Killing off people?

[TheScarecrow]

I have seen a few games where one player has very few countries left and is earning a pitiful 3 armies per turn while everyone else has a continent.

There is one game that I should never have won Game 1676647. Early on i was badly decimated and decided to hole up in Madagascar for a while and build up my armies while the rest were fighting each other. then alliances were made against the biggest player. I in the meantime captured Southern Africa... then the horn... and slowly worked my through Australia... then the rest of Oceania. After this i just sat down and deployed armies such that I had 20 on all my borders... from here on end it was my game to win.

The point here is... why do people not eliminate people before they get back up on their feet? this is a game i should never have come within a million light years of winning... the only thing i should have been able to do (which i hate doing) is playing kingmaker.

it was a great fun game... but that is one victory that should never have been earned.

[detlef]

It's a tough thing to call. Unless there's some nice cards to be earned, putting a weak player out of his misery is something done for the good of the table, so the benefit to the actual player who eliminates him is lessened. After all, attacks typically come at a cost, so the net result is at the board but the guy who went on the run is better off because there's one less person who can win the game but everyone but the guy who made the run gets this advantage at no cost.

None the less, you're probably right and that people should just take the bird in hand, if you will. On a big board, like the one you were on, you can always earn back the cost of the elimination run over time and there's one less guy who you now have to worry about. Plus, if taking this player out doesn't earn you a bonus, people might leave you alone there and you may earn some stealthy armies in the form of 1 for every 3 (which is a huge deal on that map).

I'm in such a game right now where I had a significant lead on the board and one guy was pretty down and out. I was in position to take all but one of his countries but he had 5 cards and I didn't want to gift wrap him to another person. I mean, that's a kick in the other nut. Waste an entire turn's deployment doing the heavy lifting to take out 20 or so of a player's armies only to leave somebody else a simple attack on a 3 army country for 5 cards.

[Kemmler]

it'a waste of armies.

[TheScarecrow]

its just in my opinion that if you care enough to beat someone down you should care enough to finish it.

[GoVegan]

its just in my opinion that if you care enough to beat someone down you should care enough to finish it.

This is a very bad generalization. It all depends on the game type.

The only situation where you 100% should take out another player is 1v1... in any other setting multiple other things come into play.

[killmanic]

i dont know if they have 5 cards and sets are worth 50 and they have 1 terit left with a 1 one it i would say its worth killing, but in no card games killing tends not be be as big

[TheScarecrow]

im not saying IMMEDIATELY kill them off...

im just saying that you should take them out before they become a threat... like in that game I mentioned in my first post

[Thezzaruz]

As long as they don't have lots of card (as in detlefs game) then I generally kill off such territories close to my strong points but I wouldn't mind them being left somewhere else on the map to be a pain in the *** to someone else. And ofc also the opposite, if someone has his last territory right by me I tend to kill them off as otherwise they'll just be in my way later on.
No reason to (unnecessarily) have someone focusing on the same area as oneself.

[kletka]

im just saying that you should take them out before they become a threat... like in that game I mentioned in my first post

Everybody is a thread and you must prioritise them as your resources are limited. As soon as you survived 3 rounds, you have 10+ armies and taking you out gets extremely expensive.

[tzor]

If I understand correctly you cited a World 2 game and your lowest count was 10 nations. On this map it's easy to miss the weak trees in the forest and there are so many short term goals it is possible that no one either noticed or wanted to invest the effort to remove your remaining 10 nations.

Depending on the situation in the game I more likely to be nicer to people when their card count is low. I absolutely hate almost killing off a person and if I were to do that by the bad luck of the dice expect a mea culpa in the chat box. Then again sometimes I like to hide in the corner watch the others use the nuclear option and then snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. (Mind you I hate to get into that position because 80% of the time they just take me out and 15% of the time they still take me out afterwards.)

[Commander Eric]

I have seen a few games where one player has very few countries left and is earning a pitiful 3 armies per turn while everyone else has a continent.

There is one game that I should never have won Game 1676647. Early on i was badly decimated and decided to hole up in Madagascar for a while and build up my armies while the rest were fighting each other. then alliances were made against the biggest player. I in the meantime captured Southern Africa... then the horn... and slowly worked my through Australia... then the rest of Oceania. After this i just sat down and deployed armies such that I had 20 on all my borders... from here on end it was my game to win.

The point here is... why do people not eliminate people before they get back up on their feet? this is a game i should never have come within a million light years of winning... the only thing i should have been able to do (which i hate doing) is playing kingmaker.

it was a great fun game... but that is one victory that should never have been earned.

Yes The Scarecrow you were extremely lucky in that game, I am curious as to how many forces on Madagasscar you had when they ignored you and left you alone as thinking you posed them no threat? They did that to me in an Pearle Harbour game reciently where I had just one Nip Plane having 3 forces on it; near the dockyards, but unlike you.....they 7 other heartless players after my threats against them waded into me and finished me off. I did this intentially of course for I knew they reveled in washing themselves in others blood and eating their hearts out, especially newbees that are completely unsure of what will happen and also think they have friends in the most sly of foes, I was not dissappointed in that. In my first few moves of that game I actually kicked some of the big blowest hards of important territory that they thought I had no interest in and did scare them pretty badly.

Oh I was eliminated but actually was up on them, Hummm people like humley and Dexisting etc, got my rankings on them and the rankings show them how dangerious they are to play against.

[Commander Eric]

If I understand correctly you cited a World 2 game and your lowest count was 10 nations. On this map it's easy to miss the weak trees in the forest and there are so many short term goals it is possible that no one either noticed or wanted to invest the effort to remove your remaining 10 nations.

Depending on the situation in the game I more likely to be nicer to people when their card count is low. I absolutely hate almost killing off a person and if I were to do that by the bad luck of the dice expect a mea culpa in the chat box. Then again sometimes I like to hide in the corner watch the others use the nuclear option and then snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. (Mind you I hate to get into that position because 80% of the time they just take me out and 15% of the time they still take me out afterwards.)

Well tzor your more honest than most of the most bloodthirstiest I have seen here; it is very good you don't slaughter newbees and atleast give them a chance as you watch them attempting to survive, however if I were you, I would ally with a few of them instead of not trying to help them and just watch, lets see in a public game where 3 out of 8 people are newbees and if just these 3 people teamed up and instead of being foes truthfully played the game as it was meant too then the HARDENED BLOODSUCKING KILLING MACHINES would not be winning so much and not bathe in the newbees blood. More Newbees would survive for your actions and sometimes actually help you win.

[Commander Eric]

it'a waste of armies.

Ahhh I see Kemmler, saddly I do not believe you....that skull medal on your chest is not for looks is it? I am curious how many newbees you have slaughtered just because you were adjacent to their territories and you had a agenda that made it very nice to take them out in a few moves as not to cramp your style?

[Mr Changsha]

I have seen a few games where one player has very few countries left and is earning a pitiful 3 armies per turn while everyone else has a continent.

There is one game that I should never have won Game 1676647. Early on i was badly decimated and decided to hole up in Madagascar for a while and build up my armies while the rest were fighting each other. then alliances were made against the biggest player. I in the meantime captured Southern Africa... then the horn... and slowly worked my through Australia... then the rest of Oceania. After this i just sat down and deployed armies such that I had 20 on all my borders... from here on end it was my game to win.

The point here is... why do people not eliminate people before they get back up on their feet? this is a game i should never have come within a million light years of winning... the only thing i should have been able to do (which i hate doing) is playing kingmaker.

it was a great fun game... but that is one victory that should never have been earned.

Yes The Scarecrow you were extremely lucky in that game, I am curious as to how many forces on Madagasscar you had when they ignored you and left you alone as thinking you posed them no threat? They did that to me in an Pearle Harbour game reciently where I had just one Nip Plane having 3 forces on it; near the dockyards, but unlike you.....they 7 other heartless players after my threats against them waded into me and finished me off. I did this intentially of course for I knew they reveled in washing themselves in others blood and eating their hearts out, especially newbees that are completely unsure of what will happen and also think they have friends in the most sly of foes, I was not dissappointed in that. In my first few moves of that game I actually kicked some of the big blowest hards of important territory that they thought I had no interest in and did scare them pretty badly.

Oh I was eliminated but actually was up on them, Hummm people like humley and Dexisting etc, got my rankings on them and the rankings show them how dangerious they are to play against.

You're making a hell of a lot of sense Commander Eric. Killing you WAS heartless in the extreme. Much better to have left you to a slow lingering death, gently mocking you for round after round as you assuredly bleated away about not being given a fair chance. I would have left you to the very end, with just one territory, not letting you die (as those nasty high-rankers would have) until I chose to finish you. So you see, the players in that one game you have finished were actually pretty decent sorts.

[PL]

Well, if it's flat rate and the guy has 30+ holed up, then no. I would just make sure to keep an eye on him. But ESC. that's totally different. The cards increase value every few turns, so eliminate him when the time is right.

[spline]

This is actually a well-defined strategy, called Turtling. A player simply collect 3 every turn, no fighting and no card, so in a sense he stays from conflicts and would not become a target for cards either. As he grows, the cost of removing him becomes more and more expensive for any single player until he becomes so powerful that can be a threat to any other player. In other words, he can now suicide on anyone he likes and remove the other player and himself from the game. Because of this suicidal ability, no player dares to attack the Turtle, which means the Turtle will simply grow bigger and bigger all the time until he can actually go on to win the game.

This is a much discussed topic and I have written a lot about it in various forms in the past. This was just the problem. The solution isn't always as simple and requires cooperation from all the players involved. In other words, you can only beat it by diplomacy.

Interestingly you can see this phenomenon all around us in the real world, that the selfish choice which is beneficial to one can be disastrous to everyone. This is beautifully demonstrated by the Tragedy of the Commons. If you don't know about it, look into it.

[StarofTroy]

I usually kill them off if they're near me. Or If they're weak and their last continent got destroyed and they don't have a shot at taking it over, then i'll try to kill their territories near to me to prevent them from "turtleing" on my border. I hate that when someone is doing that in the corner and you're fighting like crazy with other players just knowing that one of these days that guy is going to come swooping in and take someones bonus and fort up.

[lozzini]

a couple of months bump there lol

[Mr Changsha]

a couple of months bump there lol

'Nowt' wrong with that...

Having re-read the thread, I realised my sole contribution was to stamp on that weird chap commander eric. I would LOVE to have that guy in one of my games. When I read his stuff I always hear Gollum (from Lord of the Rings) in my mind...

In general (not escalating btw), if it is in my overall interest I will kill you off without even blinking, if it isn't then I'll happily let you live.

[FabledIntegral]

This is actually a well-defined strategy, called Turtling. A player simply collect 3 every turn, no fighting and no card, so in a sense he stays from conflicts and would not become a target for cards either. As he grows, the cost of removing him becomes more and more expensive for any single player until he becomes so powerful that can be a threat to any other player. In other words, he can now suicide on anyone he likes and remove the other player and himself from the game. Because of this suicidal ability, no player dares to attack the Turtle, which means the Turtle will simply grow bigger and bigger all the time until he can actually go on to win the game.

This is a much discussed topic and I have written a lot about it in various forms in the past. This was just the problem. The solution isn't always as simple and requires cooperation from all the players involved. In other words, you can only beat it by diplomacy.

Interestingly you can see this phenomenon all around us in the real world, that the selfish choice which is beneficial to one can be disastrous to everyone. This is beautifully demonstrated by the Tragedy of the Commons. If you don't know about it, look into it.

1. That isn't even viable in escalating and a poor strategy in flat rate/no cards, unless you're forced into that position by circumstance (as yes, it's better than just randomly attacking others and trying to secure a bonus you'll never take).

2. The turtle will be vastly outpaced as he's growing at a rate of 3 armies per turn, while often in these no card/flat rate games, at this point in time, stalemates have occured and everyone else is increasing at a steady rate of 5-8 armies per turn. So you're incorrect in your philosophy there.

3. Incorrect, you'll see very rarely do high players use any form of diplomacy. It's generally obvious to those who are aware of the game (which I would say most players are not) what one should or should not do. There's never any cooperation needed to stop someone using your "turtling" strategy unless someone else is an idiot and is suiciding or wiping out massive armies on the board. This rarely happens.

4. The example you're portraying is not an accurate portrayal of the Tragedy of the Commons. TotC states that if people are sharing some common good, whether it be land or whatnot, selfish interests of the individual will cause negative long term effects to everyone using that common good, even the person with the selfish interest. This is because everyone acts out in their own selfish interests, over using whatever that common good is simply because they know if they don't use it, others will just take advantage of it.

Similar to an water well that lots of people may share; they know that the well will be replenished if only a marginal amount of water is taken out. Yet, each individual knows that there's a vast amount of water in the well and they could make a killer profit selling as much of it as possible (pretend they're in a desert where water is extremely valuable) and simply look to a new well for new profits later. Knowing that although they could be provided with a relatively steady income if they all just took out a small amount of water each month, they also know that if any other person decides to withdraw a lot of water at once to sell they'll be left with the short end of the stick and an empty water well that wont' replenish. So everyone decides to draw extra water for insurance purposes not to be left out, and thus the water well is eventually drained, detrimental to everyone else's long term welfare.

[zeractal]

for me killing a player is very simple.
Does it benefit me? are they likely to threaten/challenge me? and can THEY benefit me?
it benefit me as in ends vs means (risk cards, continent bonus against troop lost)
Challenge me (if left who will they attack? if me i effectivly get 3 less men a turn)
can they benefit me? (will they oppose my enemy? will they counteract an Imbalance, Do i need them!).
The clearest example of me not killing a player was my on going classic risk game, they owned one place and bordered me. Most players would have destroyed them probably (and i was tempted) but i was not the most powerful player and by leaving them on my border i could reinforce by 3 (counteract their troops) and get the defensive power of 6. Later i got lucky if they were an inexperienced player they would have attacked me when i expanded down (suicidaly i thought) and they took out and held the strongest players continent instead giving me a shot at winning still that otherwise i wouldn't have got. Leaving them in has benefited us both, attacking them would have weakened us both, the choice is simple. even if they win it still increased my chances (they would just be better than me).