Irritating event

[Madmartigan]

Game 207147, an accusation of secret alliance has been used. I had spent most of the game in the middle of the map stacking my 3 deploys and ending my turn. Recently an opportunity allowed me to take a 2-bonus continent and hold it, I took it and all was good for a while.

Approximately 2-3 turns ago my analysis of the board told my that Blue was entirely too powerful. I decided to move men from the border of Greens holdings allowing him the opportunity to break my bonus if he chose, however he did not and started attacking Blue as well as myself.

I have done this in several games, sometimes the other player recognizes what I am doing and helps and othertimes I take one in the butt and die horribly, keep in mind all this is done without PM's or chat of any kind.

The accusation is annoying I would like to think that anyone playing this game long enough would recognize that becoming a threat can on occasion organize the other players into defending together.

Ok theres my rant for the day,
Madmartigan

[perchorin]

That is indeed irritating, and I use that move quite often myself. But as you said, anyone who's been playing the game long enough would recognize what was going on, and anyone who doesn't, well that's what the ignore lists are for

[Jamie]

I often think about doing this, but don't want an actual truce, so I leave my borders with 2 or 3 men on them to say, "Hey, no truce, but I am going to move the majority of my men next to the dominanat person, and if you leave me alone, I'll go after him." If you leave one man on your borders, and the other guy doesn't break it, and no truce is announced, it's going to look like a secret alliance no matter how you go about it. Leave 2 men on those borders, and you should avoid most accusations.

[Coleman]

Leave 2 men on those borders, and you should avoid most accusations.

And be short one army, which in some situations can break your entire attack.

[Madmartigan]

Leave 2 men on those borders, and you should avoid most accusations.

And be short one army, which in some situations can break your entire attack.

Exactly and if my neighbor chooses to attack me I don't see how the extra guy does a whole lot. If I get attacked the game is essentially over anyway so why hold back?

[joeyjordison]

its one of those unspoken alliance moments. this has happened to me. there is a need for an alliance but neither player offers it, u just do wat is best for u and that includes not attackin the other weak player

[tahitiwahini]

Assuming as you state there was no prearrangement between players before or during the game and no PM'ing going on, then there's nothing improper here. There's no secret alliance. Also, no one is getting the benefit of a formal alliance, it's based on everyone's understanding of their best interests.

I suppose it's OK for blue to raise the issue of a secret alliance, but if there isn't one its easy enough to deny. If blue were to leave negative feedback a response on your part to look at the game would be sufficient to dispel the accusation. Blue has a burden of proof to meet. Anything less and it's just his opinion. From the game one can see objectively why the various players did what they did. Parsimony dictates that that is the explanation rather than a secret alliance cabal.

As far as I can see, no worries.

[Jamie]

Leave 2 men on those borders, and you should avoid most accusations.

And be short one army, which in some situations can break your entire attack.

Exactly and if my neighbor chooses to attack me I don't see how the extra guy does a whole lot. If I get attacked the game is essentially over anyway so why hold back?

It does you good, because no one can say you didn't defend your border, and how many times have you attacked an army of two with seven or eight guys, and lost them all. Happens to me often enough to make me want to destroy my PC. Armies of one go down easy. Armies of two can be a workload. That's why when someone is close to elimination, they spread what they have left out. It's easier to take out a bunch of ones, and an army of 8, than it is to take out a bunch of armies of two.

[Madmartigan]

I have seen armies of one roll a friggity yahtzee of sixes all too often for my tastes as well.