Obviously everyone is trying to win and for many all moves are fair as long as they are legal. Still, my experience suggests that some particular moves are far more likely to stir up drama, cause rage and derail the game in general. I feel most of those "nasty" moves are considered actively hostile: a player feels that the opponent making a "nasty" move is not trying to benefit from a move but is trying to hurt a player.
From WC perspective:
Hostile State is the largest one. Before the game starts there is an unwritten and unspoken expectation that WC and state are semi-allies (higher taxes for higher welfare). If State actively breaks that expectation, like time and again trying to keep wages low (at 1C), it may make WC feel similar to being betrayed.
Similar thing may happen if MC tries to act against WC early like blocking 5B or 6C.
From MC perspective:
CC or State immediately proposing 7C (high immigration) on turn 1 of round 1. Super hostile move because whoever proposes the bill rarely benefits from it, it is mostly a way to stall MC. While MC is arguably most vulnerable at start (competing for healthcare, trying to build company fast to avoid recruitment by CC) and it can't always focus on immigration reforms as first priority.
Also, like in the case of WC vs State clash, if for some reason MC and CC end up enemies, it tends to get bitter because they are also designed to act as semi-allies at least on the matter of taxes. May happen when CC recruits foreign MC workforce aggresively and insists on lowering wages. MC may respond by agreeing to raise taxes.
From CC perspective:
WC striking turn after turn with not much to gain, especially at 2B wages. It is more like extortion and may force CC to retaliate by closing workplaces, ending up in lose-lose situation for both WC and CC.
From State perspective:
Anyone trying to purposefully hurt the State by 1A but especially if WC is leading the charge. In general any purposeful IMF by someone else may trigger retaliation from State if it wants to stay frugal.
From WC perspective:
Hostile State is the largest one. Before the game starts there is an unwritten and unspoken expectation that WC and state are semi-allies (higher taxes for higher welfare). If State actively breaks that expectation, like time and again trying to keep wages low (at 1C), it may make WC feel similar to being betrayed.
Similar thing may happen if MC tries to act against WC early like blocking 5B or 6C.
From MC perspective:
CC or State immediately proposing 7C (high immigration) on turn 1 of round 1. Super hostile move because whoever proposes the bill rarely benefits from it, it is mostly a way to stall MC. While MC is arguably most vulnerable at start (competing for healthcare, trying to build company fast to avoid recruitment by CC) and it can't always focus on immigration reforms as first priority.
Also, like in the case of WC vs State clash, if for some reason MC and CC end up enemies, it tends to get bitter because they are also designed to act as semi-allies at least on the matter of taxes. May happen when CC recruits foreign MC workforce aggresively and insists on lowering wages. MC may respond by agreeing to raise taxes.
From CC perspective:
WC striking turn after turn with not much to gain, especially at 2B wages. It is more like extortion and may force CC to retaliate by closing workplaces, ending up in lose-lose situation for both WC and CC.
From State perspective:
Anyone trying to purposefully hurt the State by 1A but especially if WC is leading the charge. In general any purposeful IMF by someone else may trigger retaliation from State if it wants to stay frugal.
