One of the things I've observed about many games is that the overly aggresive player at the table usually loses, along with whoever is unfortunate enough to be seated next to them, since they spend so much time fighting others can get objectives. That being said, it's nearly impossible (there are exceptions, such as if you're playing xxcha or hacan) to win a game without getting into a fight with your neighbors, usually over territory (no, that's MY tech bonus planet) or mecatol rex.

So, from your experiences, what is the right time to get aggresive? Some say it's around the time stage II objectives come out since many require all out war in order to get them, but I've seen players get serious prior to that. I'm not talking about little skirmishes, where two people go for the same random system and one gets it, and then it stays that way for most of the game because the loser has more important things to deal with. I'm talking about going for MR and keeping it, or trying to beat someone into submission so that they're not a threat anymore.

The right time to get aggressive is when getting aggressive will directly earn you VPs. Full stop.

The right time to stop being aggressive is when being aggressive no longer directly earns you VPs.

Everything you do in the game should be geared towards helping you complete the objectives that are available to be claimed. Nothing else matters, at least as far as winning goes.

That said, when we play we have been known to do a fair amount of things (including fighting) just for fun. After all, what's the point of winning if you don't have fun playing the game?

That's one way of looking at things.

The reason I ask is that in the lat two games I've played, there's been one person at the table who has been, for lack of a better term, a warmonger. Almost went directly for MR at the start (his secret objective) in addition to charging directly into another players homesystem (using warfare II) to blockade their spacedock (stage 1 public). End result, the two wound up fighting almost the entire game, coming in dead last for VPs. I felt bad for the guy who was unfortunate enough to sit next to this guy, as he wasn't overly aggressive, the blow to his home system just knocked him out for several rounds and he was unable to catch up. The attacker was, as he claimed, going for VP's, but he did so in a way that pretty much sinkered him and his neighbor out of the game. The only VPs the attacker was able to get was for blockading the spacedock, and for one or two trival publics (spend 3 command counters, spend 10 influence/resources, etc.)

Why did the attacker keep warring after he claimed the blockade objective? Seems like he chose the right time to start fighting (when it gave him VP) but not the right time to stop fighting (when it didn't).

Bowoodstock said:

Some people like to stir things up, even if it's not the absolute best tactical decision as far as winning the game goes. If you want him to stop attacking people, you could talk to him about it, but it doesn't sound like he was doing anything illegal, rules-wise. Annoying perhaps, but not wrong.

If I understand the crux of the issue here, you just want to make sure everyone is having fun, and you're thinking the guy he attacked didn't have fun. That's a fair point. Unfortunately, telling the warmonger not to attack people is likely to restrict his fun. If he's not actually cheating, that's not entirely fair either. After all, the game does allow combat to happen even when it's not strictly necessary. It's something he has the right to do.

The two best solutions I can see, assuming the warmonger is unwilling to tone it down, would be to find someone else who at least enjoys the fighting and make sure they sit next to each other, or don't play TI3 when the warmonger is around. If the warmonger is truly ruining everyone's fun, then play a different game where direct conflict actually does lead to victory, or at least where it doesn't knock out the victim for such a long time.

You could also try removing the Secret Objectives, which would nullify a big part of the motivation for conflict (VP-wise.) To me that feels like neutering the game, though.

I'm a little embarrassed to say that the closest I got to hitting someone over a game was when I got attacked arbitrarily near the endgame by a mate (who then proceeded to act like a massive tool to make me see red, but I digress), so I can empathise with those who get frustrated by trigger happy players.

At least the Nekro race gives people an outlet for such play.

Bowoodstock said:

This should tell you something about how viable an overly aggressive strategy is when it does NOT garner objective-related victory points...

Bowoodstock said:

How so? "MY tech bonus planet"? Why would you want to fight over a tech bonus planet if it's not garnering you or the opponent any victory points or crucial tools helping you/opponent to obtain victory points? Mecatol Rex I can understand if it directly gives you VP's or prevents an opponent from getting an essential VP-lead, but other than that, why would you want to engage in such pointless aggression? Sounds like the players in question show a remarkable lack of focus and haven't understand the simple fact that combat is only meaningful if it either helps you gain points or prevents someone from gaining points. If combat fulfills neither of these requirements, it's bordering on pointless.

Whether or not you like this fact is another case; TI is just not a wargame first and foremost. You might like that or you might dislike that. However, unless you houserule alot of stuff, you need to embrace it in order to win and become effective.

Bowoodstock said:

Bowoodstock said:

Keeping Mecatol at all cost AFTER you've harvested the VP's possible from it is outright stupid. If you have a Secret Objective pertaining to it, then by all means fighting for it is a viable strategy. Just as it's viable for others to try and ****** it away from him. However, if there are no objectives to be gained from MR, then it is outright stupid to cling to it at the cost of your ability to continue claiming other objectives. It is far better to bait people into it, hopefully spawning some conflict between other players as they suddenly eye the chance for either their own Secret Objective or a MR-related objective.

Judging from the rest of the thread, it seems to me like you have a player who disturbs the metagame; you know from previous games that he will engage in a mindless vendetta and ruin both yours and his own game if you, in a bid for Victory Points, make a slight move against him, like snatching one of his border systems. Therefore he ends up being a timebomb at the table, suddenly making a wild swing at someone whose night and winning chances are then ruined due to the aggressive player's whim rather than tactical masterstrokes or sensible, tactical choices.

From my experience, what works best is simply telling him that mindless kamikaze is a no-go, and that he won't be invited to future sessions unless he shows some common sense. In my group we've had players who, seeing how they couldn't win, completely ruined the last round by all-out kamikaze play just for *****'n'giggles and spite. They were clearly told afterwards that it was disrespectful and completely ruined the incentive to play when the victory isn't obtained through good, clever and tactical play, but rather at the whim of a spiteful player who's hellbent on ruining it for everyone else just because he made some bad decisions through our 12-15 hour game-session. Afterwards we've had no problems, and he admitted his error, seeing how the game degenerates into a frustration-fest if tactical considerations goes down the drain and people turn spiteful (not that we've usually had that problem, 'twas only in this case).

As Steve-O points out, some players may derive satisfaction for playing stupidly and engaging in all-out war vendettas, with no chance of winning and with the sole purpose of joining the game and mooking things up for the other players. As Steve-O says, you can't pinpoint him as doing anything wrong rule-wise. However, he's obviously ruining alot of the tactical aspects of the game and he forces the rest of you to metagame; you have to take his retarded behaviour into consideration, thus forcing you into a certain playstyle if you, for instance, happen to sit besides him in the next game.

My solution would be to tell him to crank up his neural activity, play the game as intended, with all the freedom and tactical depth that implies, or find another gaming group.

Bearing my previous post in mind, I felt I had to comment on this, as I believe there is a fine line between mindless warmongering and aggressive tactical play.

Bowoodstock said:

I'd say that is pretty much a stroke of genius; he lays the foundation for his Secret Objective while ensuring in a very, very cost-efficient way that his neighbour gets hamstringed right off the bat. I imagine he only used a few cruisers/destroyers to block the opponent's homesystem, thereby ensuring the opponent lost an entire round's worth of unitproduction AND got the expansion slowed down? That's dynamic, tactical and aggressive play right there AND both things (could) garner him Victory Points. You shouldn't discourage such play, especially considering his neighbour knew he had picked Warfare. He was completely aware of the possibility, yet chose not to block the primary way into his HS or to reinforce it. The aggressive player made some awesome moves, whereas the victim chose to ignore the glaringly obvious threat that the Warfare SC represents.

Bowoodstock said:

This can be due to 2 things:

1) The attacking player wasn't satisfied with claiming 1 VP from blockading a dock and thus opted to stay too long rather than be satisfied with the VP + hamstringing his opponent for several rounds in an extremely cost-efficient manner.

or

2) The victim engaged in a mindless vendetta after the aggressive player left the Home-System, thereby actually being the one ruining the game for them due to being spiteful of the aggressive player's masterful opening move.

So, which was it? I'm genuinly curious now.

Bowoodstock said:

And how much did that masterstroke cost the aggressive player? Some destroyers/cruisers? Sounds to me like he did a well-executed cost-efficient move and punished the victim for completely ignoring the fact that WARFARE was popped on a Home-system fleet, which then proceeded to move unhindered into an opponent's Home system. You shouldn't feel sorry for him UNLESS the aggressive player opted to continue the aggression beyond reason.

However, he should of course claim the VP, continue the blockade as long as possible (as it would ensure one of his flanks for several rounds - possibly the entire remainder of the game - to come.) AND ****** some contested territory zones that could otherwise tip to either him or the opponent. Of course he should capitalize on the victim's obvious tactical blunder.

Bowoodstock said:

Yet why did it sinker HIM, the attacker? Was it due to the neighbour becoming spiteful and engaging in a focused vendetta with no hope of garnering any Victory Points? If so, blame the 'victim', not the attacker.

Interesting commentary...

Here's the chain of events in the afore mentioned game.

1. Aggressive player made afore mentioned move with the warfare card. Admittedly, he did it at the correct time, AFTER the victim had moved most of his fleet away in order to colonize another system. He didn't land because the victim had been mindful enough to leave a PDS and a pair of mech units on his home planet. After blockading the dock for a turn, on his next turn he moved out and took over another system belonging to said player.

2. Victim attempted to reclaim the system the enemy fleet was now in (the warmonger had NOT destroyed the spacedock in the home system) and managed to wipe it out. This was a significant system for him btw, without it he had only 3 other planets aside from his home system.

3. On his next turn. the aggresor immediately built a new fleet (he had production) in a system closer to this player, (spacedock built last turn) and then moved in to wipe out the fleet that had just taken out his previous one as revenge for the fleet he'd just lost.

In short, the victim reclaimed the system that was previously his, was NOT encroaching on this other player's space. The first attack made sense as far as I'm concerned. The second attack however was just bullying, it served no other purpose but to avenge the loss of 2 cruisers and a carrier. I should mention, the aggresive player was using nekro, so it's expected that he'd be attacking a lot. However,, he beat the guy into the ground so hard that the victim was never able to aquire any technology, and as the nekro player had already stolen all the techs this person had by the attack on the new system, the retaliatory attack didn't even net him a new tech. By this point, someone else had nuked the fleet he'd sent to MR, and the rest of the game was spent with him trying to take out this other player who was only able to spend each turn reclaiming whatever he could from the previous assault.

Bowoodstock said:

This move makes no sense to be honest; simply blockading the enemy's system for as long as possible would be the optimal course of action here while he's consolidating his other systems and preparing to claim his SO.

Bowoodstock said:

Seems reasonable. Fortunate that the aggressor didn't pop one of his ships out while keeping the rest in the HS, then he'd block the HS for yet another round most likely

Bowoodstock said:

This move could be justified if it was extremely easy for him to keep the opponent down in a very cost-efficient way. However, I see where you're coming from, especially if his attitude at the gametable was as you described. However, if that's the case, I'll have to reiterate my former point: Talk to him. If his attitude is still wonky, tell him that's he's not welcome or that he shouldn't get personal at the gametable; vengeful total-war is just ruining the game. However, there's a fine line between really aggressive tactical play (his opening move) and bullying (what you describe came after)

Iorveth said:

I think I would need to know a lot more of how that game went before passing such judgment.

Just because someone is loosing does not mean they have to sit there and not participate. If his only course of action is to help decide who wins well diplomacy is a big part of this game and keeping your friends happy is important. If he is ignored because he is loosing then thats a mistake on the other players.

Keeping an eye on where fleets are and what can be done with them is a very important part of the game(especially from a player that has nothing to lose) and if its ignored you have to accept the consequences. You talk about the player attacking out of spite which suggests that you knew he had a grudge...

If the player backstabbed a friend in the game and it was for no gain then that is a very silly move as diplomatic relations like that last more than one game.

apbevan said:

Of course not, nor did I ever mention anything even remotely akin to that. Participation is of course ideal; hell, we've houseruled our share of what we perceive as flaws in the game, all in the name of increased participation and dynamic. There is, however, a big difference between participating in the game and playing your chance/maximizing your potential and a sudden knee-jerk reaction serving no purpose other than riling things up, regardless of previous diplomatic exchanges/warfare/whatever. A total disregard for tactics out of the blue is nothing but destructive to the game and inevitably creates a metagame that will gravitate towards turtling or, even worse, lack of enthusiasm.

apbevan said:

Of course. However, in the brief example I gave, the player in question wasn't ignored; he just knee-jerked left and right with zero disregard towards the game, not caring who won or lost but simply venting some steam. To me that is anathema considering the considerable time investment that TI represents, something that was fortunately understood completely clearly by the player in question, as everyone around the table basically got frustrated and cited the game as a bad experience. Which I perfectly understand; if throwing common sense aside becomes the norm and pointless aggression with no regard for the game becomes acceptable, the metagame invariably changes for the worse. And imo, the less metagaming the better, though it cannot be avoided; as such it's every player's responsibility to ensure it stays as 'clean' as possible to ensure everybody has a good time.

apbevan said:

I may not have been completely clear in my wording, nor is English my native language. When I said he was spiteful, I meant that he was generally 'angry' because he had simply played a terrible game and took out his frustration on the people that were closest for no reason whatsoever other than venting some steam. Hence my mention of the metagame and the responsibility to 'keep it clean', as moves such as that carry over into subsequent games and shape them in a negative manner.

I hope that clears things up and sheds some additional light on my previous comments; I wasn't aware that they would be interpreted as they were.

I've only ever had 1 game of Twilight imperium actually ruined by the action of another player.

And I am part of a group who do a lot of back stabing and spitefull warmongering tactics. The game is still fun because everyone knows it's going to happen. We expect as part and parcell of the game that if we let you just grow your empire and you aren't going after Vp's then he's out to crush your race into the floor. Letting someone else climb up the Track and win the game.

The only game that was ever ruined was a game where 3 hours into play one player had decided he wasn't winning and his local region of space was too devoid of resources to be worth playing anymore and actually left the game.

Actively telling a person they aren't invited to the game because they can turne into a rogue element seems to actually miss the realism reflected in that type of strategy. If you are playing without the Idea a person could just turn into a rogue element and try all he can to suicide his race against you because he would rather have someone else be declared New head of the Empire it's more about your expectations that aren't matching up.

The one reaction that really ticks me off though, is the player who "gives up" because he isn't winning. At least the rogue element is still in the game and playing and affecting things, instead of sitting there bitching he isn't wining can't win and just tools around wasting time complaining about the hours he spent playing this **** game.

Heh, I like that idea Wuffy, if a player wishes to start warring indiscriminately in light of their chances of victory, that they, and the rest of the players, should recognise that they have gone "rogue". Becoming a rogue state should be a significant event and treated as such; this faction has become a threat to the stability of the galaxy and, more importantly, your overall strategy. It suddenly means that player has a lot of sway on events, mayber for a particular person (an act of revenge or betrayal), or possibly for the entire galaxy (total war).

The idea that upon targetting another player and not expecting retaliatory measures simply because such a response would be "non-optimal play" is frankly absurd, tactical masterstroke or not. Maybe people decrying such warmongering should loosen their strategies to consider the players around them. That's not to say, sink to their level and engage in total war- I've never seen victory arise from this, but to have the necessary means to dissuade such rogue activity. To me optimal play is not only the masterstroke, but also the deft handling of the response.

From my earlier example, I don't begrudge the attack on me so much. It had stymied my chances of winning, true, but had I been more diplomatic beforehand (and not defaulted on a trade negotiation payment earlier- my bad) I could have avoided the massacre. How was I to know that the Jol-Nar would hold such a grudge? I gambled and lost, diplomatically. Maybe if I was more aware of my friend turning rogue, by actively considering them in my strategy, then I could have avoided the outcome.

Limiting this interesting rogue element would surely be politics with kid gloves, no?

For the players who are simply bored and without options (we've all been there to some degree), "going rogue" under these new pretenses could give their actions renewed meaning, and give the galaxy something to think about.

Personally i only gear up for war if it helps me gain VPs OR if i have spare command counters and a lot of unused production.

i prefere not even getting to many red techs as movement, command counters and utility often works better for me.

id rather have 3 cruisers with stasis capsules, type 4 drive and maybe even light/wave dflectors than id want war suns. except when playing muaat with movement 3 warsuns <3