"I thought we were COOL with each other!"...or Who to Attack, and When

I think we've pretty well established that the games we like are going to involve some attackin' and some killin'. Those are two pillars that AT games are founded on.

But who? Who do we attack, and why? Well, that's the real trick, isn't it? Who will be the victim of your wrath tonight? Who are you going to send into a table-flipping rage? Here are the common criteria used for whom to attack, and some of the pros and cons of each.



Love Thy Neighbor:





Sometimes you need to open a can of whoop-ass on the guy sitting closest to you.

Pros: First off, you have the excuse, "sorry man, you are closest to me." Secondly, attacking those positioned next to you requires the smallest expenditure of resources and actions; it makes sense to try to be efficient. Also, in games of territorial conquest taking spaces close to you allows you to consolidate your area of strength, remove a potential attacker from your flank before he does the same to you, allow you to thin out and strengthen around your borders.

Cons: Meta-reasons, mostly. In a game like Risk, Australia is king precisely because it puts one players back against a wall, removing a direction of potential threats. Most modern games try to alleviate this advantage by limiting the map to not include territories that have such a stark advantage.

What this means is that although attacking your neighbor might make for the most efficient use of actions, diplomacy might instead allow you to create this "back against the wall" advantage for yourself. In A Game of Thrones, the Houses in the middle of the board will frequently agree to such an arrangement, allowing them to spread out in different directions rather than spending the entire game pounding on each other. Twilight Imperium definitely has the "efficient attack" syndrome where your immediate neighbors are closest within striking distance, but diplomacy in this case can allow each of you to move forward rather than worry about defending or moving laterally; trade agreements with neighbors can help give such agreements some tangible "teeth".
Lastly, attacking your neighbor sometimes just doesn't make strategic sense; maybe he's putting pressure on the leader on another flank and your attacking him will divert him from that aim (which would essentially be your aim as well--to curb the leader). Sometimes what you will take from a particular neighbor just isn't as rich as what you could take from someone else, if you were just willing to march a little.




This is For Terroring My Serra Angel!





It is likely in the span of a gamenight that at some point, someone is going to have to pay for the "sins of the father", or what they've done to you in a previous game. This sort of thing is frowned upon by "Social Contract^tm" gamers, but it can have its uses.

Pros: There's no denying that the threat of being mired in a revenge war with another player for the rest of the game can be a strong deterrent. Maye they'll think twice about screwing you over late in the game if they know you are going to extract revenge in the next game where you might have more resources at your disposal.

So long as they are concerned about winning, even if you're in a losing position in one game the knowledge you will rise from your game in the next to extract unholy revenge.

Cons: There are those who argue that introducing this metagame element "breaks" games, or at the very least makes gaming sessions less fun. I think that it's okay so long as you keep it within the same gaming night, when memories for all are still fresh; carrying it over to next week's or next month's game night is probably pushing it.

Also, you can go too far with such things. If *every* time someone attacks you it causes you to rage and vow revenge, eventually they're going to specifically target you, every game, just because you're being unreasonable (face it, some games it's just going to make the most sense to attack you--absolutely nothing personal and no sense taking it that way EVERY TIME). You also run the risk of becoming a bit of an outcast in your gaming group, especially if your rage is out of proportion to the original sin. "Attack ME to strengthen your border, will you? We'll just see how things go down in Blood Feud in New York in a little while, then!"



It's The Theme, Dummy







Sometimes the game itself dictates who you attack. This can be a hard and fast thing--Germany cannot suddenly decide to initiate hostilities with Japan in Axis and Allies. Othertimes games will shoehorn you into who you attack, based perhaps on geography, or the goals of the faction you're playing.

Pros: This definitely makes "who to attack" decisions much less strenuous. The pool of potential victims is limited in some way, taking some of the command burdens off of you. Having clearly defined objectives or alliances also cuts down on the "hard feelings" factor--sorry guy, I'm *supposed* to attack you.

Cons: If you aren't careful, such games run the risk of becoming "scripted", a common complaint lobbed at A&A. Also, some players don't like having their choices limited, even by in-game strategic considerations--if I want to attack you, don't limit my options! (Maybe I owe you one from last game...)



Save Your Pity for the Weak



This one's tough. Sometimes Johnny there is on the verge of death, clinging by a thread to his in-game existence--but man, claiming those territories of his sure is tempting...


Pros: Unless you have allegiances, one player is just as valid an enemy as another. By *not* finishing him off--and I've seen this before--that player may be able to claw their way back in it and suddenly become a threat to you again in the late game. By polishing him off when he's weak, you make sure that you won't be seeing his Greek warriors beating your doors down in later days.

Also, it goes back to efficiency; it's often easier to take out a weaker player. You usually spend less and risk less by going after a player who has no teeth left.

Cons: Like I said, this one is really tricky. First, from a metagame standpoint, some groups really frown on "vulturing"--meaning picking off someone who is weak but is not in this position based on your actions. This is sort of like "claiming the kill" and can get you into hot water with another player. Plus, there's the aspect that you are bullying or pounding on another player who just isn't a threat right now, making you look very much like "the bad guy". This can also cause some pretty hard feelings from the victim themselves if they feel your attacking them is unfair. That, of course, is in the eyes of the beholder.

There is a valid in-game concern with this, though; if the other player is weak, they're obviously not the leader and attacking the weak player probably isn't getting you any closer to hurting or taking out the current game leader. There are plenty of situations where time can be of the essence in reigning in a dominant player. Making an ally with the weak player now allows them also to build up a bit and help in the effort of taking down the stronger player.





So there are just a few considerations for making your attacking decisions. Each have their pros and cons and of course some game situations are going to cause you to choose one or another.

Do you or your group have any special attacking rules? How do you feel about some of these, particularly the "revenge for a previous game" concept?