Play to win or accept defeat?

I recently played in this game http://www.dominating12.com/?cmd=game&sec=play&id=476120 What is a bad move when there are only 3 players left in the game? Given that if everyone is playing to win, does that blinded them to view the game from a bigger picture? My question is where there are only 3 players left in the game the condition is as follow for a capital game. Player 1: 2 cards, 75 on capital Player 2: 2 cards, 51 on capital Player 3: 2 cards, 49 on capital (consider that player 3 is trapped) The next card bonus is 40. Given that player 1 just ended the turn killing another player and has a larger region bonus at 12 troops for the next round and you are player 2; if you get another card, player 1 might kill you the next round, turn in try to kill player 3 to win the game. In given situation what is your best move to play to win? Or there is no chance for player 2 to win the game unless someone messed up? So, in that situation is it better for player 2 to accept defeat and play the best he/she can to at least make the game harder for the player with an upper hand in said game? Said if player 2 'play to win' and his/her only way of doing so is to try to kill player 1 capital; that include everything possible to win like trying to take a 75 troops capital with with 51 troops,(since player 3 is trapped and will get only 3 troops next turn) because said player sees that as the only chance he can risk to turn the game to his favor. Despite the odd of winning from attacking 51 to 75 is less than 10% success, does that consider as 'play to win'? So, do suicidal players justify their moves for 'play to win' or do the phrase 'play to win' often gives those players a reason to make such unreasonable move as a risk they need to take to win? I believe this kind of situation happens often in a capital game, now do we encourage such behavior or encourage players to accept defeat that another player outplayed him/her in that game? Says if player 3 wins in that game, that will only be considered as a lucky win rather than a deserving win. Shouldn't the best player win a game instead of the luckiest player? Just my thoughts, if it is me in that situation of player 2, I will always accept defeat that player 1 played a good game but will try my best to make the victory harder for him/her. p/s: I was player 1 in that game, I view that as a suicidal move then (I was very sad that he ruined my game) but after the game I try to justify player 2 behavior from his point of view and perhaps there is a better explanation for said move.

Please bare in mind that even though you are in a tricky situation, playing to win means killing both remaining players (eventually). Suicide and game-ruining shouldn't be factors in a 3 remaining players game. That is just throwing the game to one of the other players regardless. Is there any way to release player 3? Because, if you can, killing you and all the troops to get to you does not make you a viable target to player 1, especially as you released player 3. Before doing so though, announce that you are releasing player 3 so that he can kill player 1 if he should attack you. Be sure to point out that player 3 would lose the game if he attacked you for cards, due to the low value of a set. The chances are that player 1 will have a lot less troops after killing you and it will be an inevitable all-or-nothing attack from player 3. If player 1 is feeling lucky, he might still attack you, but if the Maths are close and have a good percentage of failure, he may choose not to risk it and wait to see if you get a set from 3 cards or not. Also keep a path open to player 3, because if you are not attacked and he chances taking a card, you have a slim chance at 2 sets from 6 cards by killing him and who knows you might pick up a wild and have 2 sets guaranteed. What you are aiming for in the face of certain defeat is either a stalemate (save your points) or to cause a personal war between player 1 & 3, or fool them into believing that if they don't act on the other, they will be the target for sure... diplomacy!!!

Of course a perfectly sensible player is going to make said move, but how do we let suiciders know there is a much better move to increase his/he chance of winning the game instead of just attack another player's capital? The thing is suicidal players never see their move as a bad move or game throwing move, and they gives all sort of excuses to justify their move, even if they failed, they still be like "If I can kill you, I win" Maybe this move is too advanced for someone to learn? Next time if I end up in such situation again, I think I'll at least fight for stalemate in that game. The question is is the phrase "Play to win" often be misinterpreted as doing the extreme thing like suicide? Since those players are too blinded in their own game, that is the only move they see.

Not making a bad move (suicide) is [b]NEVER[/b] equal to accepting defeat, you can always win later on if someone else (accidentally) fails his move for example. Also, there is a topic about playing to win in the big picture: http://www.dominating12.com/forum/?cmd=topic&id=1379 All suiciders should read that topic and then they will have no excuse to suicide anymore. (Note: These are remarks about suiciding or not, but I haven't checked your situation in this particular game).

Yes, I believe "Play to win" is often misinterpreted or not even considered at all! The point is, if you are able to kill 1 player, but not 2 and in killing 1 player means you don't win the game, that is not playing to win. Playing to win can sometimes be, do nothing at all or don't make a guaranteed game losing move. You will be surprised how many times people don't see you as a threat and make a game losing move against another player, then you get the game. Whether you consider that a ruined game or part of your long term strategy is up to you. The way I look at it, if I had no chance of winning on troop numbers, I would try some propaganda (diplomacy) and try to cause the others to attack each other. If that happened and it gave me the game, it was my strategy that gave me the game, not someone wilfully ruining the game and I did it because I played to win! (Edit) Matty posted above, the same time as me.

@Matty: Yes, but do a suicidal player knows if the move he/she made is qualified as a suicide move or not? I had read said post many times, but most suicidal players don't have the patient to play the game I don't think they have the time to read, albeit I will encourage everyone to read it. Many players often make premature killing that cost them the game, but they never learn, even after playing over hundreds game or see the weakness in their game play. Is avoiding them the only way to fix it? @aeronautic: Yup, many players are very shortsighted, it often appear to them if that if they killed the strongest player they are going to win the game, without considering about other players. Often what suiciders have in their mind is that they either be the one killing if not they be the one killed. (Often in the next 1 or 2 rounds) So, to avoid the latter they just do it, without considering if it is the only choice they can do to save themselves. In said game, I would assume it to drag few more rounds when there are more cards on the table and not just killing each other and giving the game to the lucky player 3. It is really hard to make a player understand that there are more in the game other than blindly killing other players capital when you can.