by rican415
It was a hard decision to leave Sosaria for Linus, while trying to stop Andreas from winning. I was uncomfortable in having to stop one player from winning, while handing the victory over to another player. Andreas had still a great chance to win even though my interference, but given the outcome, my move was essential in stopping Andreas. If he'd also had the troops I removed, he would have won. But even so, my chances of winning was zero, since Linus got to face an undefended continent the turn after.I am not sure how to think in these situations. I'm against favoring one player before the other, so giving that, the move I should have made is to simply sit back and wait without attacking Andreas, but preventing Linus from winning as well. At least, that's how I would like other players to play against me, if I were in Andreas' position.
Ok, this is often how Risk games develop, one player is stopped while the next players sweeps in and wins, but in this situation it was obvious from the beginning what would happen if Andreas was stopped. Simply arguing that Linus should win, since he had fewer victories than Andreas is not an argument I like and think is fair. But for this time only, I guess it could be a valid argument, because it made Linus less of a threat, since now he will not start with an extra VP in future games.
However, given the same situation in the future, I will try to NOT interfere against one player who's going to win, if it will most certainly leads to another player winning instead - even though the first player has more wins than the second one. I don't know what other Risk Legacy players think about this, please let me know. Of course, often it's hard to analyze the chances for other players but the strongest one to win, so what I'm referring to is the more obvious situations.