EPTOn August 15 2012 22:02 Tunkeg wrote:
Holy shit you got alot of awesome reasoning for that sir...
Holy shit you got alot of awesome reasoning for that sir...
Welcome to Mafia 101 taught by Prof. Bill Murray...
Age of Empires: The Age of Kings Mini Mafia - Page 23
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
ItsMarvelBabyyy
Vatican City State135 Posts
Welcome to Mafia 101 taught by Prof. Bill Murray... | ||
|
ItsMarvelBabyyy
Vatican City State135 Posts
1) The other head said I wasn't allowed to vote BM. 2) Tunkeg has been super passive-aggressive and deceitful. 3) BH said he was in a strong alliance... How does that work in BH's favor? Because at least he was honest about it. AFAIK BM (if I take him at his word) and I are the only stags here, so we're not going to win unless the game rules change (they're not going to). I'd rather an honest person win than someone who has tried to mislead people ((see: Vikings r awesum d00dz and I don't buy your "but I'm a Viking IRL!" justification, I think you were trying to screw people into picking Vikings & combine that with your frantic trying to find an ally and then your change into not desperately looking for an ally)) I feel like this is a game of survivor and BM/I are already on the voting council. | ||
|
Sir Posts A Lot
Congo42 Posts
On August 16 2012 03:51 ItsMarvelBabyyy wrote: Well, the other head isn't around atm so I'm going to ##vote: Tunkeg for a few major reasons. 1) The other head said I wasn't allowed to vote BM. 2) Tunkeg has been super passive-aggressive and deceitful. 3) BH said he was in a strong alliance... How does that work in BH's favor? Because at least he was honest about it. AFAIK BM (if I take him at his word) and I are the only stags here, so we're not going to win unless the game rules change (they're not going to). I'd rather an honest person win than someone who has tried to mislead people ((see: Vikings r awesum d00dz and I don't buy your "but I'm a Viking IRL!" justification, I think you were trying to screw people into picking Vikings & combine that with your frantic trying to find an ally and then your change into not desperately looking for an ally)) I feel like this is a game of survivor and BM/I are already on the voting council. this isn't mafia, there is no "town" everyone is lying to everyone and everyone is out for themselves and their limited allies BH just said he was in a powerful alliance, in a game where after 2 or 3 deaths a big alliance can become overpowering to the entire game. The only way everyone can work together for our "lynch" is to root out powerful alliances. There is probably not an overpowered civ, tunk doesn't seem to be making any friends, why would we lynch someone that is weak? | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25557 Posts
the fact of the matter is, this game probably has 2-3 strong alliances and some stragglers. Tunkeg's is the strongest and we can't afford not to lynch him first. | ||
|
Sir Posts A Lot
Congo42 Posts
On August 16 2012 04:03 Blazinghand wrote: "tunk doesn't seem to be making any friends" are you kidding me? This guy with no friends just pulled like 4 votes out of his ass and plopped them on me, most of them just saying "herp derp blazinghand in strong alliance" the fact of the matter is, this game probably has 2-3 strong alliances and some stragglers. Tunkeg's is the strongest and we can't afford not to lynch him first. You already said you were in a 3-man alliance (and you may have lied and are in a 4-man one). We don't know if Tunkeg is in a 4-man, 3-man or 2-man one. I and Matt think it's unlikely he's in a 4-man one, maybe even a 3-man one. So you are the safest lynch for everybody that's not on your alliance. People voting you are not "friends" with Tunkeg. If this were double-lynch I doubt many would oppose lynching you both. | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25557 Posts
The fact of the matter is, most people in this game have 2 allies, even if everyone in the thread likes to go around pretending they're alone or have 1 ally or whatever. That's just the way the game works out with the PM setup. I'm certainly in a comfortable alliance, but all you guys voting me need to realize: most people in this game have about the same number of allies as me. Just because I'm willing to say it doesn't mean I'm a mastermind of some huge alliance: that's not me, that's tunkeg. My goal is to lynch someone who I'm absolutely sure I can't just kill tonight. And that's tunkeg. I honestly think his group will send out a couple of attacks, clean up a couple more dudes overnight, and then bam we're down to like 9 players, 4 of whom are Tunkeg & co. And if there's infighting amongst the smaller factions, and someone kilsl someone else? then it's 8 players, 4 of whom are Tunkeg and co. All I'm saying is, lynch tunkeg first. You want to lynch me tomorrow? fine! but for your own good, and the good of my allies and myself, let's kill tunkeg now. | ||
|
Sir Posts A Lot
Congo42 Posts
Do you have any additional info about him perhaps? Did you scout him and were told he had like 10000 militia or something? If not, then you have nothing other than your hunch (which me+Matt believe is wrong). My goal is to lynch someone who I'm absolutely sure I can't just kill tonight Why is that? It's D1, everybody starts the same way. Nobody has 100 troops and 3 castles and is in the final age or anything. And even if Tunkeg was in a 4-man alliance no ally of his would trade him all their troops and stuff to avoid getting him killed (since they would be completely defenseless then). Everybody is in the same position as you and me Why is Tunkeg "unkillable" but not someone else? Your scenario of there being 8 players by tomorrow is implausible too. Nobody will send rash attacks against everybody on N1 (and at most only few will do so), since if you attack you are the most exposed this cycle (since you don't have shit in terms of troops). You say you are being "honest" but you are even worse than Tunkeg about this. | ||
|
Sir Posts A Lot
Congo42 Posts
People voting me try hard not to look like "friends" with tunkeg, but they almost certainly are Okay, who are Tunkeg's allies then? | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25557 Posts
| ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25557 Posts
| ||
|
Sir Posts A Lot
Congo42 Posts
On August 16 2012 04:45 Blazinghand wrote: Everyone voting against me including you So Tunkeg's alliance is already completely outed. If this is the case then "our" alliance is completely harmless right? You can vote us off any time you want any day if we get "powerful and destroy everything in our path using the power of the Norse God Tunkeg!" like you say. If this is the case, then there is little sense in lynching someone belonging to a "weak" (is already outed) alliance on D1. So, by your own statements we can conclude you should be lynched instead | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25557 Posts
If you do Nothing and the other team does a Combined Attack, you lose an ally or you die. Game over. If you do nothing and the other team does nothing, nothing happens. If you do a Combined Attack and the other team does a Combined attack, 2 players die, it's even. If you do a Combined Attack and the other team does nothing, you kill an enemy. It's impossible to be safe in this game. This isn't Black Forest where you can mass troops on your "border ally". This is a game where people WILL die to combined assaults, and you can't do anything to stop it. The only thing you can do is play smart. | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25557 Posts
On August 16 2012 04:49 Sir Posts A Lot wrote: So Tunkeg's alliance is already completely outed. If this is the case then "our" alliance is completely harmless right? You can vote us off any time you want any day if we get "powerful and destroy everything in our path using the power of the Norse God Tunkeg!" like you say. If this is the case, then there is little sense in lynching someone belonging to a "weak" (is already outed) alliance on D1. So, by your own statements we can conclude you should be lynched instead ...there are 5 votes against me you know. man how srs are we in this game | ||
|
Sir Posts A Lot
Congo42 Posts
Also, Prisoner's Dilemma is nothing new and innovating. You can try all you can to use it on your favor but you can't. Just like if this were a game of Chicken. | ||
|
Sir Posts A Lot
Congo42 Posts
| ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25557 Posts
| ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25557 Posts
On August 16 2012 04:52 Sir Posts A Lot wrote: Really? I can only count 4 votes :/ Also, Prisoner's Dilemma is nothing new and innovating. You can try all you can to use it on your favor but you can't. Just like if this were a game of Chicken. It's not a prisoner's dillemma, it's a "hey it's always better to attack" dilemma, and it FAVORS GROUPS WITH MORE PEOPLE. Groups like tunkeg's group. Why isn't tunkeg afraid the night phase? Why? Because he's at home there. He just wants to get there alive so he can feast on your soul. | ||
|
Sir Posts A Lot
Congo42 Posts
Yes, if someone makes a combined assault they may take out another alliance or "stand better" like you post it, but they are open to attacks of different alliances. | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25557 Posts
They are vulnerable ANYWAYS. If you have 1 army, and you're attacked by 2 armies, even if you fend off the first one, the second one shows up and you AUTO LOSE. Read the OP. There's NO DOWNSIDE to attacking other than potentially losing your army during the attack. | ||
|
Sir Posts A Lot
Congo42 Posts
If you assume everybody will attack with ALL their troops, then yes you are right, you'll get killed anyway. But that's a circular argument: People should attack with all their troops because if they are attacked by someone who sent all their troops then they will die anyway. If you assume people will attack with half their troops, then sending out all your troops isn't the best option either since you could defend yourself with half your troops as well | ||
| ||
