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

[SevenSpirits]

OK, you think that it's not worth caring how your actions makes your opponent act because you can just kill your opponent and then it doesn't matter. Therefore, I assume this was a case where you were able to eliminate NobleGaspar and their actions after the worker steal didn't matter to you. Because they were subjugated, it was irrelevant that you had pissed them off.

[Gavagai]

Yes, they were subjugated in a sense that they never pose an existential threat for me and were able to only raze one city. Despite our war I still was in a very good position after the game ended. Without my early crippling blow they would become much more dangerous and would be a direct threat to my survival.

[SevenSpirits]

Yes, they were subjugated in a sense that they never pose an existential threat for me and were able to only raze one city. Despite our war I still was in a very good position after the game ended. Without my early crippling blow they would become much more dangerous and would be a direct threat to my survival.

Oh, so what's the problem then?

[mackoti]

SO GAVAGAI WINNED ALOT BUT HE DIDNT HAD ANY PROBLEM?

[Catwalk]

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.

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...

I'm curious about this topic. A few questions for both of you (and anyone, really):
1) Generally speaking, how big a personal cost (in terms of chances of winning) would you accept in order to exact vengeance? Or would you only exact vengeance if you can do so while pursuing your optimal strategy for game victory?
2) How much does this change if you're no longer in a position to play for #1?
3) Would your willingness to pay a personal cost for revenge change any in a hypothetical anonymous game where out-of-game reputation is not a factor?

I'm sorry if this comes across wrong, I'm genuinely interested.

[Lewwyn]

The vast majority of people who could have attacked me have literally NEVER attacked me. Just a single attack puts you in a different category of players.

I've attacked you.

[Catwalk]

I'd love to hear your answers Lewwyn

[Gavagai]

Yes, they were subjugated in a sense that they never pose an existential threat for me and were able to only raze one city. Despite our war I still was in a very good position after the game ended. Without my early crippling blow they would become much more dangerous and would be a direct threat to my survival.

Oh, so what's the problem then?

We were discussing if there is a good argument against attacks of these kind, not whether I have any problems. So far, I don't see how argument "it will make them love you" can be convincing for reasons Machiavelly pointed out.

[mackoti]

Usualy i kill them, sooner or latter when is easiear , cheaper or more fun to do so.

[Lewwyn]

Ok.

I'm curious about this topic. A few questions for both of you (and anyone, really):
1) Generally speaking, how big a personal cost (in terms of chances of winning) would you accept in order to exact vengeance? Or would you only exact vengeance if you can do so while pursuing your optimal strategy for game victory?
2) How much does this change if you're no longer in a position to play for #1?
3) Would your willingness to pay a personal cost for revenge change any in a hypothetical anonymous game where out-of-game reputation is not a factor?

1) If I believe I still have a chance to win then I would not jeopardize that possible victory condition. If vengeance was on the path to victory or inconsequential to whether or not I would achieve it, and i was sufficiently angry/ or think it would be fun, IE something as simple as requesting absurd trade requests, I probably would be inclined to pursue that vengeance. If I deemed there to be no chance of winning, I might possibly throw everything I had into said vengeance, as long as it wouldn't be too time consuming, because I'm busy///lazy.

2) I guess I sort of answered it in question 2. But I would also say that if I had a different goal in the game than being #1, then I wouldn't jeopardize that goal for vengaeance. IE: if I thought it was worth it to be #2 and wanted that, then I wouldn't go for vengeance.

3) Eh. I would play an anonymous game exactly the same as I play regular game. I'm pretty much the same person in most situations. Now if I were role-playing that would be different. But I wouldn't role-play a civ game. That would be silly and quickly tiresome and likely suboptimal, which would make me not want to do it.