Message text Hi yzerdunn--
I do that a lot, so I'll respond with my thoughts.
I used to play lots of board games too, but I always felt you had to play to the rules, not to what was historically accurate or even what made sense in real life. Nelson famously sailed right into the enemy lines at Trafalgar, but that would be suicide here with the rake bonus. He would've ended up dismasted several hexes from the enemy. Victory is determined by points, so once I've secured enough to win AND can retire, I will.
Tournament games are a little different. It sounds like you know how they work. No insult, but I'll briefly explain for others. Tournament games are decided by points also, but the winner(s) gains 3 "league points". The winner (of the whole league) is whoever ends up with the most league points after all games in that league are finished, with total "regular" points scored as the tiebreaker. If you double your opponent's score, you gain 4 league points. I've lost many leagues by one or two points and a couple on tiebreakers, so I play league games with preserving league points as the primary focus.
Another consideration is if it's a multiplayer league. Once victory and/or the bonus point is assured, I encourage my side to retire. I would never endanger their points by going after a straggler, but I've had many games where someone snatched defeat from the jaws of victory (or lost the bonus point) by not retiring. Noble perhaps, but it doesn't win leagues. And as Derek pointed out, it speeds things up if the outcome is not in doubt.
The opposite can be true also -- if my side is getting pounded, there's no harm in trying to score some cheap points. I have to balance that against possibly giving them the bonus point and tiebreaker points should I fail. As you observed, that's not logical in real life, but it's reasonable under the league rules.
Sorry -- long winded as usual, but you raised a good point and thought it was worth being thorough.
Bill |
|
|