Well, when I heard “Let’s all gang up on the guy in first place”, my thought process continued in his voice with “and then you’ll be in first place, and we’ll cross that bridge when we come to it!” So agreeing to the strategy would have meant dozens of turns of ganging up 4-against-1, which would be too easy, followed by being ganged up on 1-against-3, which would be too hard. Being ganged up on 2-against-3, on the other hand, sounded fun, given that we were already ahead and would have the element of surprise.
So instead of agreeing to the strategy, I feigned agreement, then warned the 1st place player what to prepare for and teamed up with him instead. After everybody built up their militaries, Mr. 3rd Place launched the attack on Mr. 1st Place, then I immediately launched the attack on Mr. 3P, whose army was now mostly bogged down behind enemy lines. The war basically broke in two, with a near-stalemate between 1P vs. 4P+5P in the south, while I made major gains against 3P in the north. By the time 3P was defeated I was far in the lead, decently defended against any possible betrayal by 2P, and had just successfully made a large amphibious assault on the wealthy-but-underdefended rear of 4P and 5P, so they all conceded.
Hmm… that first paragraph makes me sound brilliantly Machiavellian in hindsight, but that’s not true. I did have those strategic thoughts at the time, but my “true rejection” was more along the lines of “1P showed mercy when he could have smashed me (perhaps profitably) much earlier in the game” and (despite my pro-gaming-betrayal stance above) I couldn’t bring myself to violate our peace agreement after that.
Well, when I heard “Let’s all gang up on the guy in first place”, my thought process continued in his voice with “and then you’ll be in first place, and we’ll cross that bridge when we come to it!” So agreeing to the strategy would have meant dozens of turns of ganging up 4-against-1, which would be too easy, followed by being ganged up on 1-against-3, which would be too hard. Being ganged up on 2-against-3, on the other hand, sounded fun, given that we were already ahead and would have the element of surprise.
So instead of agreeing to the strategy, I feigned agreement, then warned the 1st place player what to prepare for and teamed up with him instead. After everybody built up their militaries, Mr. 3rd Place launched the attack on Mr. 1st Place, then I immediately launched the attack on Mr. 3P, whose army was now mostly bogged down behind enemy lines. The war basically broke in two, with a near-stalemate between 1P vs. 4P+5P in the south, while I made major gains against 3P in the north. By the time 3P was defeated I was far in the lead, decently defended against any possible betrayal by 2P, and had just successfully made a large amphibious assault on the wealthy-but-underdefended rear of 4P and 5P, so they all conceded.
Hmm… that first paragraph makes me sound brilliantly Machiavellian in hindsight, but that’s not true. I did have those strategic thoughts at the time, but my “true rejection” was more along the lines of “1P showed mercy when he could have smashed me (perhaps profitably) much earlier in the game” and (despite my pro-gaming-betrayal stance above) I couldn’t bring myself to violate our peace agreement after that.
Awesome.