Timminz wrote:When you make it more difficult for opponents to get easy cards, you're pretty much just asking them to take 3 or 4 from you rather than the 1 they would have, leaving you with fewer armies.
Exactly. I couldn't get a card, namely because of you, and not other people. Since YOU were the main reason I was not getting a card, because of YOUR playstyle, I was going to make you suffer for it. It's like that in virtually any type of game. For example we can be playing a flat rate game. You have South Africa and I have Africa. Each turn you break my bonus so I don't get 3 armies. Therefore, as you're hurting my playstyle, I'm going to target YOU back and kill you. However, if you don't attack me, you haven't done anything to limit my playstyle, and I may decide to attack Europe instead.
If I have the choice to attack someone like you, who's hoarding up territories and preventing me from getting a card, or attacking Bruce, who WOULD give me a card if he could but can't fortify, who do you think I'm going to attack? I'm going to hit you, because you won't fortify. I know as soon as Bruce gets the opportunity, he would fortify for me, thus giving me a card.
What would you have possibly gotten from taking Africa? +3? How many armies would you have had to kill to get Africa? You would be the weakest player on the board by the time you actually took the continent, and would be eliminated immediately after.
And if you wanted Africa, why did you have armies on India? Why did you have armies on the Middle East? If you had Africa you should have fortified off those two countries and put them all in Egypt, so your strategy is even FURTHER flawed.
Thanks for the negative though, and telling me in chat that I had "no right" to say what I did.