Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Quote:

the object of the game is to win and all players should keep their eyes on the prize.

I feel inclined to throw you a curve ball on that one
Let's suppose you're working by yourself at a Sunday market for your uncle and you have a pre-arranged agreement with him that of any profit you make in sales, your take is 40%.
At the end of the day you realise that you made more than expected and well, you do have a family to feed and a mortgage to pay off, so you decide instead to take 80%. He quickly discovers that you violated your agreement with him and accuses you of being a thief. You counter that "the object of working for him was to make money". You then stick your thumbs in your ears and waggle your fingers like so

Quote:

In many ways it takes two to backstab. One player has to be willing to backstab, but the other player has to make himself vulnerable to the backstab.

How about this scenario?
You're driving your car and a red traffic light signals you to stop. Being a law abiding citizen you brake and await the next green light. A hooded man smashes your side window with a tyre iron, pulls you out of your car, dumps you on the road and car- jacks you.
The police catch him, but his "very clever" defence attorney argues that since you made yourself vulnerable to his clients car-jacking, by stopping near to his local street corner, that you are also responsible and should be held accountable for his client's actions.
The magistrate acknowledges the attorney's valid point and lets you both off lightly with a bond, but warns you not to do it again or the second offence shall attract a much more harsh penalty

Quote:

I am regularly re-evaluating the strategic situation to determine how to mitigate the risks, including the risk of backstabbing; this is simple due dilligence.

Hate to coin a phrase, but with friends like that who need enemies.

Quote:

Another issue is the definition of backstabbing. I have a strict constructionist view that if the action is not explicitly forbiden by written treaty then it is allowable without being called backstabbing. So treaty writing is very important in preventing backstabs. In the opening post to this thread Ptolemy said, They keep their agreements and do not attack their friends. In most games, NAP's are nullified with the agreed termination notice.

IIRC NAP stands for Non Aggression Pact.
Now let's see ... Aggression .... Aggression ....
Ah here it is:
1) The action of a state in violating by force the rights of another state, particularly it's territorial rights.
2) Any offensive action or procedure; an inroad or encroachment.
3) The practice of making assaults or attacks; offensive action in general.

Pretty well covered I'd say


Hmmm ... In reading through the above I realised that it sounds a bit sarcastic, so I'll add some smiley faces

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Quote:

So instead you play by their rules(they are bigger after all) until you see a point of ultimate weakness in them. You take this chance to defeat them in the hope that you'll be protecting your people from future aggressions and possibly enslavement by the other country.

Ah yes but then I call on my ally - the United States and they kick your butt. So ultimately it doesn't help you

[Updated on: Fri, 01 October 2004 22:57]

Report message to a moderator

Quote:

We should take note of the circumstances under which a player violates an agreement and store this knowledge for future use.

Really!!!
Are you suggesting that we start a list of some sort and perhaps a ranking system?

Quote:

I virtually always stick to the letter of the treaty. Iirc, there has only been one time in the ten or so years of playing Stars! where I have NOT stuck to the letter of a treaty.

Funny you should mention that. I was just chatting to a guy the other day at my local pub, whom said he's been really good for the last ten years except for one incident about 2 years ago where he violated his parole. Now he's on the run and the police are after him.
I felt sorry for the poor guy and bought him a beer

Now don't take me too seriously there, I'm sitting back having a chuckle about this and the smiley faces prove it.

Nothing like stirring the pot for a bit of fun

[Updated on: Fri, 01 October 2004 23:09]

Report message to a moderator

[Updated on: Fri, 01 October 2004 23:38]

Report message to a moderator

multilis wrote on Fri, 01 October 2004 23:24

As bigger African country playing Mr. Honourable, I have no need to take you out ever. If no one wants to attack me, game gets voted over and I win... sort of like a diplomatic victory in MOO or Civ games.

That would be an incredibly boring game would it not? Who would want to play in such a game?

multilis wrote on Fri, 01 October 2004 23:24

If you backstab me, you become my #1 ENEMY. Everything is focused on hurting you even if it means helping my former enemy win if he has never backstabbed me.

That is why you must use a really big knife to do your stabbing. Preferably more than one knife. Not just a piddly taking out a few planets here and there, but a massive surprise attack taking out at least some of your core production centers with enough reinforcements inbound to have the definte advantage for the foreseeable future, with possible aid from other countries.

multilis wrote on Fri, 01 October 2004 23:24

If instead you make war friendly like with notice and such I help set you up as a reward and we play war.

If giving such a warning would lose your ability to win the war, such a warning should not be sent. Sure it makes you seem like a jerk, but, well, thats tough.

Report message to a moderator

Quote:

That would be an incredibly boring game would it not? Who would want to play in such a game?

There is no shortage of war before such a point when others give up. Massive micromanagement in your endgame sounds "incredibly boring".

Quote:

That is why you must use a really big knife to do your stabbing

Mr. Honourable is not dumb, always considers other doing backstab as part of planning and focuses much of resources on defences.

If good backstab occurs main objective of Mr. Honourable switches from trying to win to avenging backstab, a single minded focus on hurting you no matter what cost.

...

From perspective of other players, a player who cares only for revenge against your competition can be a useful ally. Another set of slots to hold ships, advantages of another PRT, etc.

A crippled AR (such as mlaub relates) can still provide free minerals. Anyone can give a helping hand with ships slots, battle board, sharing the smart bombers to make them quick and deadly, minelayers, etc.

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Quote:

Heh, that part about Mr. Honurable surviving wouldn't be in there

Easy enough to backstab a small player, but not a much bigger player who spends much of his effort protecting against backstabs.

In my case was HE last two games which means you can't gate into my worlds. In other cases often Mr. Bigger sets others to neutral just in case though stays friendly.

So... looks like you may be down to rumours.

Not normally a big secret who is biggest guys on block.

Not an easy thing to get others to risk their necks attacking Mr. Big while you aren't risking. They may instead turn tables to get you facing wrath of Mr. Big while they take it relatively easy. (The backstabber is easiest to backstab without blame).

Its a complex game of diplomacy and tactics. Just as you may want to backstab to win, Mr. Big may want to make backstabs unprofitable to prevent them and win.

...

One other thing to add: micromanagment in the end. In Trans game (medium normal) I as #1 had around 90 planets. #2 had around 90 planets as well but was a -f which meant less than half the resources of my HP HE. Both of us were likely getting tired of game due to micromanagement.

#3 with 50 planets, bit better eccon than -f was more interested in another game he was fighting as underdog and wanted to commit suicide. #4 with 25ish but same resources due to being an SS HP wanted to fight some. I asked #3 to stay in but not put effort rather than suicide simply because of not wanting even MORE planets to manage and chance of a longer game.

Having a large amount of micromanagement in the end has a way of sometimes leading to end of game rather than big battles whether backstab or not. Happened in my games of CFLKIAB and Trans where further war was negotiated as possible but then declined, also in other peoples games such as Popgun Navies..

[Updated on: Sat, 02 October 2004 15:34]

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Quote:

A player who is incompetent in executing betrayals is less trustworthy than a player who executes well thought out betrayals. The reason for this is that the competent betrayer is easier to predict; the competent is not going to betray over trivialities, it is only when the betrayer is crushingly desperate OR you have made yourself crushingly vulnerable that a competent betrayer will betray. So, unless such conditions pertain you may trust, within verifiable reason, the competent. An incompetent betrayer will betray for trivial and passing reasons and so cannot be predicted or trusted.

I was chatting to a couple of guys the other day and an argument ensued between them about whom was more trustworthy.

One, a professional bankrobber said that he was far more trustworthy because he only needs to rob banks occasionally.

The other, a pickpocket, claimed that he was much more trustworthy because he only hurt each person a little bit and besides that he argued, less people were affected by him than they should have been because he'd been caught a few times

I chose to walk away from the argument because I didn't trust either of them.

Report message to a moderator

I have played AR a lot and unlike HE ... AR is most vulnerable to the backstabs. Its been surprise to me that this option is rarely used. Maybe because whatever is left alive of that backstabbed AR it can still make quite sure that the guy who backstabbed him does not win.

Report message to a moderator

Quote:

Maybe because whatever is left alive of that backstabbed AR it can still make quite sure that the guy who backstabbed him does not win.

If game lasts long enough for minerals to be an issue then of course AR is ace in hole.

Along those lines for new players... good idea to have a few orbital colonisers and a few thousand pop that will survive any attack/backstab.

In Trans game an AR on opposite side of map was 3 way attacked in the 2430s. Diplomacy was slow with him, took several turns to get replies. Managed to get him some minicolonisers and he saved a few 1000 pop, but no orbital coloniser (I had gates available).

He wanted me to get him an orbital coloniser, but I an not good enough at diplomacy to try convincing my #1 enemy, the only other AR in town to sell me some (so I could set up a fountain on his former HW).

[Updated on: Mon, 04 October 2004 12:14]

Report message to a moderator

[Updated on: Mon, 04 October 2004 13:02]

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Hehe. If not disallowed, I sense a new team game strategy coming on...

Report message to a moderator