suiciding...

[bbqpenguin]

ok so i'm relatively new so i can't act like i have some great knowledge of what's going on, but i often find myself suiciding the person the person who screwed me the most in a game i don't think i can win. i often hear people complaining about this, but i'm not sure what the big deal is; if you f*ck me over, then i'm going to do everything within my now limited power to screw you back, throwing strategy to the wind in favor of vengance. likewise, i try to keep in mind that if i keep denying that guy his bonus in na, eventually he's gonna get pissed about it and throw eveything he has against me. i'm just wondering if this is something you're not "supposed" to do... even if it's not against the rules, is it just basic risk etiquette? or am i legit in taking someone down with me in a game i'm sure to lose?

[muy_thaiguy]

Frankly, I'm with you on this. If you are pretty well screwed anyways, what more does your opponent expect of you? Just to sit back and wait for it?

[Joodoo]

I think if someone is complaining about suiciding, it's their problem. Suiciding isn't one of the etiquettes of RISK in the board game version, because I've played it a lot of times before. Suiciding may even turn the tide for you in extremely rare cases, so I think there aren't any problem with it.

[greenoaks]

suiciding is bad form.

at some point in every game someone will attack you. if your style of play is to always seek revenge you have already lost. learn to regroup, to rebuild. seek alliances in chat against the dominating player.

hint: you use less armies that way and may find yourself with a shot at winning.

[detlef]

suiciding is bad form.

at some point in every game someone will attack you. if your style of play is to always seek revenge you have already lost. learn to regroup, to rebuild. seek alliances in chat against the dominating player.

hint: you use less armies that way and may find yourself with a shot at winning.

I think you are purposefully painting a different picture than what the OP is talking about. I don't believe he's referring to going ballistic because "at some point somebody attacked him". I think he's talking about gutting the person who's seemingly made it their mission to see that he doesn't win.

I've certainly been in that position before. When, for instance, I was by no means the lead player on the board and one dude just continues to hit me badly while the stronger players grow. After a while, playing it cool and just trying to rebuild in hopes that the board will let you fly under the radar and get back into it (I mean, that's the only way you're going to have a chance) becomes pointless if this same guy keeps smacking you every time you take back your territory. So, you remind yourself that you play this game for fun. Being somebody's punching bag is not fun. So you say, "screw it, I'm moving on to a new game". Then you martyr yourself against the a-hole who put you in this position to begin with.

In essence, you do your best to cost the guy who devoted himself to seeing that you'd have no chance of winning any chance of winning himself.

Not the most honorable thing to do but hardly "bad form".

[mightyleemoon]

I was in a game where I tried the regrouping thing. I started to turtle....well....had no choice....since I only had 1 location left.....and so instead of attacking....I just started building. There was a 3 in range...and I figured I could slowly start to build. But...one guy would just attack me and always leave me with 1 or 2 guys. not knocking me out....just tearing me down.

So...I started just deploying and attacking him. When I got some damn fine rolls and took down his 10 with my 4....he gets all pissed about me suiciding him.

Well....WTF was I supposed to do?

People get way too sensitive about this suiciding thing.

I don't think it is ever bad form to attack in a game like this. If a player plays with reckless abandon...who is anyone else to criticize their technique? Make fun of them for using a technique that will probably garner few victories...but bitching because the style annoys you is the biggest douche thing one can do.

Just my 2 bucks.

[detlef]

I was in a game where I tried the regrouping thing. I started to turtle....well....had no choice....since I only had 1 location left.....and so instead of attacking....I just started building. There was a 3 in range...and I figured I could slowly start to build. But...one guy would just attack me and always leave me with 1 or 2 guys. not knocking me out....just tearing me down.

So...I started just deploying and attacking him. When I got some damn fine rolls and took down his 10 with my 4....he gets all pissed about me suiciding him.

Well....WTF was I supposed to do?

People get way too sensitive about this suiciding thing.

I don't think it is ever bad form to attack in a game like this. If a player plays with reckless abandon...who is anyone else to criticize their technique? Make fun of them for using a technique that will probably garner few victories...but bitching because the style annoys you is the biggest douche thing one can do.

Just my 2 bucks.

Like I said in the post before yours, I think that if somebody decides to devote themselves to eliminating you, especially at the expense of furthering their own cause (outside the obvious fact that there's one less player who can now win), then I think it's cool to throw yourself against them and move on. If you can leave yourself nearly dead and let somebody else get your cards, better still.

However, don't confuse that with simply accepting the fact that it's cool for somebody to just pick a random player and go ballistic on them if there's no reasonable way of explaining how it helped the attackers cause.

[gdeangel]

I'd like if people please define suiciding in the context in terms of your match-ups when weighing in on this...

I'd consider it suiciding to attack with every possible attack die you've got. Anything else, even if its a 4-10 roll, is called gambling, and is tactical. I'd call rolling every possible attack die you've got against a single player the nuclear option. In theory, it establishes a "don't f*ck me" rule" for the other players in the game.

I'll sometimes roll on when the unit count is even or stacked against me, depending on the game conditions. That's called playing probability... and believing that the best defense is a good offense. Players who wine (based on the numbers alone) about getting attacked 21-35 and being wiped out don't understand this game at all. It depends, of course, on card counts, opponent position, neutral count, relative continent advantage. and turn sequence.

[detlef]

I'd like if people please define suiciding in the context in terms of your match-ups when weighing in on this...

I'd consider it suiciding to attack with every possible attack die you've got. Anything else, even if its a 4-10 roll, is called gambling, and is tactical. I'd call rolling every possible attack die you've got against a single player the nuclear option. In theory, it establishes a "don't f*ck me" rule" for the other players in the game.

I'll sometimes roll on when the unit count is even or stacked against me, depending on the game conditions. That's called playing probability... and believing that the best defense is a good offense. Players who wine (based on the numbers alone) about getting attacked 21-35 and being wiped out don't understand this game at all. It depends, of course, on card counts, opponent position, neutral count, relative continent advantage. and turn sequence.

I don't define attacking against odds, as you have described, as a suicide attack. It's really quite simple for me. If a player launches an attack that doesn't stand to benefit them in any reasonable manner that also seriously damages an opponents chance of winning, that's a suicide.

It gets a bit fuzzy in take out attempts in escalating games. Some people consider it to be a suicide run if your chances of success are less than 50/50 or at very least 1 in 4. However, if success in that take out can lead to a cash-in that is enough to start off a string of elimination runs then it's actually pretty sound logic in any game that includes enough players. When you join a 5 player game, your odds of winning are 1 in 5. If at any point in that game you have an opportunity to win that is better than 1 in 5, you should take it. That's basic pot odds. Whenever the bet pays better odds than the actual odds of success are, you should always take it.

It is little consolation to the rest of the board when you fail to pull off that 1 in 3 chance and gift wrap the player to the next guy who ends up being able to grab his cards and end the game, but if they think reasonably about the issue, it's hard to really blame you.

[wicked]

To be cliche-ish.... it's not over til it's over. I've been down to one army and come back to win. Even in flat rate, if you get out of the way and just sit and build back up, many will forget about you and you can eventually stage a comeback. I've seen it happen.

In the immortal words of Jimmy V ... Don't give up, don't ever give up!!

[detlef]

To be cliche-ish.... it's not over til it's over. I've been down to one army and come back to win. Even in flat rate, if you get out of the way and just sit and build back up, many will forget about you and you can eventually stage a comeback. I've seen it happen.

In the immortal words of Jimmy V ... Don't give up, don't ever give up!!

I believe we are discussing the ones who don't forget about you. Anybody who doesn't at least try what you are discussing first before going ballistic needs to chill out. However, sometimes there comes a point...

[MeDeFe]

To be cliche-ish.... it's not over til it's over. I've been down to one army and come back to win. Even in flat rate, if you get out of the way and just sit and build back up, many will forget about you and you can eventually stage a comeback. I've seen it happen.

In the immortal words of Jimmy V ... Don't give up, don't ever give up!!

wicked is a mod, but she's right about this, I've seen others do it and have done it myself a few times as well (and I don't play escalating if I can avoid it). There's also a gamechat and a pm system, if someone's acting stupidly, tell them that they're hurting themselves as well, if you do it right you'll make them stop attack you and you can get back to rebuilding.

[gdeangel]

Check out this game... 1842694 it's still going on, but I'm out by suicide more or less. The two strongest players announced an alliance. There was a log jam in the middle, and so I threw it all against the guys who were ganging us... even though it was terminator and I knew there was a good chance I'd get taken out from the rear (which is just what happened). On the other hand, I weakened what IMHO was a dishonorable alliance, and I'd like to think made it possible for what looks like its going to be a come from behind win for one of the other players who went into build mode. The test, of course, will be whether I get positive or neg once its over...

[redi5e]

I agree with the below quotes. They are also a nice summary of the topic so far:

So, you remind yourself that you play this game for fun. Being somebody's punching bag is not fun. So you say, "screw it, I'm moving on to a new game". Then you martyr yourself against the a-hole who put you in this position to begin with.

In essence, you do your best to cost the guy who devoted himself to seeing that you'd have no chance of winning any chance of winning himself.

Not the most honorable thing to do but hardly "bad form".

To be cliche-ish.... it's not over til it's over. I've been down to one army and come back to win.

People get way too sensitive about this suiciding thing.

If you are pretty well screwed anyways, what more does your opponent expect of you? Just to sit back and wait for it?

I'll even add my own 2 cents:

When I'm playing with players I respect I usually do the honorable thing. I'm ok with losing when I get beat by a better strategy.

I am not ok with losing when I get hanged in a game where I happen to be sitting well. If you can't complete the takeout, you better not leave me with a stack of armies. I'm not against using the "you screw me, I screw you" technique on anyone.

This world is full of irrational people and you're bound to see some of them playing here on CC. Suiciding is part of the game, deal with it

[bbqpenguin]

well it's a relief to know that at least some other people feel the same way i do and i'm not the only one

[lord voldemort]

yer if your down and stuff dont just ram your troops into the guy that attacked you
sit back and build. most frustrating thing is when your winning a game and u attack someone to take them out and they ram all thier troops into you giving the other player the win
that is the only reason i dont play 3 player games

[owenshooter]

that is the only reason i dont play 3 player games

that, and the fact that you suck at 3 player games... ha!!!-0

[detlef]

yer if your down and stuff dont just ram your troops into the guy that attacked you
sit back and build. most frustrating thing is when your winning a game and u attack someone to take them out and they ram all thier troops into you giving the other player the win
that is the only reason i dont play 3 player games

Well, many games become 3 player games at some point. Are people here capable of distinguishing gray areas or is everything either black or white?

I'd like to believe that those of us who are saying it's OK to do this aren't speaking of a strong player going after you in a justified attempt to seize the board. Rather, some dumb ass who's got a hard on for busting you up for no apparent reason and does so to the extent that trying to build becomes futile. Certainly there is loads of room for interpretation in this regard.

[State409c]

I just wanted to say, glad to see NCSU getting some shout outs in this piece.

And this

I've certainly been in that position before. When, for instance, I was by no means the lead player on the board and one dude just continues to hit me badly while the stronger players grow. After a while, playing it cool and just trying to rebuild in hopes that the board will let you fly under the radar and get back into it (I mean, that's the only way you're going to have a chance) becomes pointless if this same guy keeps smacking you every time you take back your territory. So, you remind yourself that you play this game for fun. Being somebody's punching bag is not fun. So you say, "screw it, I'm moving on to a new game". Then you martyr yourself against the a-hole who put you in this position to begin with.

In essence, you do your best to cost the guy who devoted himself to seeing that you'd have no chance of winning any chance of winning himself.

Not the most honorable thing to do but hardly "bad form".

This is when I'll suicide a guy. If I am in a game with someone, and I'm not the leader, and I told the guy I have no intentions of attacking him at least for a few turns, and he breaks my bonus for no reason, well, many times I'm not inclined to gut it out on a prayer that this will be one of those 5% of the times that his dumbassery doesn't cause me a loss. It's pretty easy to spot the progression in a game based on previous turns, and when it happens, I'll gladly suicide a dude, ESPECIALLY, after I warned him.

The only time I won't do it is if there is a chance I can lose many less points from the loss. If its about even money, then all bets are off.

[detlef]

I just wanted to say, glad to see NCSU getting some shout outs in this piece.

If you're referring to me, then kindly give the shout out to UNC

[dustn64]

Anyone that does that can GYT.