Noticed a few times over the past few months that in a 3 way fight where all 3 players are playing a bit of a chess game and feeling each other out, testing each other's borders and resolve to hold onto certain areas of the map, etc (we've all been in them, I don't mean stalemated games I mean those games where it might take 10, 20, 30 or even more turns to see significant changes and for the winner to emerge) - in those games it's more often than not the littlest guy of the 3 who makes some sort of significant move first and I don't understand it.
If I'm the little guy in that sort of situation I'll bunker down, get my defences right and get some sort of plan in place in my head for when the two bigger guys go at it, and then I'll wait. Let them have the arms race they will most likely have and stay under the radar as much as possible. Not present a threat to either, try not to piss either of them off when I'm getting a card and leave card spots for both of them if possible that don't hurt me.
But often I see the little guy being the one to choose one or the other big guns and taking him on, leaving both him and the guy he hit easy pickings for the untouched other bigger guy.
I see no sense in it - but maybe it's just because it's a style alien to me. Is it actually a viable strategy and how does it work if so?
Edit - the onus, it seems to me, is on the second biggest guy. He can potentially weaken the biggest guy enough to win still without leaving himself too exposed to the little guy if he moves quickly. But if HE waits, then eventually the biggest guy will become bigger than the other two combined and win by default.