Report message to a moderator

EDog:
I completely concur. Coordinating with allies is why I have played this game for so long . I've never had the pleasure of havnig an effective alliance of more than three players however.

[Updated on: Sun, 15 December 2002 12:21]

Report message to a moderator

Games are ultimately about winning. If I had the opportunity to ally with someone who was a proven winner, I would do it, even if one of those wins were due to backstabbing me. It is a valid and useful tactic if used carefully and sparingly. But I would damn well watch my back, and would certainly strongly consider turning on him if the time seemed right (something I would never do with someone more trustworthy, right, johng ).

Report message to a moderator

[Updated on: Tue, 17 December 2002 01:01]

Report message to a moderator

Greetings all,

*Pulls up a chair and smiles sinisterly* A post on my SS, my favorite PRT... and I was gone for HOW LONG!?!?!?!

Backstabing tactics you say? You have seceret ally and mention public ally? Who are we backstabing? Oh well...

Back to the topic: You offer x Amount of Minerals for a bunch of Armed ships. NEVER in my gaming experience have I transfer a LARGE amount of Armed ships to an enemy when I could be using them myself and providing MY PRT advantages in the process... if you where to offer this to an ally and they accepted it would be foolish, I hate to say it, but they where.

In Stars! each race has advantages and disadvantages, but if you transfer a war ship you are causing more harm than not. How is this, first you use up an entire Ship design slot in the process, and you are loosing the basic race traits that the ship was designed around and giving it to a player who has no hope of using it "correctly". For example think of a War Monger. He wants a bunch of his ships to be cloaked but doesn't feel like building cloakers, so he TRANSFERS the ships to his ally, an SS. 1st you loose the instinctive WM movement bonus, you have just waisted a whole year transfering the ships, and get this, THE SHIPS AREN'T YOURS ANY MORE!!!! That in mind why would anybody accept such an offer? Unarmed ships I can understand, Tech ships I can understand TO A POINT, but even then you risk the chance of your so called ally not only using them against you, but also using them poorly.

As a SS, the last thing you need is a backstab as they are based on hiding behind the lines, if there are no lines to hide from since you have just ADVERTISED you are a lying backstabber it makes those cloacks almost useless considering EVERYBODY is going to be looking for you.

Of course if you are playing in a game where there can be only one victory it can be understandable that you may wish to backstab, but even then your "ally" is expecting you to, and is planing to do so himself soon. "liv

Report message to a moderator

[Updated on: Mon, 28 July 2003 03:37] by Moderator

Report message to a moderator

[Updated on: Mon, 28 July 2003 19:02]

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Hmmm.... Backstabbing !!!

I've previously stated that I would never do this, but upon reflection, I might consider it against a player whom had previously backstabbed me or was a known backstabber.
Normally though, I'd just prefer not to engage in such an alliance of subterfuge.
Constantly upgrading Space stations that should be safe, holding an up to date fleet in reserve in case of attack from your ally or even worse, the nuisance of having your ally permanently set to neutral. What a hassle !!!
Under most circumstances it wouldn't be worth the trouble IMO.

Quote:

the potential for backstabbing is essential to the game

I think it's very much an individual perpespective on that one.
If you're a backstabber I could imagine that being true for you, but since I have never have backstabbed, yet still enjoy the game, I don't see how it could be in any way an essential part of the game for me.

Report message to a moderator

Steve1 wrote on Tue, 11 November 2003 09:05

Constantly upgrading Space stations that should be safe, holding an up to date fleet in reserve in case of attack from your ally or even worse, the nuisance of having your ally permanently set to neutral. What a hassle !!! Under most circumstances it wouldn't be worth the trouble IMO.

And why should you do that? You don't see the backstab coming if performed right
The art is being friends, but to not be them anymore when the time is right. Sometimes you give the other a warning, sometimes you don't. In most games you don't even backstab; you don't backstab for the backstabbing, but for the tactical advantages it can provide
And when people are going to cry when backstabbed once by one certain person, well, their bad. "I'm gonna get him this time, because he backstabbed me in another game" is in some cultures just as 'childish' as backstabbing itself . I once had to congratulate someone for a truly magnificent backstab (I was on the receiving end ).

Quote:

I think it's very much an individual perpespective on that one. If you're a backstabber I could imagine that being true for you, but since I have never have backstabbed, yet still enjoy the game, I don't see how it could be in any way an essential part of the game for me.

And in every game you played, no-one was ever backstabbed? You never gained an advantage because one other race was backstabbed? No-one in your games even contemplated it?
And people who perform a backstab are not by nature backstabbers IMO. They see an advantage and they take it.
The guy who backstabbed me in the game mentioned above, is now one of my allies, and why not? I even think he's not likely to do it again, because he thinks, that I thinks, that he thinks...

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Aha, so the one player whom has ever backstabbed me steps up to the podium to confess.
(Novadawn, I was HE).

Quote:

The art is being friends, but to not be them anymore when the time is right.

This could be the new catchcry for all backstabbers.

Quote:

you don't backstab for the backstabbing, but for the tactical advantages it can provide

Okay, but in that game you didn't need to backstab, because you would easily have won anyway. You were so far ahead technologically and your empire was so vast, that you defeated all of us with barely a scratch.
I have to say that it was amazing that you took us all on. Rather ballzy and you did it well. I didn't think you'd defeat us all and perhaps you initially thought that too and so therefore felt that you needed an added advantage

Quote:

"I'm gonna get him this time, because he backstabbed me in another game" is in some cultures just as 'childish' as backstabbing itself

I'd have to disagree with you on that one. If you reach the point of alliance (in another game) with someone who's already backstabbed you and if an opportunity comes along to gain a big advantage over them, I would probably be inclined to take it.
Partly revenge, partly "I've learnt my lesson and I'm not waiting for you to do it to me again"
Conversely I wouldn't initiate any backstabbing, cause that's just not me.

Quote:

I once had to congratulate someone for a truly magnificent backstab (I was on the receiving end ).

You didn't have to congratulate him. You could have called him a horrible little troll

Quote:

And people who perform a backstab are not by nature backstabbers IMO. They see an advantage and they take it.

Yes but the same could be said about about someone whom only robs one bank. I'm sure the lawyers would love to get their client off with that one.

Now before anyone flames me for the above example, please note that it is an analogy only and that I'm by no means trying to equate backstab

[Updated on: Sat, 15 November 2003 08:44] by Moderator

Report message to a moderator

Hi Steve, we meet again

Well, in Novadawn it was a bit different.
For instance, we weren't real allies. IIRC there was some trading going on and probably I had NAP's with a few people,
BUT...
I was going really well and I wanted to take on the remainders (what was it: 4, maybe 5 players?) of the universe by myself.
I could have written some ingame message stating this, but as you mention, I wasn't overly confident it would work anyway.
For it to work I needed the element of surprise. A bit hard to take on the universe *and* give a 5 year warning IMO

So there you have it. Sure, you might call it a backstab. But it was essential to the overall strategy I had chosen. And hey, my enemies sure were numerous after that turn

You will be glad (surprised maybe?) to know this was the only game I (ok, you win ) backstabbed in; ever.
But it made all the difference to the outcome.

Report message to a moderator

Steve1 wrote on Fri, 14 November 2003 10:18

. Yes but the same could be said about about someone whom only robs one bank. I'm sure the lawyers would love to get their client off with that one.

Poor analagy. If someone robs a bank there are lots of people to complain about it all who demand justice.

A sucessful backstab however leaves no-one to complain about it all

[Updated on: Fri, 14 November 2003 06:48]

Report message to a moderator

Hi!

Quote:

A sucessful backstab however leaves no-one to complain about it all

So a successful bank robbing should be performed in the same way?
Humm, you may be right. Technically, no one would complain about stolen money, because all would complain about other things.
BR, Iztok

Report message to a moderator

Backstab: To attack (someone) unfairly, especially in an underhand, deceitful manner

Backstabbing is awful - no matter what!!! I'm ashamed at all of you that condone it.

Although changing your mind about friendship and writing to the person 2 turns before you literally ATTACK the heck out of him, is ok. IMHO

But to all of you who get tickled (enjoy tremendously) because you successful backstabbed someone who trusted you - SHAME



edit: translation for american slang...

[Updated on: Fri, 14 November 2003 12:43]

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

[Updated on: Thu, 02 November 2006 06:09] by Moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

gible wrote on Wed, 18 October 2006 05:59

I suspect if a game were advertised as "Backstabbing strictly allowed and encouraged", then you might have an easier time of things.

Host got to reward successful backstabbers with something.

Report message to a moderator

Kotk wrote on Wed, 18 October 2006 16:30

gible wrote on Wed, 18 October 2006 05:59 I suspect if a game were advertised as "Backstabbing strictly allowed and encouraged", then you might have an easier time of things. Host got to reward successful backstabbers with something.

Does it count as a backstab if the host spends the prizemoney on himself?

Report message to a moderator

gible wrote on Wed, 18 October 2006 10:29

Does it count as a backstab if the host spends the prizemoney on himself?

Haha. Actually i did not think $ given by playing hosts.
Unplaying hosts often run some sort of overlooker races ... so some minerals or ships for example. With aid of Captain Maim some even better things can be probably brewed out.

Report message to a moderator

Another thing you can do is just build some arbitary diplomatic rules into the game to dodge the problem of 'stale' alliances where leading players *ought* to split but don't, to preserve their reputations...


A couple of examples:

A) Add a rule that ANY agreement in the game can be voided unconditionally with x years warning. Essentially enforcing an honourable exit clause on all agreements.

B) This one is from the "Bidding for Techs" game I am hosting: Each decade the top two races (based on score) are announced. Any agreements those two races have are *immediately* null and void, they cannot conduct diplomacy, they have to set each other to enemy, they cannot trade anything except insults. It's very arbitary, but I think it's one of the factors that has lead to a very fluid and interesting game. Twice so far, the top two were allies before their agreements were negated. Both times resulted in open war. I love it.

EDIT: btw, on B I mean agreements between the top two races... They can still do whatever they like with everyone else - it just breaks up first+second alliances.

[Updated on: Wed, 18 October 2006 21:14]

Report message to a moderator