Conquer Club

I am fairly new to the site, but have been playing for 20 + years and one thing that I would like to see is that there ought to be a pre game option to remove the in game chat box so that truces that destroy the game leader after pouring in hours of time would be less likely. It is frustrating to know you have playe a great great to then have someone say let's all gang up on the leader for 2 rounds and then destroy the leader. It is I believe extremely unfair, and it is for this reason that our home games and touraments are without any truce agreements though they sometimes form of neccessity which is fine and much more fair. The games thus ought to have a silent option so you can play a game of strategy instead of one of politics. Given enough time I bet 80-90% of the games will go silent. just a suggestion if you want any more thoughts I will be happy to write Thanks for your time and thank you for providing the site for play, I have a couple friends who might be joining soon

i like it. its true that for me truces spoil the game however if you become a clear leader people should still have the sense to attack you rather than each other even if they cannot communicate. it also encourages secret alliances.

i like the idea but it would certainly need work.

Thats not a bad idea DBandit70.

I like it and I'd probably play it a few times in public games or something. But most of the games I play are with people I know and I like to chat, so I'd probably play 99% of my games with the chat available.

Of course then you'd get more secret alliance accusations when people gang up on the game leader all of a sudden. Everyone would assume that they had PM'd each other and set up an alliance that way.

Let's hear a few more opinions though.

I am squarely with DBandit - I'd like to have some silent games.

Before playing here, I had never heard of "alliances", and by playing many board games (1000's) I've never made or seen a "table talk deal" for a truce...

Alliances suck...and are a cheap win...I accepted one once...and won...but a cheap win...Alliances are for PUSSIES...

Beat 5 players on your own...Priceless...

Well risk was always meant to be a social game, but I'd say no chat is a great option to have.

I would have no problem with their being the "option" of creating games with no game chat so long as the option of having a game chat available remains. I would prefer to play games that have a game chat available to use because it keeps the option of diplomacy on the table. I think diplomacy can add more depth and dimension to the character of a game and is part of the strategic component of the game.

Paulus wrote:I would have no problem with their being the "option" of creating games with no game chat so long as the option of having a game chat available remains. I would prefer to play games that have a game chat available to use because it keeps the option of diplomacy on the table. I think diplomacy can add more depth and dimension to the character of a game and is part of the strategic component of the game.

My opinion exactly.

I would really like this, just the other day I played in a game where I became the leader and the 3 remaining players made a truce against me. IT WAS 3 VS 1. I think this would help solve that problem. Even though I won that game it sucked big time to battle against 3 players.

Great idea

misterman10 wrote:I would really like this, just the other day I played in a game where I became the leader and the 3 remaining players made a truce against me. IT WAS 3 VS 1. I think this would help solve that problem. Even though I won that game it sucked big time to battle against 3 players.

Great idea

Would you not have gone against the other 3 players anyways?
Isn't it every man for himself, therefore its 5 vs 1 in a 6 player game?
This is a very interesting idea, but I believe that if you want to not chat, then don't chat, plain and simple.. don't take the chat out of the game for people who like to chat

john1099 wrote:

misterman10 wrote:I would really like this, just the other day I played in a game where I became the leader and the 3 remaining players made a truce against me. IT WAS 3 VS 1. I think this would help solve that problem. Even though I won that game it sucked big time to battle against 3 players.

Great idea

Would you not have gone against the other 3 players anyways?
Isn't it every man for himself, therefore its 5 vs 1 in a 6 player game?
This is a very interesting idea, but I believe that if you want to not chat, then don't chat, plain and simple.. don't take the chat out of the game for people who like to chat

No, you obviously need to learn how to read, the 3 players made an alliance in which they would not attack each other, learn how to read before you go criticizing people. And his idea is to eliminate these alliances, before you go around denying everyone at least have the decency to understand what they are saying.

misterman10 wrote:

john1099 wrote:

misterman10 wrote:I would really like this, just the other day I played in a game where I became the leader and the 3 remaining players made a truce against me. IT WAS 3 VS 1. I think this would help solve that problem. Even though I won that game it sucked big time to battle against 3 players.

Great idea

Would you not have gone against the other 3 players anyways?
Isn't it every man for himself, therefore its 5 vs 1 in a 6 player game?
This is a very interesting idea, but I believe that if you want to not chat, then don't chat, plain and simple.. don't take the chat out of the game for people who like to chat

No, you obviously need to learn how to read, the 3 players made an alliance in which they would not attack each other, learn how to read before you go criticizing people. And his idea is to eliminate these alliances, before you go around denying everyone at least have the decency to understand what they are saying.

I read it, and you need to realize that its every man for himself, alliances are part of the game, and until Lack takes them out of the game, then you should be able to talk during the game.
I hardly ever chat, but sometimes I'll say hi or whatever, or comment the play, giving them a bit of advise, or saying well done, good strategy

for me the chat is just as much about winning as the board itself. It is a tactical tool and one that should be had. THis idea to me is just like saying "can you remove oceania from the classic map as i dont like building from it".

Alliances are not illlegal and i believe if you are strong enough to bring on an alliance then youi have made yourself appear too strong.Just because you think it is unsportsmanlike does not mean it is.

If you would feel bad making an alliance then dont make one.

'letgodsortemout' i rarely play a boardgame of monopoly without somekind of truce or alliance. It is more uncommon in risk yet it is still allowed and this is part of it. Just as in the rules of risk you must show how many cards you have

Personally, I don't care to have the chat removed. I like the chat window because, while this is a game, it is a SOCIAL game. It encourages us to interact, making this site more than a place to go and play a few games.

When I have a game with a lot of chat, especially fun chat between the players, it's a lot like when you have a few buddies over, and you are all ribbing each other. It's just plain fun.

Not to mention, with the newer players, just what kind of impression do you think it gives to them? I don't mind giving advice and talking to the noobs. In addition, it makes the game a whole lot more approachable when the people who play the game with the noobs are talking.

I wouldn't use this option. If it was installed as an option, that would be OK. But I think it defeats the social aspect of this site, and discourages socialization.

I agree entirely with robbart. Plus the lack of chat could push diplomacy underground, into the realm of secret alliances. Plus I prefer to keep the number of options to a minimum.