North Korea Part II- The Final Naming Scheme

[NobleHelium]

Sure, I look at your updates.

[TheHumanHydra]

Just look at your threadviews right before you post an update, and again 24 hours later or something. That'll tell you.

[MindyMcCready]

Still reading.

[Gavagai]

Nice new naming theme, btw.

[Oxyphenbutazone]

Someone else posted about that? Thanks, unfortunately it's completely accurate. I have muskets, knights and cats, and that's going to be it for a while. I generated a GM who will go for a mission in wetbandits cap, that should get me some of the way to rifling. I think I can get it turn 220, which isn't insanely bad, but it's not great.

[Oxyphenbutazone]

Would it be unethical of me to attack WilliamLP in 3 turns? My window is pretty short, because once he gets rifles any attack will become impossible. Still, if I attack him, I can pretty easily take our two southern border cities. I guess the argument against attacking is that its not really playing to win. LP is providing me with 3 happy resources, 1 of them for free, as well as bananas and an extra source of iron. Attacking him would cost me a number of units and I would have to raze a least one, if not both of the cities I took. OTOH, this game has gotten really boring and I want to have some negligible impact on it instead of getting run over by tanks in 50 turns.

[Qgqqqqq]

There's nothing unethical about it - it might not be playing to win, and it might kingmake in another players direction, but that doesn't mean you aren't allowed to do it (otherwise no one would be allowed to attack a leader).

[NobleHelium]

Attacking a leader does not mean you are not playing to win. Whether it is in this case I'm not sure.

[SadGit]

Im just a lurker here, so my take will be tainted by that. Im not a huge fan of "doing something, just so I can say I played in the game".

1: If it leads you closer to winnning/increasing rank in the game: near allways go for it.
2: If it boost security short-term perhaps leading to 1: go for it.
3: If its a response to prior agression or bad behaviour (however long ago in this game), even if the timing might seem petty: go for it.
4: If its a desperate ploy to go out in blaze of glory because the tedium has nummed you to a degree where even razorblades dont give that rush of pain anymore: hmm go for it, but expect a reputation to follow.
5: It its (just) to be able to say that one of your actions helped decide the winner we are talking kingmaking, and that I feel is questionable. I can see where/why the player might end up there, but in a multiplayer game one should then think of how it will effect the enjoyment of the fellow players. There is a reason you seldom play with the random events here, my take is: Dont be the barbarian uprising.

I havent lurked enough of this game to have an idea which of these it would be. From your description alone it sounds like a mix of 4 and 5.

Oh an then there is 6: punishing farmers gambits and 7: the baying of the lurkers. Makes for fun reading...

[TheHumanHydra]

I think it's perfectly ethical. To be honest I think the "don't do it if it's not playing to win" mentality is starting to go a bit too far, to the point where you can't do anything unless you're a leader. I think punishing another player for leaving themselves open is a perfectly valid use of one's time, and especially legitimate as it encourages better play (if we are still talking in terms of encouraging optimal play from all players). You're also weakening a neighbour, which could be considered improving your own position (in fact, not taking such an opportunity could be considered sub-optimal play - though I have no opinion as to whether that's the case here). Basically, it doesn't sound like you're trying to throw the game through some massive spite-war, rather just take advantage of an opportunity, so I feel no ethical qualms should restrain you if that's what you choose to do.