Why is it that higher ranks get pissy when they are beat

[detlef]

experience makes one "hopefully" better.

Ive played some pretty stupid officers and some really smart cooks strategy wise. I have considered my self one of those smart cooks, that has had bad dice and luck compared to others Ive played.

rriiiggght.

[herndawg]

If you are not an officer & beat a higher up, why do they get pissy?


I have played 3 6 player Gazala games with Waynemgough.

Finally win one of them & he reams me on the feedback even though not one word was said in game chat. Got a 0 on fair play & a 2 on attitude.

If you beat mystique you get put on foe list so you cant join his games anymore.

Join the public terminator crowd. I have hosted most my games in 8 player and 6 player. There are many great players who regular these games all with great attitudes. I haven't had one game where feedback was threatened. Other that that this setting seems to bring everything from crazy cooks to majors. Our points are open to whoever but rarely do higher ranks get taken out by low ranks anyway. Usually the games end up with the higher ranks getting out last. Depends. And no one cares about blown take out attempts cause that is what it is all about. And the medal looks cool.

[Iron Butterfly]

experience makes one "hopefully" better.

Ive played some pretty stupid officers and some really smart cooks strategy wise. I have considered my self one of those smart cooks, that has had bad dice and luck compared to others Ive played.

rriiiggght.

lol Im not sure if your agreeing or being sarcastic...SIR!!

[liamo6969]

im obviously not one myself,

but maybe a good player getting pissy is a show of how much they desire to win,

i know its always good to be a gracious loser but maybe they are just very disappointed whenever they lose. Some of us think "it was a good game, its a pity i didnt get lucky or manage to win." They may think that they are letting themselves down and get very pissed off??

Just a theory but maybe its a good sign in some players, but a sign that each of us does not like to be on the recieving end of?

[retrocrush]

I've had this experience a lot. I love it when you beat a real high up (especially as a Cook) and they freak out. I've had remarks like PLAY YOUR OWN RANK! It's hilarious that if a lower rank beats a higher, it's always just "dumb luck" or "bad dice", yet they've got no trouble accepting that same luck/dice combo to jack their rank up.

Guess what, guys...your dick is still just as small as a Captain.

[joecoolfrog]

experience makes one "hopefully" better.

Ive played some pretty stupid officers and some really smart cooks strategy wise. I have considered my self one of those smart cooks, that has had bad dice and luck compared to others Ive played.

Bad luck and dice even out, I dropped 800 points because of it but have recently gained back 500 points because the Gods are smiling on me once more. Overall ( if we exclude cheats ) your points total is a reasonable indication of skill, if it is consistently low then look at your gameplay rather than making excuses.

[detlef]

Well, here's a reason why someone might get pissy when they lose. Just happened to me.

1v1 classic flat rate. My opponent gets dropped all but 2 of Europe and there are neutrals in Greenland, N Africa, East Africa, and Afghanistan. He also has guys in Ural and Middle East. I have Egypt.

He goes first, takes out my country and the neutral in Europe losing maybe 1 or 2 and forts S Europe. So, I've got one chance to bust Europe or he's getting 11 guys next turn. I attack S Europe 7v5 and barely take it. It's adjacent forts, so I hook up Ontario. He, of course, takes out the guys that busted S europe as well as the the guy in egypt. Now I have exactly one spot that I can get to Europe that doesn't require going through a neutral and a fortified border of his.

He also pushes 2 guys into Iceland so going that way means going through 3 neutrals and 5 of his from a starting of 8. Fortunately, he only has one guy in Ukraine so I have a shot 6v3,1 going through Ural. I fail and push two more into Ontario. Now the slaughter should begin but, rather than dropping against Ontario and taking out one of my only shots, he messes around in South America. I actually had a decent shot going through Greenland 11 v 3,5 but, again, the dice came up short.

My first comment is: good luck and nice drop
My second is: Why didn't you take out Ontario? I almost had you.

His reply: On this map, it's not about continents. You should know that.

Later he proceeds to lecture me on the fact that, while I was wasting my time attacking neutrals (the neutrals that were protecting his 5 army bonus, he was attacking me. I should try it some time.

Now, I've had the nice drop and the nice dice as well, so I know that comes around. However, if the f'ing game basically gets handed to you by turn 2, don't pretend otherwise.

[PLAYER57832]

Well, here's a reason why someone might get pissy when they lose. Just happened to me.

1v1 classic flat rate. My opponent gets dropped all but 2 of Europe and there are neutrals in Greenland, N Africa, East Africa, and Afghanistan. He also has guys in Ural and Middle East. I have Egypt.

He goes first, takes out my country and the neutral in Europe losing maybe 1 and forts S Europe. So, I've got one chance to bust Europe or he's getting 11 guys next turn. I attack S Europe 7v5 and barely take it. It's adjacent forts, so I hook up Ontario. He, of course, takes out the guys that busted S europe as well as the the guy in egypt. Now I have exactly one spot that I can get to Europe that doesn't require going through a neutral and a fortified border of his.

He also pushes 2 guys into Iceland so going that way means going through 3 neutrals and 5 of his from a starting of 8. Fortunately, he only has one guy in Ukraine so I have a shot 6v3,1 going through Ural. I fail and push two more into Ontario. Now the slaughter should begin but, rather than dropping against Ontario and taking out one of my only shots, he messes around in South America. I actually had a decent shot going through Greenland 11 v 3,5 but, again, the dice came up short.

My first comment is: good luck and nice drop
My second is: Why didn't you take out Ontario? I almost had you.

His reply: On this map, it's not about continents. You should know that.

Later he proceeds to lecture me on the fact that, while I was wasting my time attacking neutrals (the neutrals that were protecting his 5 army bonus, he was attacking me. I should try it some time.

Now, I've had the nice drop and the nice dice as well, so I know that comes around. However, if the f'ing game basically gets handed to you by turn 2, don't pretend otherwise.

And your point is???

Sounds like neither one of you showed your best manners.

It IS [Lack close your eyes] only a game! If the player got lucky ... he got lucky. If he plays badly ... don't play that player again... or beat him. Luck won't stay. Skill does. Beat him 10 times and you might make your point a little more than trying to "holler" in chat.

[Timminz]

That was very entertaining game chat. Made me laugh.

[detlef]

Well, here's a reason why someone might get pissy when they lose. Just happened to me.

1v1 classic flat rate. My opponent gets dropped all but 2 of Europe and there are neutrals in Greenland, N Africa, East Africa, and Afghanistan. He also has guys in Ural and Middle East. I have Egypt.

He goes first, takes out my country and the neutral in Europe losing maybe 1 and forts S Europe. So, I've got one chance to bust Europe or he's getting 11 guys next turn. I attack S Europe 7v5 and barely take it. It's adjacent forts, so I hook up Ontario. He, of course, takes out the guys that busted S europe as well as the the guy in egypt. Now I have exactly one spot that I can get to Europe that doesn't require going through a neutral and a fortified border of his.

He also pushes 2 guys into Iceland so going that way means going through 3 neutrals and 5 of his from a starting of 8. Fortunately, he only has one guy in Ukraine so I have a shot 6v3,1 going through Ural. I fail and push two more into Ontario. Now the slaughter should begin but, rather than dropping against Ontario and taking out one of my only shots, he messes around in South America. I actually had a decent shot going through Greenland 11 v 3,5 but, again, the dice came up short.

My first comment is: good luck and nice drop
My second is: Why didn't you take out Ontario? I almost had you.

His reply: On this map, it's not about continents. You should know that.

Later he proceeds to lecture me on the fact that, while I was wasting my time attacking neutrals (the neutrals that were protecting his 5 army bonus, he was attacking me. I should try it some time.

Now, I've had the nice drop and the nice dice as well, so I know that comes around. However, if the f'ing game basically gets handed to you by turn 2, don't pretend otherwise.

And your point is???

Sounds like neither one of you showed your best manners.

It IS [Lack close your eyes] only a game! If the player got lucky ... he got lucky. If he plays badly ... don't play that player again... or beat him. Luck won't stay. Skill does. Beat him 10 times and you might make your point a little more than trying to "holler" in chat.

My point is quite simply this. When I get a great drop or great dice, I usually make a borderline apology to my opponent. Something to the effect of, "Wow, looks like I got the luck on the drop, eh? Maybe you'll get the dice."

If I fail to say this and my opponent says, "Nice drop" or "That's the unfortunate thing about 1v1, sometimes the drop makes it so if one player gets one bad batch of dice, it's pretty much over". I tend to say, "I hear ya. Maybe next time it will be you"

What I don't freaking do is pretend that getting 11 guys to 3 from the 2nd turn on is not an advantage and start lecturing the guy on how to play the game better.

[detlef]

That was very entertaining game chat. Made me laugh.

Of course, the irony is that his biggest points were that continents didn't matter and you shouldn't waste your time hitting neutrals. Of course, on his first turn, he took a continent by taking out a neutral.

[Ogre]

Ive seen posts like this for awhile and i find it amusing reading them, im sure most of you that posted won't care, but ive beaten my share of officers already in teams and standard and i have yet to hear a complaint from any of them. Of course there are going to be a few here and there but thats in any game you play.

[wrestler1ump]

I tried to make a similar point about high ranked players being not-so-nice people, but I was piled on for it. Obviously I am not the only one who finds high rankers to have a certain arrogance about them, so my point in the first place was obviously legit. I don't find a lot of sub 1000 players scream and swear when they don't win a game.

You were piled on because it's a baseless argument. Whenever you guys make this stupid claim, you always point to a few people who generally seem like a-holes anyway and use that as your evidence.

Seriously, what is the point?

What you're failing to take into account, is the number of people who claim that high ranking players are jerks because they're completely oblivious to the fact that they completely f'ed up in game play and handed victory to someone else.

About half the time when somebody comes here complaining about some rude comments, you go into the game log and realize that anyone but Mother Theresa would have flipped out on them as well.

Sorry to say wrestler, but I can specifically recall this sort of thing with you. You make claims like this, then we look into your games and realize that you basically have yourself to blame. Then we say as much and you accuse us of flaming you in the GD. However, all we're doing is pointing out some rather inconvenient facts. Sorry dude, but that's the truth.

I can recall one game where I made a dumb move against a high ranked player, and he blew up on me. For the most part, I have found that if you say something that isn't sucking up to them they go haywire. It's as though they think they are kings because they hold high ranks.

When people f-up in game play against lower ranks, the low ranks may get upset but they don't yell and curse and swear and act like hotheads. I have found this to be a trend amongst high rankers, and while I'm not going to name anyone in particular because I would then be accused of flaming and permabanned from the forums, I will provide some names to anyone who PM's me. Just thought I should mention that I'm willing to give names, as I was called a coward among other things for not naming anything specific in the thread I started about this very same topic.

[wrestler1ump]

I've had this experience a lot. I love it when you beat a real high up (especially as a Cook) and they freak out. I've had remarks like PLAY YOUR OWN RANK! It's hilarious that if a lower rank beats a higher, it's always just "dumb luck" or "bad dice", yet they've got no trouble accepting that same luck/dice combo to jack their rank up.

Guess what, guys...your dick is still just as small as a Captain.

ditto to everything you just said.

[Bruceswar]

Simple answer to all this...

Lower ranked players generally do not give a shit.

High ranked players generally want to win at all cost.

Thus you get a mix of players wanting to win and others who do not care and just make mindless attacks. The players who want to win and know what is going on are going to get mad when somebody else makes a terrible move. BTW I have seen high ranking players go at it as well. The difference is they usually both know what is going on so the argument is much better.

[PLAYER57832]

Simple answer to all this...

Lower ranked players generally do not give a shit.

High ranked players generally want to win at all cost.

Thus you get a mix of players wanting to win and others who do not care and just make mindless attacks. The players who want to win and know what is going on are going to get mad when somebody else makes a terrible move. BTW I have seen high ranking players go at it as well. The difference is they usually both know what is going on so the argument is much better.

No, you can't sort folks out by rank that way. EXCEPT that the very highest do tend to worry a bit more about keeping their ranks. BUT, those also tend to play mostly amongst themselves.

You DO have a division of folks who play to have fun ... win or lose.

AND you have a few, not the majority, who want to win, win, win and get angry when they don't.

They are ALL poor sports.

In low ranks, this shows up more often as complaints against the "dice", "poor drops", and accusations of "cheating" and threats to just leave. Ironically, it also shows up as criticism of how other people play. (can't be their fault, after all!!!!).

In the higher ranks (mostly the moderately high ranks, rather than the truly high ranks) this shows up as berating of those who don't play as well, "high-jacking" of games (that is, joining only lower ranked games with the intention of beating and laughing at the poorer players) AND sometimes getting irate if one of the lower ranked players happens to beat them ... be it luck of hte dice/drop , a bit of skill in a particular map or luck in happening to make some decent moves.

The WORST OFFENDERS? Are the MIDDLE RANKED PLAYERS. But, they are also where most folks here sit. (where the vast majority of CCers are) The poor sports here often think they are much better than they are and will do ALL of the above, depending on the circumstances.

The ONE CLEAR UNIFORM QUALITY ... POOR SPORTS! Plain and simple! Rank has nothing to do with it. Rank only affects how the poor sportsmanship is exhibited.

[realmss]

The main time I get annoyed is when someone gives the game to someone else and won't even admit they screwed up.

[KoE_Sirius]

I agree with the last guy..People just get upset when they lose.Rank has very little to do with it.

agreed, accept for the higher ranks, or some of them may get more pissy than others because generally they are much more competitive and hate losing, they strive to be the very best they can be i'd imagine.

kinda like sports, there are tons of great athletes and some better than others, cause the ones that are better than others usually practice much later and more, they put tons of time and effort into it, more than the average pro athlete, and same in this game or any game. some play for fun, some play for being the best, so play to relax, so play of boredom, some to socializ, some a combination of things, etc, bla bla bla


for example: i mean peyton manning studies more game film then most coaches in the nfl, it why he is the player he is.

Plus the higher ranks can be more articulate and have a lot more to say then a cook.We have a few exceptions,but across the board not many cooks out there are great at putting a point across and normally say very little ,before they deadbeat a game.

[Bruceswar]

Simple answer to all this...

Lower ranked players generally do not give a shit.

High ranked players generally want to win at all cost.

Thus you get a mix of players wanting to win and others who do not care and just make mindless attacks. The players who want to win and know what is going on are going to get mad when somebody else makes a terrible move. BTW I have seen high ranking players go at it as well. The difference is they usually both know what is going on so the argument is much better.

No, you can't sort folks out by rank that way. EXCEPT that the very highest do tend to worry a bit more about keeping their ranks. BUT, those also tend to play mostly amongst themselves.

You DO have a division of folks who play to have fun ... win or lose.

AND you have a few, not the majority, who want to win, win, win and get angry when they don't.

They are ALL poor sports.

In low ranks, this shows up more often as complaints against the "dice", "poor drops", and accusations of "cheating" and threats to just leave. Ironically, it also shows up as criticism of how other people play. (can't be their fault, after all!!!!).

In the higher ranks (mostly the moderately high ranks, rather than the truly high ranks) this shows up as berating of those who don't play as well, "high-jacking" of games (that is, joining only lower ranked games with the intention of beating and laughing at the poorer players) AND sometimes getting irate if one of the lower ranked players happens to beat them ... be it luck of hte dice/drop , a bit of skill in a particular map or luck in happening to make some decent moves.

The WORST OFFENDERS? Are the MIDDLE RANKED PLAYERS. But, they are also where most folks here sit. (where the vast majority of CCers are) The poor sports here often think they are much better than they are and will do ALL of the above, depending on the circumstances.

The ONE CLEAR UNIFORM QUALITY ... POOR SPORTS! Plain and simple! Rank has nothing to do with it. Rank only affects how the poor sportsmanship is exhibited.

You missed my point totally, well not totally, but close. The point I am making is most of these lower ranking player are there for a reason. They do not care if they win or lose. They play for fun and it is an added bonus if they win. They will also mindlessly attack in hopes of winning, yet miss the bigger picture many of the time. The "small" mistakes as they see them cost the rest of us a chance to win. Having been on both ends of the spectrum, cook to colonel... I look back to my cook days and think how terrible a player I was. I have since learned much more and now I find myself making the same type of moves which at first I thought were "odd". These "odd" moves do not look so odd to me now but more as good strategy. BTW many high ranking players join public games. You just have to search them out. I start public games for all to join. I have all ranks join my games. BTW not all high ranking players are poor sports. When I see a person who has played 500 games and is still a cook makes me wonder if they even think about this game at before they move. Seems as if they are not learning from there mistakes.

[Fruitcake]

Simple answer to all this...

Lower ranked players generally do not give a shit.

High ranked players generally want to win at all cost.

Thus you get a mix of players wanting to win and others who do not care and just make mindless attacks. The players who want to win and know what is going on are going to get mad when somebody else makes a terrible move. BTW I have seen high ranking players go at it as well. The difference is they usually both know what is going on so the argument is much better.

No, you can't sort folks out by rank that way. EXCEPT that the very highest do tend to worry a bit more about keeping their ranks. BUT, those also tend to play mostly amongst themselves.

You DO have a division of folks who play to have fun ... win or lose.

AND you have a few, not the majority, who want to win, win, win and get angry when they don't.

They are ALL poor sports.

In low ranks, this shows up more often as complaints against the "dice", "poor drops", and accusations of "cheating" and threats to just leave. Ironically, it also shows up as criticism of how other people play. (can't be their fault, after all!!!!).

In the higher ranks (mostly the moderately high ranks, rather than the truly high ranks) this shows up as berating of those who don't play as well, "high-jacking" of games (that is, joining only lower ranked games with the intention of beating and laughing at the poorer players) AND sometimes getting irate if one of the lower ranked players happens to beat them ... be it luck of hte dice/drop , a bit of skill in a particular map or luck in happening to make some decent moves.

The WORST OFFENDERS? Are the MIDDLE RANKED PLAYERS. But, they are also where most folks here sit. (where the vast majority of CCers are) The poor sports here often think they are much better than they are and will do ALL of the above, depending on the circumstances.

The ONE CLEAR UNIFORM QUALITY ... POOR SPORTS! Plain and simple! Rank has nothing to do with it. Rank only affects how the poor sportsmanship is exhibited.

Funny how a game like this can reflect real life in so many ways.

[azezzo]

This is a gross generalization, a bad sterotype.

It is absolutely true that there are some basement dweliing momma's boys who are, for lack of a better term, fucking spoiled little bitches. This site has its fair share of them, and its a damn shame that we no longer have the feedback system to call these players out and warn future players.

On the other hand there are plenty of higher ranked players who have the common decency to say good game to their oppononent when the lose. That being said, we need more quality individuals on this site.

I am an admitted point whore, but I try to say thanks for playing regardless of the outcome.

You can actually lose a game and still have an enjoyable experience with decent people, game chat sure helps though.

[FabledIntegral]

Well, here's a reason why someone might get pissy when they lose. Just happened to me.

1v1 classic flat rate. My opponent gets dropped all but 2 of Europe and there are neutrals in Greenland, N Africa, East Africa, and Afghanistan. He also has guys in Ural and Middle East. I have Egypt.

He goes first, takes out my country and the neutral in Europe losing maybe 1 or 2 and forts S Europe. So, I've got one chance to bust Europe or he's getting 11 guys next turn. I attack S Europe 7v5 and barely take it. It's adjacent forts, so I hook up Ontario. He, of course, takes out the guys that busted S europe as well as the the guy in egypt. Now I have exactly one spot that I can get to Europe that doesn't require going through a neutral and a fortified border of his.

He also pushes 2 guys into Iceland so going that way means going through 3 neutrals and 5 of his from a starting of 8. Fortunately, he only has one guy in Ukraine so I have a shot 6v3,1 going through Ural. I fail and push two more into Ontario. Now the slaughter should begin but, rather than dropping against Ontario and taking out one of my only shots, he messes around in South America. I actually had a decent shot going through Greenland 11 v 3,5 but, again, the dice came up short.

My first comment is: good luck and nice drop
My second is: Why didn't you take out Ontario? I almost had you.

His reply: On this map, it's not about continents. You should know that.

Later he proceeds to lecture me on the fact that, while I was wasting my time attacking neutrals (the neutrals that were protecting his 5 army bonus, he was attacking me. I should try it some time.

Now, I've had the nice drop and the nice dice as well, so I know that comes around. However, if the f'ing game basically gets handed to you by turn 2, don't pretend otherwise.

No - he's right. You messed that one up. It would have been a bad strategy for him to attack the neutrals in Europe. In a 1v1, it's almost never beneficial to attack neutrals. His two - questionable, some might have gone for it, I personally would not have. If there were 3 neutrals, a definite no. In classic, 1v1 is NOT about continents, he's completely correct, the person you were playing knows what he was talking about.

[Scott-Land]

Get pissy because we're supposed to lose 2 out of 3 not 3 out of 3

[detlef]

Well, here's a reason why someone might get pissy when they lose. Just happened to me.

1v1 classic flat rate. My opponent gets dropped all but 2 of Europe and there are neutrals in Greenland, N Africa, East Africa, and Afghanistan. He also has guys in Ural and Middle East. I have Egypt.

He goes first, takes out my country and the neutral in Europe losing maybe 1 or 2 and forts S Europe. So, I've got one chance to bust Europe or he's getting 11 guys next turn. I attack S Europe 7v5 and barely take it. It's adjacent forts, so I hook up Ontario. He, of course, takes out the guys that busted S europe as well as the the guy in egypt. Now I have exactly one spot that I can get to Europe that doesn't require going through a neutral and a fortified border of his.

He also pushes 2 guys into Iceland so going that way means going through 3 neutrals and 5 of his from a starting of 8. Fortunately, he only has one guy in Ukraine so I have a shot 6v3,1 going through Ural. I fail and push two more into Ontario. Now the slaughter should begin but, rather than dropping against Ontario and taking out one of my only shots, he messes around in South America. I actually had a decent shot going through Greenland 11 v 3,5 but, again, the dice came up short.

My first comment is: good luck and nice drop
My second is: Why didn't you take out Ontario? I almost had you.

His reply: On this map, it's not about continents. You should know that.

Later he proceeds to lecture me on the fact that, while I was wasting my time attacking neutrals (the neutrals that were protecting his 5 army bonus, he was attacking me. I should try it some time.

Now, I've had the nice drop and the nice dice as well, so I know that comes around. However, if the f'ing game basically gets handed to you by turn 2, don't pretend otherwise.

No - he's right. You messed that one up. It would have been a bad strategy for him to attack the neutrals in Europe. In a 1v1, it's almost never beneficial to attack neutrals. His two - questionable, some might have gone for it, I personally would not have. If there were 3 neutrals, a definite no. In classic, 1v1 is NOT about continents, he's completely correct, the person you were playing knows what he was talking about.

I don't think you understand the situation. He did attack the one neutral in Europe and took the continent. At the beginning of the game, he had all but two spots in Europe (one was mine, one was neutral) and had a bunch of bordering spots were neutrals. I only had one spot (Egypt) that bordered Europe. He went first, took out mine and the neutral and pushed a bunch of guys into S Europe. Again, I managed to break him on my turn 1, but, once he took that back and took away Egypt, that was it.

So, he had a heavily protected Europe from turn 2 on and was telling me that "it's not about continents and that I was wasting myself against neutrals (those surrounding his bonus) rather than him". Of course, I would have to take 15 of his territories in other spots on the map to make up that difference and I do think it would have been physically impossible to do so without hitting some other neutrals.

[FabledIntegral]

Well, here's a reason why someone might get pissy when they lose. Just happened to me.

1v1 classic flat rate. My opponent gets dropped all but 2 of Europe and there are neutrals in Greenland, N Africa, East Africa, and Afghanistan. He also has guys in Ural and Middle East. I have Egypt.

He goes first, takes out my country and the neutral in Europe losing maybe 1 or 2 and forts S Europe. So, I've got one chance to bust Europe or he's getting 11 guys next turn. I attack S Europe 7v5 and barely take it. It's adjacent forts, so I hook up Ontario. He, of course, takes out the guys that busted S europe as well as the the guy in egypt. Now I have exactly one spot that I can get to Europe that doesn't require going through a neutral and a fortified border of his.

He also pushes 2 guys into Iceland so going that way means going through 3 neutrals and 5 of his from a starting of 8. Fortunately, he only has one guy in Ukraine so I have a shot 6v3,1 going through Ural. I fail and push two more into Ontario. Now the slaughter should begin but, rather than dropping against Ontario and taking out one of my only shots, he messes around in South America. I actually had a decent shot going through Greenland 11 v 3,5 but, again, the dice came up short.

My first comment is: good luck and nice drop
My second is: Why didn't you take out Ontario? I almost had you.

His reply: On this map, it's not about continents. You should know that.

Later he proceeds to lecture me on the fact that, while I was wasting my time attacking neutrals (the neutrals that were protecting his 5 army bonus, he was attacking me. I should try it some time.

Now, I've had the nice drop and the nice dice as well, so I know that comes around. However, if the f'ing game basically gets handed to you by turn 2, don't pretend otherwise.

No - he's right. You messed that one up. It would have been a bad strategy for him to attack the neutrals in Europe. In a 1v1, it's almost never beneficial to attack neutrals. His two - questionable, some might have gone for it, I personally would not have. If there were 3 neutrals, a definite no. In classic, 1v1 is NOT about continents, he's completely correct, the person you were playing knows what he was talking about.

I don't think you understand the situation. He did attack the one neutral in Europe and took the continent. At the beginning of the game, he had all but two spots in Europe (one was mine, one was neutral) and had a bunch of bordering spots were neutrals. I only had one spot (Egypt) that bordered Europe. He went first, took out mine and the neutral and pushed a bunch of guys into S Europe. Again, I managed to break him on my turn 1, but, once he took that back and took away Egypt, that was it.

So, he had a heavily protected Europe from turn 2 on and was telling me that "it's not about continents and that I was wasting myself against neutrals (those surrounding his bonus) rather than him". Of course, I would have to take 15 of his territories in other spots on the map to make up that difference and I do think it would have been physically impossible to do so without hitting some other neutrals.

Yeah - you already PM'd me the situation. It appears I misread it. My fault.