Smr Simple!

I was playing multiplayer the other day and started a game whereby there were 2 players, random map and city locations, and we happened to start adjacently.

The other player asked if we should start again, because of the proximity of the starting stations - but I was of the opinion that it made little difference to the challenge.

The other players reaction was to build useless tracks overlapping my starting city, cutting off my rail at either end and preventing my initial expansion beyond the two cities I had already linked.

Is this a fair strategy or simply anti competitive?

Since I could do no expansion and wasn't making much money, I stockpiled the profit I was making and played the stock game for a while, until I had enough to break out over a river and start expanding rapidly into a section of the map that hadn't been used, although I was still probably going to lose - I was determined to give it a damned good go, and I was actually starting to gain some ground back (since the other guy had merely bought rail he wasnt going/able to use, it was purely to block me off).

Unfortunately the game decided to crash, and as usual, took out my PC in such a way that I have to leave it switched off for a bit (otherwise it just restarts and crashes again).

But back to the original question - do you think intentionally blocking your opponents track is immature and not in the spirit of the game (as I do), or is it a valid tactic for multiplayer?

Depends how dirty you and your opponents AGREE is acceptable.

My girlfriend and I play MP quite a lot, and almost always agree to just play with our ****en choo-choos and leave each other alone.

If we added in a computer player, I'm sure we'd go EMFTS, or gang up and thrash the hell out of it.

Maybe if you added a third option to the vote I'd be able to better give my oppinion.

kipper wrote:
But back to the original question - do you think intentionally blocking your opponents track is immature and not in the spirit of the game (as I do), or is it a valid tactic for multiplayer?

I voted for "All is fair....", but I would like to add that the business of business is to make money. Blocking you in doesn't really make the blocker any money; it simply denies you the opportunity to do so. In a _true_ multiplayer environment, focusing on blocking A simply makes you more vulnerable to B, C, (and scores of others in a Real World setting) because you've weakened your cash resources for the dubious advantage of weakening _one_ other opponent even more. In the Real World, any CEO that did something like that would be out on his ear in no time.

But whoever said we were dealing with anything even remotely related to the "Real World", eh?

CaptainPatch wrote:I would like to add that the business of business is to make money. Blocking you in doesn't really make the blocker any money;

You hit the nail on the head for me there. While there is advantage in weakening your competition, its not quite as measurable, so it could be a money pit. Therefore the sane thinking business would try to out-do their competition in other ways, such as having a better or cheaper product. In this case, the competitions option should be either to create a better service for a disputed industry/town, or find an alternative source of revenue if they didnt want the direct fight.

I have not seen in this game (as I have with others) that an industry or town will favour the player operating the most efficient service.

If you can make the other player pay more (building bridges) by laying some cheap track, then why not do it if you are playing a competitive game. I try to cut players off when I build a track through town anyway, and it makes it easier for me to expand. If you built a bridge and a track parallel would it stop the other player expanding across it at all?

Is the intention of playing a game, multiplayer or otherwise - "to win", or "to have fun (and hopefully win)".

What is the point of crippling your opponent at the start of the game, if you want the map to yourself - why not just play a single player with no AI?

I play games to enjoy them - win or lose.

kipper wrote:Is the intention of playing a game, multiplayer or otherwise - "to win", or "to have fun (and hopefully win)".

What is the point of crippling your opponent at the start of the game, if you want the map to yourself - why not just play a single player with no AI?

I play games to enjoy them - win or lose.

I think the intent might be more hostile and annoying. He might not be in the game to win. Maybee he is just there to bother others. Sorta like people who go around PKING their on teams mates.

Bridges.

Two guys are getting ready to play good even match of chess. The anticpation builds as the board is set....then the one guy leans over the board and punches the other dude in the balls. The matches start but the guy that got punched really can't concentrate on a strategy.....

forcemac wrote:Two guys are getting ready to play good even match of chess. The anticpation builds as the board is set....then the one guy leans over the board and punches the other dude in the balls. The matches start but the guy that got punched really can't concentrate on a strategy.....

Interesting analogy, but not quite the same relationship. The player that did the punching isn't diminished in any way, as a SMR player that has used up much of his cash to contain _1_ player while still contending with up to two others.

it was a 1v1 game... and it wasnt the first game i'd had with this player, a couple of prior games were fair and we won one each.

This is not a question of the personality, this is a question of the strategy.

kipper wrote:it was a 1v1 game... and it wasnt the first game i'd had with this player, a couple of prior games were fair and we won one each.

This is not a question of the personality, this is a question of the strategy.

In that case, you're/he's not playing the _game; you're/he's exploiting technicalities of the rules. It's the old spirit-versus-letter argument.

Beyond being annoying, I can't see how this could work. Annoying, yes, but since the game is pretty flexible with bridge-building, it seems wasteful on the other players' part.

early on with little cash and slow trains, bit of a PITA.

I finally saw the correct response from Globalizer....bridges people, this game really is no holds barred k?

And blocking in business makes perfect sense, it's not just about raising your profit but also about lowering your competitions....as in the long run the latter will create the former see?

Personally I'm considered very vicious....except by the very good players who consider me I hope, "good" and nothing more, nothing less. Blocking is fair but I don't see too many good players do it as that's not how to win. You play offensively and blocking is a defensive tactic, this whole game is about AGGRESSION not defense. the defensive players are the ones that end up whining, making excuses and quitting or calling the best players "cheaters" ....yes once you get good this will be your fate folks.