pajada Thanks. I have been on both sides of the equation. People seem to have different views, personally I am quite ok with playing to play for the league win, and I would also understand and accept if other players would play like that. Sometimes I am puzzled by the actions of the opponents though, and that makes me wondering about my own actions. As an other example, I was in a game once where I was leading the league. Just one game to play, with the only contender for the 1st place in the league also in the game. The standings were so that he could win the league only if he would win that game and I would become last (3rd). Now after the first few rounds he was strong, military-wise and also leading in culture production. The third player in the game was quite weak, and I was somewhere in between. Now in that situation, I would find it perfectly understandable if the contender would be attacking me, and allowing the third player to overtake me, because that is how I would play in his position. But to my surprise, he focused all his attacks (multiple aggressions and wars) on the third player, ensuring the win in the game but also ensuring that I would become 2nd in the game and 1st in the league. Would it generally be accepted if he had played the way I would play it in his position?
