Good players and 4p games?

[FrankJones]

You also don't want to just gave the 2nd place a free ride, when there is no chance of winning. Also pointless attacking the leader when victory is assured make the third place frustrated as well. Just play the game.

How and why would this frustrate the player in third place?

[AlphaPrime1]

Everyone is basically helping securing 2nd.

[FrankJones]

Everyone is basically helping securing 2nd.

Now I am completely lost.

On one hand you said "Just play the game", but then on the other hand you seem to have a suggested priority players should abide by when playing attack cards or doing map blocking (or any other type of play that can interfere with another player).

1st place likely will focus attacks on 2nd place. (This has no reason to annoy 3rd place.)

2nd place, being that in your example, has no chance of catching up to 1st place, will likely attack 3rd place. (This has no reason to annoy 3rd place; that is the expected play in your scenario, though personally I would prefer to see 2nd place attack 1st place. But you already said players should not bother attacking the 1st place player.)

3rd place, being that first place is out of reach, will attack 2nd place (or perhaps 4th place), depending on whether third place thinks it is possible to catch 2nd place or better to keep 4th place in 4th place. (Regardless, the player in 3rd place has no reason to be annoyed his or her own decision)

4th place probably doesn't care, but based on your statement, is most likely to attack 3rd place, because you said it makes no sense to attack a 1st place player who cannot be caught. And if players are not going to attack first place, they will likely attack ever whichever player is most likely to solidify the attacking player's position. (So, this is the only option that could possibly annoy 3rd place, but using your reasoning, I don't see why 4th place wouldn't be entitled to try to go after the one player he or she can possibly catch up to. Or are you saying 4th place has an obligation to attack 2nd place so that 3rd place can catch up to 2nd place? I don't see the logic here.)

[AlphaPrime1]

Wow you are completely missing the point. Can someone else explain this to him? It's basic general board gaming knowledge.

[RicardoRix]

As an idea, targeting only the leader is a bit of a misnomer:
If you all do successfully target 1st place and succeed, then they are no longer in 1st place. Someone else is that didn't really deserve it, they just got everyone to gang-up. So you're going to have a difficult time trying to convince me this is the preferred best and most fair way to play. Just gobbledygook. I'd be quite glad to play and know that the ELO system seems to straighten this out.

[FrankJones]

Wow you are completely missing the point. Can someone else explain this to him? It's basic general board gaming knowledge.

Can you explain yourself, because what you are saying is pure 100% nonsense.

[FrankJones]

So, using the "rules" laid out by AlphaPrime, I have shown that his comments are nonsense. Maybe ALphaPrime can actually explain himself, or, he can just keep spouting nonsense. The choice is his.

Hey, AlphaPrime, maybe explain this:

According to your "logic", who should attack whom in a 4 player game ???

Simple question for a simple person.

[FrankJones]

Everyone is basically helping securing 2nd.

According to which strategy? The one you are supporting or the one I am?

And, what, the person in third place is supposedly being "harmed" or treated "unfairly" because instead of attacking the person in first place, they are all attacking other players?

What are you saying exactly? Everyone should attack second place? And that is somehow fair to the person in second place?

Your posts and opinions are just pure garbage. Do you think before you post?

[FrankJones]

Wow you are completely missing the point. Can someone else explain this to him? It's basic general board gaming knowledge.

Look at my stats for various games. Do I seem like someone who lacks general board game knowledge?

[AlphaPrime1]

As an idea, targeting only the leader is a bit of a misnomer:
If you all do successfully target 1st place and succeed, then they are no longer in 1st place. Someone else is that didn't really deserve it, they just got everyone to gang-up. So you're going to have a difficult time trying to convince me this is the preferred best and most fair way to play. Just gobbledygook. I'd be quite glad to play and know that the ELO system seems to straighten this out.

***
Edited: please remain courteous on BGA.