[LURKERS] Sweet 16: Civ Party Fun Time and Philosophical Debate

[Gavagai]

I was going to build these chariots anyway. Actually, I think I started to build them even before I thought about this opportunity. My initial plan was to walk inside an empty city provided it remained empty (warrior defender may be just ignored). I never plan to actually attack against real defenders. In my book, this is an as clear example of an opportunistic strike as you can get.

[SevenSpirits]

I sincerely don't understand. Let's imagine that Gaspar didn't build units at all and I just walked into his empty cities. Would this qualify me as an especially aggressive player? Or would it be something what just any player would do? Because I really don't see any clear borderline between this kind of situation and my chariot attack.

Well to be honest, yes, I think that would put you in the top 50% of aggressiveness at least. Building 2 chariots and attacking with them in concert that early though... I'm not sure you grasp how rare that is. (Note, I am not saying that your move was bad, nor am I saying here that their reaction was necessarily appropriate. I am arguing only that they have good justification to treat your attack as an indication that you are likely to attack more later.)

Of course, this map encouraged that kind of aggression. But it encourages later aggression just as much or even more, so that's a wash.

[Gavagai]

Let's put it this way. People usually start to build real units around T50 but yet don't have enough of them to defend properly everywhere. When two civs are really close, it gives to a party who has better map visibility (which I had and which was pretty important) a perfect window to strike opportunistically at a weak spot and seriously cripple a neighbor. Is there any good reason not to look for such an opportunity and not to exploit it? If there is no such reason (I don't see one) than we are talking about good and bad players, not aggressive and peaceful. And, of course, based on the behavior in this very specific situation we can't infer anything about the actions of the same player outside the window I described.
Also, I read Gaspar's thread and noticed that they were worried a lot that I can warrior rush them. Now, I think that it would be an extremely stupid thing for me to attempt and in my book any person who does that is an aggressive nutjob. How is warrior rush an expected "normal" behavior but an opportunistic chariot attack is unexpected, unusual and too aggressive?

[SevenSpirits]

Let's put it this way. People usually start to build real units around T50 but yet don't have enough of them. When two civs are really close, it gives to a party who has better map visibility (which I had and which was pretty important) a perfect window to strike opportunistically at a weak spot and seriously cripple a neighbor. Is there any good reason not to look for such an opportunity and not to exploit it?

I can think of a reason. Maybe you don't want to seriously piss off your neighbor and create an existential conflict.

[Gavagai]

Let's put it this way. People usually start to build real units around T50 but yet don't have enough of them. When two civs are really close, it gives to a party who has better map visibility (which I had and which was pretty important) a perfect window to strike opportunistically at a weak spot and seriously cripple a neighbor. Is there any good reason not to look for such an opportunity and not to exploit it?

I can think of a reason. Maybe you don't want to seriously piss off your neighbor and create an existential conflict.

I covered this argument at length in my own thread. Whether your rival will attack you is outside your control. They may attack you because you pissed them off but they also may attack because of a number of different reasons (e. g. they think it is the right play for them). You should just assume that you would be attacked anyway, whatever you do. What is within your control is making their attack less dangerous and crippling the rival is a good way to achieve that.

[SevenSpirits]

I covered this argument at length in my own thread. Whether your rival will attack you is outside your control. They may attack you because you pissed them off but they also may attack because of a number of different reasons (e. g. they think it is the right play for them). You should just assume that you would be attacked anyway, whatever you do. What is within your control is making their attack less dangerous and crippling the rival is a good way to achieve that.

Oh, haven't really read through your thread yet.

I'm very surprised that you believe your actions have no effect on how your opponents act. I don't know what to say.

[Gavagai]

That's not what l'm saying. I'm saying that rival's behavior is affected by a lot of factors, your actions are only one of them. You can't predict what would be the end result of all the factors acting together as you don't even know most of them. That's why you shouldn't try to control your rival's behavior via your own actions.

[Commodore]

While an early worker steal isn't considered especially aggressive, there are players who wouldn't do an early worker steal even if given the opportunity, as they are naturally more peacefully inclined and prefer not to immediately open hostile relations with a neighbour.

So if somebody does worker steal you, you know that they at the minimum don't have that inclination.

Uh. Worker stealing is pretty much a massive causus belli in my book, I think in anyone's. I wouldn't ever do it unless I was prepared for war...

[SevenSpirits]

That's not what l'm saying. I'm saying that rival's behavior is affected by a lot of factors, your actions are only one of them. You can't predict what would be the end result of all the factors acting together as you don't even know most of them. That's why you shouldn't try to control your rival's behavior via your own actions.

That's not logical. Just because you don't know all the factors that could cause your death, and can't predict how you will die, doesn't mean you shouldn't do what you can to avoid dying. Just listen to how ridiculous that sounds. Not knowing all the factors that go into an outcome doesn't mean you should completely ignore the fact that you can affect it.

[Gavagai]

You try to avoid dying because you don't really have an alternative strategy fully within your control. Here we have alternatives: either manipulate your rival or subjugate him. Second strategy is superior.
(A good analogy is famous Machiavelly quote that for the ruler it is better to be feared than loved because you can control fear but can't control love. My argument goes along the same line.)