Re: subtle question of game ethics

From: desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins)

Date: Tue, 02 Feb 1993 23:09:48 +0000

Hel <boyiny@math.mit.edu> writes:
> I am not sure I even understand the rationale for colonising newly wiped
> homeworlds.  Typically, a player have some planets within 15 or so that is
> decent and I would rather opt for massive capitalisation to industrialise a
> nearby planet fully and to boost my tech before attempting to fully
> populate far away planets, even ones as good as homeworlds!

As I have noted previously, I strongly believe in distributed
colonization rather than "massive capitalisation."  The latter is much
more expensive in the long run; in my opinion, much more so than any
short-term defensive savings.

> Now, I am sure that David is a much better player than I am but it would
> seem that this smacks of metagaming.  He knows and I knows that early wars
> are bad for everyone, so in effect David is saying that he would settle for
> a bit of a loss to insure that no one attempt to blitz him on turn three in
> all future games.  This has to be metagaming.

I have two responses to this.

The first is, "Yes, you're right."  I think almost everyone does what
you call "metagaming" from time to time.  Suppose someone attacks you
and bombs your homeworld so that you feel you are basically out of the
game.  Might you well not send everything you can to do as much damage
to them as possible?  This is "revenge," a natural human response.

The second is, "No, you're wrong."  Not all early wars are bad for
everyone.  In particular, 2-on-1 (or even better, 3-on-1) wars can be
very good for the attackers, depending on the circumstances.  By
antagonizing all of your neighbors, you are helping to build the
coalition against you which would make an early attack on you
profitable.

The third is, "No, you're wrong," for another reason.  If you attack me
early and fail, I know you are very likely to attack me again when you
get the chance, if only because I am never likely to become your most
trusted ally.  So isn't it in my interest not to give you that later
opportunity, even if it costs me in the short run?

> What I mean is, I always build protection on turn two on G.P. (just in case
> there are some madcap norwegians out close :-) but if someone send in a
> fleet and I beat the invaders with no loss (very possible) I will
> cheerfully agree to a cease-fire....

If someone makes a significant attack on you (not just a mass-2 raider)
and you sustain no losses, then that person is inept and you can just
not worry about them one way or the other.

> not, of course, that I will not mark said xenophobes as prime targets
> for attacks.  Especially as I have time and diplomatic position (the
> xenophobes having annoyed every surviving by this time) to land the
> first blow against these bloodthirsty types (who squander their time
> settling faraway planets!!)  later...

This is all exactly the same as what I said, and you called "metagaming."

David desJardins

References

Re: Stupid Newbie (again)
gulla@Lise.Unit.NO (Anders H}kon Gulla)
Tue, 19 Jan 1993 15:09:55 +0000
Re: Stupid Newbie (again)
desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins)
Thu, 28 Jan 1993 04:15:47 +0000
subtle question of game ethics
Hel, Queen of LogeSpawn
Mon, 01 Feb 1993 17:23:16 +0000

Referenced By

Re: Stupid Newbie (again)
gulla@Lise.Unit.NO (Anders H}kon Gulla)
Tue, 19 Jan 1993 15:09:55 +0000
Re: Stupid Newbie (again)
desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins)
Thu, 28 Jan 1993 04:15:47 +0000
subtle question of game ethics
Hel, Queen of LogeSpawn
Mon, 01 Feb 1993 17:23:16 +0000