SUBTERFUGE Forums

I wanted to start a discussion about strategically keeping your enemy alive. Someone dying very abruptly changes the state of the game, and you may not be very well equipped to fight off the feeding frenzy that ensues when someone's queen dies. I'm mostly talking about an "unfair" death where the person still has a sizable empire that you are not even close to fully conquering when you kill their queen. This of course doesn't apply when someone has a princess. You may be able to end up with more outposts if you keep them alive to deter others from attacking them. Although, people often do jump in when they see someone else is weak even if they aren't dead yet. Have you ever done this? What was the result? Also, have you ever had the opportunity to kill an allies queen? What did you do then?

For the first question, always go for the kill. I've had times where someone didn't kill me, and left me in one outpost, where I grew and grew and finally started attacking them back. If possible, go for the kill.

As for the second question, yeah there's been times where I could kill my allies. I've had times where they flee into a safe haven of my empire, where I could've martyred or DA'd them, but didn't. Cause they were my ALLIES. I didn't need to turn on them, and they helped me. That's what allies do

1. I'm not talking about 1 outpost, or not killing someone when it is clear they are completely defeated. I mean suddenly killing their queen because of a tactical error on their part that leaves a huge plot of outposts up for grabs. This often leads to a lot of competition for those outposts and you may end up with fewer outposts than you would have if you fought them fair and square and nobody was competing with you for them. It also takes more drillers, so if you have the drillers to spare, I feel it might be better, depending on your situation to let them go and take those outposts without people fighting you for them. Of course it is a terrible idea to let someone live in a single outpost and forget about them, because they can quickly become a large threat. I also recognize that people may already go for someone even if they aren't actually eliminated yet, and if this is the case, killing their queen may save you drillers by preventing them from reinforcing bases close to you. If you are working in a aliance with a neighbor of your enemy, you have probably already divided up the outposts fairly so there will be no competition and no need to keep their queen alive.

2. I didn't expect assassinating allies to be normal behavior, I've had it happen to me once though, and, once again, I was a strong empire. It makes no sense to spare people who are weak unless they are your allies. People will probably be mad at you for harboring a fugitive, but you can trade someone protection in exchange for their specialist hires.

Also another question: Have you ever conquered someone basically to just one outpost and convinced them to submit to you, as in relinquishing all drillers and specialists, and all future specialist hires, in exchange for being kept alive?

1. Alright, so you're attacking someone, 1 on 1 with them, and they screw up. You can kill them, but let's say you don't. One of 4 or so things could happen. A) you continue your conquest and beat them handily B) they suddenly make a comeback - be it a lucky outpost grab or good specialist - and defeat you C) other players see you attacking them and swoop in like vultures, grabbing some outposts you were going to get D) the vultures attack you, and you get crushed. Only 1 of those has the outcome you (radioactive lasers) wanted.
Also, in my game experience, unless you have a very large advantage over them, it's hard to take someone out 1vs1. And if you have that huge advantage and can steamroll them, it's probably best to kill them so they can't do anything weird and screw you over. IMO, kill them.

2. I'd save my allies. They're allies for a reason. However, I try not to live on the "harbouring a fugitive" game. Yes, I've had to do it on occasion, but I never give up specs for my survival (except to nojo that one time). I've had people offer it to me, and I've refused. I have offered an outpost to lay low at for other people, but never demanded specs in return. It just makes the game unfair for other people, because you get basically double hires every time. It makes it not fun.

TL;DR - kill them for fear of vultures, Harrison Ford doesn't get a home

I completely understand your argument, but I still feel like there is a niche situation where it could happen. I'll try a hypothetical situation. You are playing in a high player number game (8-10) and you get into a war a few days into the game with one of your neighbors. Neither of you really have any true allies, just a few loose NAP's and have remained mostly neutral. You have gotten into good terms with your neighbors and they are unlikely to attack you or your opponent outright. You both ended up with a moderate amount of outposts to start with but due to superior positioning and a little bit of superior strategy you take the upper hand, leaving you with almost certain victory, but you still have a long way to go and have only taken less than 1/3 of their original outposts. Then they make a risky move with their queen and you see the opportunity to take them out. My point is that if you were to take them out now their neighbors will immediately jump at the opportunity to take as many outposts as they can. However, if you wait you may be able to get your hands on more outposts before his neighbors realize they are extremely weak and turn on them. This may leave you with fewer drillers because you have to work harder to defeat them, but you may end up with more outposts because of this. And of course none of this is considering the meta strategy of how this war could affect other people's views of you and may now perceive you as a threat etc. It would be up to your judgement on why you decided to get into a war in the first place but that's beside the point.

Yep. I understand you there. However, I would... Kill them. What can I say, I'm a bit of a warmonger. I like the good old Viking "Smash 'n Bash" approach. Fling drillers around, see what they get you . But yes, there are rare times when leaving your opponent alive can be beneficial to you. Not very common, but you may get that.

I played in a game with an unreliable person on my border, we skirmished over open outposts got into a NAP which was violated by the other under the pretext that is was a miscommunication, when I accused other of bad play and breaching the agreement there was a back-peddle and gift exchange at the last minute to keep the peace. Immediately thereafter, I had a pirate hire available and the player shipped queen towards our border. I captured immediately and without hesitation.

I have also played in games where the shared border and open outpost grabs were negotiated and honored, queens have moved within striking distance and I have let them travel unmolested because in my mind a peaceful neighbor that has strength to defend their own space keeps me buffered from whatever hostilities lie beyond them.

So, if you don't trust or need to expand. Get that queen!

If you currently have a workable situation, why upset the apple cart when all it'll do is make what is a somewhat reliable situation into a chaotic one.

I will often leave a weaker enemy's queen alive if I can keep them on the run. I'll force them to bounce from outpost to outpost by chasing them with drillers or an assassin. This will allow them to keep making hires which I can capture with pirates or similar. It's a dangerous game to play though.