Surrender in 3-4 player games
Posted: 13 March 2023, 02:13
Hello! Sorry to bother with this but wanting to learn, I'm going to check with the community about my recent experience to find out if it's unsportsmanlike or invalidated what I've done and, if so, under what circumstances then it would be possible to apply it. Here I explain:
I have recently been harassed by several experienced players who have decided to accuse me of Kingmaking after the decision to surrender in a 4 player game of "Through the Ages" during the beginning of my turn in the political phase.
This decision was made after losing military supremacy and dropping it to 13 points, thus allowing a civilization with 64 attack points to launch a "War on Culture" against my nation which by then held the highest culture score and production.
In doing so, this nation received only 5 culture points for its war and not the 56 that it should have taken from me... Which was taken from being the worst scored... and for this I was accused of having conspired with the rest of players to harm him or make him lose. However, from my perspective, only use a feature that the game allows when you know you're going to lose...
One of those experienced players says that I should have endured the war and that a normal player usually defends himself, however, I had a resource production of +4 and this would never allow me to defend myself against such a difference in scores. In addition, he specified that he had to play the turns that followed, but I have always given up in two-player games in which I am not going to win and I do not understand why in a 4-player game it must be different when the same game in its regulation and under its operation in BGA allows you to withdraw.
Was I right to quit the game when I saw my defeat? Should I really have stayed to play the last era even though when "Iconoclasm" appeared I already knew there was no chance of success? In what circumstances is it valid to use retreat in this game if this scenario is not valid?
I have recently been harassed by several experienced players who have decided to accuse me of Kingmaking after the decision to surrender in a 4 player game of "Through the Ages" during the beginning of my turn in the political phase.
This decision was made after losing military supremacy and dropping it to 13 points, thus allowing a civilization with 64 attack points to launch a "War on Culture" against my nation which by then held the highest culture score and production.
In doing so, this nation received only 5 culture points for its war and not the 56 that it should have taken from me... Which was taken from being the worst scored... and for this I was accused of having conspired with the rest of players to harm him or make him lose. However, from my perspective, only use a feature that the game allows when you know you're going to lose...
One of those experienced players says that I should have endured the war and that a normal player usually defends himself, however, I had a resource production of +4 and this would never allow me to defend myself against such a difference in scores. In addition, he specified that he had to play the turns that followed, but I have always given up in two-player games in which I am not going to win and I do not understand why in a 4-player game it must be different when the same game in its regulation and under its operation in BGA allows you to withdraw.
Was I right to quit the game when I saw my defeat? Should I really have stayed to play the last era even though when "Iconoclasm" appeared I already knew there was no chance of success? In what circumstances is it valid to use retreat in this game if this scenario is not valid?