I agree 10000% lol

I think it's just the natural reaction that you have to learn to ignore.

Maybe you shouldn't stab until it's worth it to do so.
If you stab someone and they're around to cause you to lose because of it, it's your own fault.

True but honestly it's not a part of the spirit of the game. When people allow their emotions to preclude any kind of cooperation, it becomes less fun than even Risk... or other low-class strategy games. Lol

Your logic doesn't make any sense to me. If you caused someone else to lose, why would they help you win when they're getting a survive either way?

I can see in the situation where you can force a draw together, but that's it. If someone clips my knees I'm going to help someone solo over them if I can't force a draw and if it means I get a survive over an elimination.

Hibikiss, the point of the game is to try win. If you decide to let another person win the game, when you could stop it, then that's kind of against the goal.

Also, letting another person win ends the game. That means you have no chance of coming back. If you were to work with that person that stabbed you earlier, then you get to keep the game going, opening up a whole new can of possibilities where the game can go.

Also, the country that did the stabbing is no longer attacking him, and has said that he is willing to work together.

vendetta is a natural human reaction, so you just have to manage it. if you stab someone, you have to make it seem like you didn't have a choice or something. like what i say to my wife every night: "why did you make me hit you??!!!!"

The point is to win, if you can't win because you've been crippled beyond recovery, the point is whatever you want it to be which in most cases is screw the person that screwed you.

It's not against the spirit of the game to cause the downfall of the person that knocked you out of the running for the win. That is part of diplomacy and managing the emotions of people around you.

These situations are usually two large countries struggling over scraps and trying to get the little 1-3SC countries they previously kneecapped to help them win. If you're going to stab someone, don't make the reward you reap be a couple SCs now in exchange for a loss later.

If you stab me, you better eliminate me. I do go for the win, but if I'm crippled, I will see to it I get a survive and help the non-enemy win. There is nothing against the spirit in that. It's been said time and again. The goal is to win. If you can't win, draw. If you can't draw, survive. If you can't survive, see to it the fucker who put you in a hurt doesn't win, draw, or survive (if possible). Sounds like someone didn't do the stab right and is reaping what he sowed. I saw, fuck him. Teach him that a stab better be complete.

*say, not saw.

Amen Drauggie.

Draugnar it seems to me your actual priority list is draw-draw-win-survival...

There is no such thing as being "crippled beyond the point of recovery" just as there's no such thing. Draugnar said said vengeance is okay if "you can't win." Unless you've been eliminated, you can win. And that's your goal. You can lie about that fact in the midst of the game, but the truth is, the goal is always to win until you get eliminated, at which point you can talk as much smack as you want.

Well I mean you can talk smack at any time but if it's not going to help you win you shouldn't do it.

OK, I have 2 SCs... The guy who stabbed me has 16 and his opponent has 16. How am I going to win?

Also, I should point out that a reputation as a suicidal maniac in game reduces the number of stabs I receive. I protect myself well enough so that no one is going to get a complete and total stab that eliminates me, so they know they will have to deal with me throwing everything I got at them even if it means someone else will win and they don't stab me.

@LTB... the reality is that not all players subscribe to your theory of play, whether you like it or not. Some players play with cool detached objectivity, and some instead do indeed act emotionally. You can either acknowledge this fact (and find a way to use it to your advantage) or ignore it at your own peril.

You win by playing the two off of each other and hoping to get one of them to support you into the other guys SC or maybe even give you one of his own. You do that as many times as you can until you have maybe 4 or 5 and then gang up on the current "winner," hoping to get the better deal than your ally, and then change sides when the tide turns too strongly toward the other guy. repeat, and negotiate your ass off until you have won

That's the only way it's done. Unfortunately, usually, the other two get extremely annoyed, kill you, and then end it in a two-way draw or 50/50 the first to get 18. Lol.

Thucydides, someone did that to me and an opponent once and we just decided to eliminate them and draw because we were tired of the annoyance. That is the result I am sure 90% of the time.

@ Draugnar:

You said that you put a draw before a mere survival, and a survival before sticking it to the person who stabbed you. But everything else that you've written implies that sticking it to the other guy is more important than forcing a draw.

I'm with LittleTortillaBoy. If I can't win, I'll at least try to make sure that I don't lose. If that means working with former enemies to stop somebody else from winning, so be it.

However, Hibiskiss is right that not everybody plays this way, and those of who do have to remember that when we decide whether to stab somebody.

Okay, then that's what you have to do. It's the risk you take for being so small to begin with. If you get eliminated as a result of that, you just pick yourself up and join a new game.

Also if you suspect they will draw, you point out that it is more aligned with the spirit of the game to try to win.