The Cheapest Trick in the Book!

[vfb]

Originally Posted by Meglobob

Spiteful? How about bane venom charms on black servants sneaking about your opponents lands.

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.

[Quitti]

Ah, vfb, that armageddon comment on the first page cracked me up. Who knows why

Also, unrest is max 500. I know, my capitol has it in Discharge.

But what really annoys people up is a huge van army sitting in their lands, grabbing 15-ish provinces in one turn, then moving out with taxes at 200 to siege all the castles they can horde to. Add in a friendly neighbor of Helheim who's doing the same at exactly the same time to the same target, and you've got a nice economic crumble in one turn.

[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

[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.

[AreaOfEffect]

Originally Posted by K

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

Untrue. I've done it. I've seen other players do it. In some cases a couple of chump players is not that much harder then fighting one half-decent player. No offense.

[chrispedersen]

Early in the game its not particularly difficult to defend 2:1 or even 3:1.

So long as you have established choke points, and they don't have the type of troops that afford them stealth or flying opportunities.

In the early game, even if you're opponents do have these types of troops, dominant early rush players can quite possibly hold off the determined efforts of two or more opponents.

For example, EA-Mictlan could hold off EA-Yomi, LA-ulm probably with not much difficulty, and probably could win.

That being said it really does suck being ganged up on. It might be cool to have a game set up entirely by Private Message
where the host does not play.

Only vet players allowed. Only the admin would know which players were in the game.

I'd probably be willing to set up such a game. Although I might make it ABM =P.

[K]

Originally Posted by AreaOfEffect

Untrue. I've done it. I've seen other players do it. In some cases a couple of chump players is not that much harder then fighting one half-decent player. No offense.

Ummm, right. I'll concede that it is not impossible that any number of incompetents can be held off in ideal chokepoint situations in the early game and the ganged-up on player can go on to win.

That doesn't refute the fact that the easiest and cheapest and MOST successful tactic is to simply double or triple-team opponents. I don't care how good you are: as long as your opponents are even half-competent, you will lose or be so crippled by the win that by the middle game you have effectively lost.

Exceptions don't disprove the rule.

[Executor]

I think unrest can go up to only 500.
And you need an army to kill and pillage a province, and if you have an army you can maybe defeat the enemy, and if you can defeat the enemy than no need to pillage your own lands.
But yes if you know there's apsolutly no chance of victory and want to do as much damage as possible cause it's a tricky game, cause you can go from 40 lands to just your capital, and again to owning 40 lands, and so on.

[Dragar]

There is a strategic purpose to being spiteful - you will very likely play against your opponents again. Who would you attack, all else being equal? A player who goes AI as soon as they are losing, or someone who fights tooth and nail to the end and sows his fields with salt as the enemy army invades?

[vfb]

You're not going to improve your game much by always fighting the guy who goes AI.

I really think it's best to ignore which player is playing which nation, and just base your decisions on the individual circumstances of each game.