The other day a friend and I were talking about our game group and play styles, and here's what we came up with. (Talking generally about multi-player world-domination-type games like Twilight Imperium, A Game of Thrones, etc.)

Opportunistic. If you attack this player, they will only attack you back if it advances their position in the game. (That is, whether or not you attack them has little or no effect on their decision-making process.)

Vindictive. If you attack this player, knocking you down becomes more important to them than winning.

Irrational. Players who don't generally fit into either pattern--e.g. player A, who's going to attack player B regardless of player B's actions during the game. But irrational players are hard to figure out, so that's the last time they'll be mentioned here.

Is it generally agreed that opportunistic players are the ones you want to play with, and the kind you strive to be yourself?

I seem to recall reading threads here where people have defended the vindictive approach: sure, the first few games may be rough, but once you establish a reputation as the wrong guy to attack, people will leave you the hell alone, which greatly improves your chances of winning. (Am I misremembering that? Anyone want to argue that side?)

When dealing with vindictive players, my first thought is that you can't be swayed by the knowledge that a given player is vindictive. That is, if your best move would be to attack player A if they were opportunistic, then you're obligated to attack them even if you know they're vindictive. To do otherwise would be to reward game-throwing behavior, and that's no good! We don't negotiate with terrorists!

My second thought is that, by attacking a player who is known to be vindictive, aren't you yourself throwing the game, and thereby failing to play opportunistically? I don't think so; you can only be responsible for your own choices, and if some other player is going to use you as an excuse to throw the game, that's their choice. Besides, just because you "know" someone is vindictive, that doesn't mean that this won't be the game where they start playing to win!

Also, I saw a recent thread about systems for tracking player rankings across multiple games (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/164453); does giving a long-term consequence for throwing a game tend to decrease vindictiveness? Or does it mean the meta-game leader is marked for doom before each game even starts? (For the first question, I can see the argument that it would increase vindictiveness, by making it more effective: no one wants to sacrifice their ranking just to show the vindictive player the error of their ways!)

I would have thought that if you attack a known vindictive player, you make sure you do it properly so that they don't get a chance to be vindictive (in this game). Otherwise, then you are potentially running a bit of a risk.

And how do you spot the Opportunistically Vindictive. This is the player who is not normally vindictive, but if they are down and and almost out decide that they have have nothing (more) to lose by being vindictive?

I am of the opinion that there are few if any irrational players. Seemingly irrational players are often simply motivated by things normal people aren't.

The desire to try odd strategies, they desire to not attack their friend, they think it's funny to confuse other players, they've made it their personnal goal to control all the purple territories, are but of few of the reasons I have heard for seemingly irrational behavior. If you can get a feel for what motivates an odd player you can better avoid, or manipulate his actions, rarely will his actions be completely unpredictable.

I just like attacking the player that whines the most...

Nothing funnier than watching someone go into a fit of rage screaming about why on earth you would attack them when it's the very act of them having a whinge that makes the little voice at the back of my head go 'I win!'...

I'm all three. Fear me.

There was a guy in our gaming group ( a very good player BTW) who played like this and always made the statement that if anyone attacked him then his sole aim of the game from that point in was revenge.

I counted this by stating that if he anyone makes a statement like the above or shows signs of doing playing in that style, I would spend all my turns attacking him....it appeared to work as others joined the common cause

Reminds me of a game of Mall of Horror.

Not for me. The opportunistic approach seems appropriate in game with indirect interaction, such as most euros. I prefer what you call "vindictive" (I'd say reasonable) players in a wargame.

If you are playing a wargame and start a war, it seems a bit strange not to expect your opponent to fight back. If they don't, then you can just do it again, now with the advantage of whatever you took.

My opinion is that you should be very careful before starting a conflict and make sure you have the advantage in the long run.

I totally fit into this category, but only under certain situations. It really depends on who I am playing with. But if I get in a mood I'll do stuff that makes no sense just to do it. I have been referred to as "chaos incarnate" before. BUT, with a tamer crowd I'll behave and play more conventionally. So I think it really makes a huge difference on the crowd your playing with, and probably the game as well.

I think this sums up the "irrational" approach! I totally agree

edit: one quote too many removed.

What stuns me, is people who don't expect to be attacked back and scream "vindictive" when their victim chooses to fight. I have seen this numerous times. I especially abhor it when that same person explains how it is not in my benefit to retaliate as I am "throwing the game." The implication being that they know the superior strategy I'm blowing it. Unless I'm brand new to a game, I generally don't take my opponent's "advice" too seriously.

While the initial concern might be legitimate, I find vindictive, "throwing the game," and whining to be way too subjective terms to accurately judge who the real wiener is.

Some people play the vindictive card to prevent counterattacks.