when the nation that is doing the best actually wins the game.
|
I agree it's the right way. I'd do the same.
So long as the meta gaming is generic (i.e. you expect a certain reaction from a vet vs. noob) that's ok (and can't be prevented).
"shouldn't be a bad thing when the nation that is doing the best actually wins the game."
But is it always true?- How about a top notch nation starting near weak nations/players and expanding easily vs. mediocre nation led by a good player that has a hard life but doing a great job and still manages to expand (albeit at a slower rate). Who then "deserves" to win?- And is it even worth answering the question?
In that respect a lot depends on what qualities are considered more prominent for wining: tactical vs. strategical skill, subtlety and subterfuge vs. brute force, diplomacy or lack of.
For RAND game the answer is clear: brute force and aggressiveness are the qualities that win games.
You won b/c you had a good nation and are a great player and were the meanest dog in the pack. I see nothing wrong with that but still would have preferred to see Ermor+Mictlan try to stop you
