- Mark as unread from here
- Posted: 27 Jan 2015, 02:26 am
- Modified: 27 Jan 2015, 02:40 am
-
Post #1
It happened to me a couple of times now that other players got really upset in a capitals game when I had decided that I am out of options, and the only thing remaining is to storm another capital and hope for 6 cards / 2 pairs and finish the game.
game 432641
game 427648
In both these games I had a small chance to finish with 2 pairs (say 20%) and I would have lost otherwise in my opinion. For my opponents this meant unfortunately that I had to pick one (typically the weakest player I could reach with enough cards) which I would attacked "under-odds". This player would therefore find a certain death; either by me, or the player after me scraping up the left-overs.
I honestly believe that in these cases it was the only reasonable thing left to do but people tend to have a strong sense of "fairness", in the sense that is commonly seen as indecent to do such a thing. For this same reason it usually happens that once you have attacked someone he/she will come back at you without end. I try to play by whatever logic the rules dictate rather than by emotion and will therefore usually not revenge an attack if I see no reason. This is something especially newer players seem to tend to do, but in the case of more general fairness (such as going all-out as a last move)
So my questions:
o First, is there anything in any rules forbidding me to do such a thing?
o Second, do you think there is a better alternative in these cases? What do you suppose are the odds when "sitting back"?
o And finally, would you do the same in my position?
Thanks
-----
edit : I have seen this topic (topic 1379/21) but I should add that in the games I mentioned no-one had really "earned" their 80% spot. I would perhaps adhere to this level of fairness.
game 432641
game 427648
In both these games I had a small chance to finish with 2 pairs (say 20%) and I would have lost otherwise in my opinion. For my opponents this meant unfortunately that I had to pick one (typically the weakest player I could reach with enough cards) which I would attacked "under-odds". This player would therefore find a certain death; either by me, or the player after me scraping up the left-overs.
I honestly believe that in these cases it was the only reasonable thing left to do but people tend to have a strong sense of "fairness", in the sense that is commonly seen as indecent to do such a thing. For this same reason it usually happens that once you have attacked someone he/she will come back at you without end. I try to play by whatever logic the rules dictate rather than by emotion and will therefore usually not revenge an attack if I see no reason. This is something especially newer players seem to tend to do, but in the case of more general fairness (such as going all-out as a last move)
So my questions:
o First, is there anything in any rules forbidding me to do such a thing?
o Second, do you think there is a better alternative in these cases? What do you suppose are the odds when "sitting back"?
o And finally, would you do the same in my position?
Thanks
-----
edit : I have seen this topic (topic 1379/21) but I should add that in the games I mentioned no-one had really "earned" their 80% spot. I would perhaps adhere to this level of fairness.