subtle question of game ethics

From: Hel, Queen of LogeSpawn

Date: Mon, 01 Feb 1993 17:23:16 +0000

I am, of course, not much better than a newbie myself.....

David desJardins writes:
>Anders H}kon Gulla <gulla@Lise.Unit.NO> writes:
>> [attack first, ask questions later.]
>> Round 4 Start colonizing any newly wiped Homeworlds and talk to the
>>         people who have defeated your attack force.  They normally are
>>         more interested in Peace than war.

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!

>I find this hard to believe (that those players are willing to make
>peace with you).  My policy is very simple: if someone attacks me early
>in the game, then I ally with all of that player's other neighbors (whom
>he has also antagonized) and together we go and wipe him out.  He
>generally can't survive a concerted 3-on-1 attack early in the game.

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.

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.... 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...

>It doesn't make any sense to make peace with someone who isn't willing
>to be peaceful in return.  Better to eliminate the unfriendly player and
>pick up some territory.

Not if I have sacrifice my early development.  It is my guess that it is
actually to the advantage of these madcap type to make serious peace and
concentrate on development for at least twenty turns after wiping out a
neighbor (to utilise fully the advantages of having an extra top planet).

>I definitely do NOT recommend the, "Attack first, ask questions later,"

Neither would I, but then what do I know.  {The only time I did this in
Beta I was blown out seven turns later, but it turned out that it would not
have mattered anyway, oh well.}

>But one should only do it when victory is assured, not when the
>target might survive to fight back.  :-)

As a mathematician, I say to this

"Amen!"

References

Stupid Newbie (again)
an4871@anon.penet.fi
Tue, 19 Jan 1993 03:36:45 +0000
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

Referenced By

Stupid Newbie (again)
an4871@anon.penet.fi
Tue, 19 Jan 1993 03:36:45 +0000
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