The Cheapest Trick in the Book!

[Lingchih]

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.

Heh, not always. You can get yourself killed that way.

[Baalz]

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...

[vfb]

Good idea! Or play a Rand game. I think the decision about who to fight should be based on the nations and the circumstances of the game, not on who is playing the nation.

[chrispedersen]

Originally Posted by Baalz

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...

Pseudonyms aren't allowed here.

But instead perhaps, a no diplomacy game. Besides Baalz, you *are* an expert at the game and a known threat.

It sorta like saying "I really hate it that my opponents didn't give me time to crush them"

[DonCorazon]

Originally Posted by Baalz

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.

[ano]

Whom to attack first is in most cases the question that may cost you the game. The reasons are simple - difference between nations may not be big initially so you need to consider many points before attacking.
Personally I nearly always try to attack weaker (or at best - AI controlled) nations. If I swallow them then I will grow and increase the difference between me and the others.
I will attack a powerful nation/player early on only if I see that he is expanding and growing faster and I can't help it. In this case diplomacy should be used to convince other people that this nation is a threat (and it is almost always true).
One of the biggest mistakes that can be made in MP is failed early attack on someone. This will surely put you to the end of the caravan and most probably cost you the game. Even if you succeed in killing that nation at last you may be too far behind to hope for something so if you see you made a mistake better don't aggravate the situation and suggest peace.

[DonCorazon]

Originally Posted by ano

Whom to attack first is in most cases the question that may cost you the game. The reasons are simple - difference between nations may not be big initially so you need to consider many points before attacking.
Personally I nearly always try to attack weaker (or at best - AI controlled) nations. If I swallow them then I will grow and increase the difference between me and the others.
I will attack a powerful nation/player early on only if I see that he is expanding and growing faster and I can't help it. In this case diplomacy should be used to convince other people that this nation is a threat (and it is almost always true).
One of the biggest mistakes that can be made in MP is failed early attack on someone. This will surely put you to the end of the caravan and most probably cost you the game. Even if you succeed in killing that nation at last you may be too far behind to hope for something so if you see you made a mistake better don't aggravate the situation and suggest peace.

I'd agree but its probably safe to see that a failed attack can often cost you the game whether early or late if its a competitive game. Which is why the winners of many games are the ones that always manage to stay on the right side of the dogpile and only attack if they can win quickly and decisively. Usually because they have some temporary edge, be it an awake SC, national match up, or a set of strong allies.

[sansanjuan]

Originally Posted by vfb

That's not spiteful! That's just good business practice, a friendly boost to the health sector of your neighbor's economy. Keep the doctors and nurses busy and whatnot.

I find it's possible to have quite a bit of fun even while losing (which I have a habit of ) . Set a goal even if it has little bearing on an inevitable loss... "I'm going to take out Tart #47 but I die".

Another option is to "send all" a message that you are at war with so and so. You never know if he/she has a neighbor looking for the right moment to let loose. With half the opposing army sitting on your Cap they are likely army-lite elsewhere.
-ssj

[AreaOfEffect]

Don, Losing armies, even in the early stages, almost never determines my victory or defeat. Troops are disposable. There loss means nothing to me. Its a loss of magery and gems that always concerns me most. So long as I have land, castles, and mages, I never count myself out.

Baalz, I will grant you that it seems a bit hasty and unwarranted to rush a player simply because they have a high profile. I personally don't mind giving some of the vets a little breathing room, so long they aren't a real threat and I'm keeping up the pace. I suppose I play more for the challenges that others have to offer.

[K]

Cheapest tactic: double-team someone.

Unless it's far into the science-fiction future of the late game, no one can hold off vs. two human opponents.

Second cheapest tactic: take someone's stuff right after they have won a war. Chances are they have just lost a pile of units and are disorganized.