Alliances

[HT-Johnao]

When is it ok to make an alliance?

[HighBorn]

anytime u want as long as its anounced in the game chat.. its generally frowned upon and u never know when you will get staped in the back

[HT-Johnao]

I dont like alliances either. If someone is outplaying everybody else, they deserve to win.

However if a guy is just damn lucky, gets a lucky start and lucky cards, and lucky dice, I would consider a little alliance to even it out.

Also if someone is being a complete jerk..

[johnnyrotten]

Personally I can't see anything wrong with making an alliance...

[superman]

If you do ally, make sure taht you do most of the work, because it will pay off later.

For instance:

In a game with 3 players left, me and another player allied
THen I did most of the work and I got India, I later ended up winning teh game becuase I had India and eliminated the other player that we ganged up on.

[Aladriel]

Also, if you make an alliance, you may want to put a limit on said alliance. That way you're not stuck in it for too long. For instance you want to ally with Bob to get rid of the common enemy Susie. So, you tell Bob that you won't go after him for 3 rounds. Once those 3 rounds are up then everyone is fair game again.

[Nobunaga]

... I've pretty much given up on alliances, as they both cheapen a victory and REALLY piss people off! Haha!

... But, as the previous stated, limiting alliances is a good idea, if you're going to get yourself into one. Not only limit the number of turns, but limit them to only certain borders.

... For example, say you have Europe and your would-be ally has Africa. A third player is kicking your butts but you're afraid to move any armies away from your Euro-African border for fear of invasion.... Make a border treaty - "No attacks between Europe and Africa, for (example) 3 turns".

... Then you've got 3 turns to deal with other problems. And you can attack your ally anywhere else on the map without breaking the treaty - this is a good thing.

[HGJokey]

I'm not a fan of alliances. I think it kinda takes the chivalry and autonomy out of it. Some people think diplomacy is a big part of playing risk type games though.

[SprCobra]

I only use or intervene in allainces when im struggling to defend or survive

[Sir ShanE]

truces are bullshit if you are not good enough to win on your own then you shouldnt play,people that win because of an ali should only get half the points.That will stop some ali's but not the true assholes.I'm just fed up with playing in games were your kicking ass,and 2 or 3 guys get jealous and triple team you.Somthing needs to be done.

[johnnyrotten]

Somthing needs to be done.

Like stopping your whining...

[AndyDufresne]

:-/

Alliances happen in RISK as they do the world... Look around and in wars...whenever someone looks like they are going to win...Alliances form to stop them.

--Andy

[Lkysam]

Ooops, I didn't know they were frowned upon, I thought it was just part of the game.

[moz976]

Alliances are not frowned upon they are a part of the game. It makes things more interesting and hard to predict.

[qeee1]

Agree with what Moz said. Diplomacy is a mojar part of Risk... I've used alliances in about 1/8 of my games, and most of those games have been far more fun/interesting because of it. What I don't like is people making alliances in the first turn or two... but that's just personal preferance, mostly because you're powerless to do anything about it I guess. Also I've never been stabbed in the back or stabbed anyone.

[Greatwhite]

Alliances are for wimps. Yes, you could say they happen in the real world but so does venerial disease. This is on line play by individuals taking a break from the real world. Any old Risker that started playing from the board game knows that a game is only ever really won when done so by him/her self.
Thats not to say there isn't times when you don't immediately hammer a neighbour if its in your own best interests . . . but its never done by collusion.
I can't imagine winning a game because I 'teamed'. That would not be considered a win. I would rather lose every game I played and lose them on my own than win 1 by alliance.
Put away the child's mentatlity. Stand on your own.

[qeee1]

The way I see it, diplomacy adds another aspect to gameplay, anyone who can't handle it is a wimp. Put away the child's mentality. Enter into the full depth of the game.

[CockAsian]

I totally agree, Alliance are for people who are too chicken to lose in a game. The player ENIX is well known to ask for a helpin' hand while he's inches away from total destruction. If you want alliance put it at the START OF THE GAME! If losin' is too much of a reality for you, then don't play...jeez...

[wacicha]

when i first started i allied about 4 times -=- then had my butt handed to me =-= now when i go into agame i never allie and expect that they are going to and play accordingly and with a few choice words you can even mess up the truce ( wow looking good there in europe you might have the win) i don't win them all but if it was a good game i don't care if they allie -=- win or lose -=- have fun -=- know it's you against the world and good hunting

[hockeycapn]

I don't know. Risk is like the Highlander, in the end there can be only one. Alliances just push off the inevitable. I think I've only been in one or two, it was kinda a waste of time.

[qeee1]

If you don't want to use them that's fine, but don't say alliances are for wimps, just because you don't see the point. And yes I know I said...

diplomacy adds another aspect to gameplay, anyone who can't handle it is a wimp

... but at least that's true. j/k

Seriously though, to me it's a far more fun game with them, adds an extra element to gameplay, though they don't generally work as well online, but in offline games I have sometimes spent as much time bargaining with others as I have actually playing. One thing I will say is, if you are starting an alliance make sure you get the details clear.

And those who say they aren't useful just haven't seen their use yet. They can be very useful in given situations, for example:

For example, say you have Europe and your would-be ally has Africa. A third player is kicking your butts but you're afraid to move any armies away from your Euro-African border for fear of invasion.... Make a border treaty - "No attacks between Europe and Africa, for (example) 3 turns".

... Then you've got 3 turns to deal with other problems. And you can attack your ally anywhere else on the map without breaking the treaty - this is a good thing.

[Dochartaigh]

i may have just started playin on this site but i have played the board game in its various forms for years as well as other online games similar to this one. if you want alliances join a doubles or triples game. leave the standard games for the free for all action that risk is for. you can have alliances and free for all without upsetting anyone this way.

[hockeycapn]

For everyone who really like Alliances you should look into the game Diplomacy. It's Europe around 1900 and every turn is simultanious, you bargain with other people and try to take key cities. It's all diplomacy and no dice. Whomever has the bigger force wins.

[yozapower]

I usually do not chime in on online forums, but this issue has bothered me since I began to play in conquer club.

This diatribe obviously excludes team games, because teams games are forced alliances--it is always good to have your teammate alive to help you out in defeating your common enemies, as BOTH or ALL THREE of you will get points if any one of you is the "last person standing".

Generally, alliances are a HORRIBLE idea in conquer club (ESPECIALLY unlimited cards games) for 2 simple reasons--1)there are no second place points in risk, and 2)both parties to an alliance have a compelling interest in breaking a treaty to win. An alliance is counter-productive and pointless because you are only strengthening an opponent you will have to defeat in the future, in order to get the points.

In an unlimited cards game (in any map, and regardless of if the game is unlimited or 1 fortification), holding a continent is the main reason that people make alliances--but is this worth the cost of an alliance? I think not, because after the cash point reaches about 20, it is impossible to station enough armies on your borders to assume that someone will not be able to break into your continent Plus, holding a continent will generally not give you enough armies to eliminate a player and take his/her cards before he/she cashes in order to stay alive, anyway. So this is not a good reason to make an alliance, plus you still have the downside/risk the other player breaking the alliance or getting eliminated and not being able to help you out AT ALL.

The other reason people make treaties is to break a very strong player. Except in flat rate game, this is a HORRIBLE reason to make a treaty. Why? Because even if someone holds a continent through several turns, the big cash point (20+) will eliminate any advantage they had in turns 1-6. Hypothetically, assume that in a 6 player game, one player gets all his armies in Europe and is able to take Europe within 2 turns. [This is about as likely as being bitten on dry land by a shark, being struck by lightning 7 times, or winning power ball twice in a lifetime--all these things have happened, but I wouldn’t “bet the farm” on a player getting all his armies in 1 continent.] From that point on he will be getting between 8-10 armies a turn. Although it seems like a lot, it is impossible to knock others out with 10 armies this early in the game, because the randomness of the placing of the other armies would not allow him to travel over other players to knock someone out (and he would only get 2-3 cards if he could accomplish this feat--good, but not always worth spreading yourself out to the absolute maximum!). Then in turn 6 someone will cash in for 10-15 armies, knock him/her out of Europe, and everyone is back to where they started, except now the player who had Europe will be very vulnerable to being knocked out because all his armies are in one place.

This situation is when weaker players will try to make alliances to break the strong player, but what is the difference (to the weaker player) between being knocked out of the game in turn 3 versus turn 6? A player who is on the verge of extinction at this point will benefit short term from the alliance (not being killed by the strongest player), but in this case, what is the difference between being knocked out in the 3rd or 4th round by the strong player as opposed to being helped by an alliance, only to be knocked out by the player you helped in the 3rd & 4th rounds? You still get 0 points for all that work!!!

Another argument against alliances is that analyzing an alliance from both sides (a player who is planning to break the treaty, and a player who made the treaty in good faith and is planning to keep it for the specified number of turns) neither is better off using the principles of Game Theory/Prisoners dilemma. Basically, game theory says that people act strategically to maximize their desired outcomes. But in conquer club only 1 person can win (the desired outcome), so the best case scenario is that you increase your chances from 1 in 6 to 1 in 2 through an alliance. However, whichever player in the alliance gets strongest first will probably break the treaty because the outcome desired (being #1) would be better served by breaking a treaty while the other party least expects it--Why? Because the weaker player will have cards, will not be expecting the attack, and (once again) the only positive outcome is 1st place. This scenario is just too temping when one player is a lot stronger than the other. Generally, this is why in the prisoners dilemma, BOTH suspects will rat each other out--each one hopes that placing all the blame in the other suspect will allow him to go free. The risk of being a rat is slightly less than confessing, because prisoner #1 cannot be sure that prisoner #2 will not be a rat, the risk of being a alliance breaker is less than being a good alliance keeper, because risk player #1 can never be sure that risk player #2 will not break the treaty.

There are only 2 possible outcomes from an alliance. 1)Both parties keep the treaty perfectly and end up being the two strongest players in the game. However, at this point the game just comes down to chance--who gets the better dice rolls/card--so this situation is no better than just playing a straight game with no alliances--all that matters is luck in the end, anyway. 2)One party breaks the alliance and eliminates the other. However, since you can't be sure that the other person will not break the treaty, this really doesn't help that much, either--unless you REALLY think you have a sucker on your hands.

All the above being said, I think there are 2 exceptions to this rule.

1)Flat Rate/No card games
In these cases, holding continents is the most important factor that determines victory. If one player gets a continent too soon in the game no other players will be able to knock him out of the continent because the max card cash-in is 10 armies. All it takes is one player holding a continent for about 3 turns for him/her to be able to put 10 armies on a border and ensure his/her victory very early in the game, as no one can break the continent and the constant flow of armies from it.

2)Alliances work when you are playing with a sucker who you can give an alliance to and then immediately break with him--provided that you can eliminate him in the following turn. I find that this strategy makes people VERY angry, so you MUST be able to eliminate that person within 1-2 (MAYBE 3--although you are taking your own life into your hands, here) turns. Some people REALLY get off on retaliation (like being "on tilt" in poker--emotional decisions in risk are generally bad decisions).

I used to feel bad about this strategy until I encountered my 10th or 11th person who asked for an alliance before the 5th turn in an unlimited cards game (there is a name for these kinds of people--TOOLS)!! Anyone that stupid should really be eliminated anyway (Social Darwinism at its best--they are just too stupid to live!)

Finally, the objection that negotiation/collaboration is just part of life and part of all risk games is fallacious. Why? Because there are few, if any, perfectly zero sum situations in life (the only situation I can think of is a cage fight to the death--not too common these days). When a player is confronted with zero-sum situations like in risk, they should only be interested in first--nothing else matters (its like what Arnold said in Conan the Barbarian--“What is best in life? To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women” ).

To me, Risk is the perfect game because power is always in the balance as the board was set up to cause tension between players. The whole point of the game is to put people in a zero sum situation where they will be forced to do something few people do in real life--wage all-out total war against others. There are no other considerations in risk, so why mess up the perfect balance of the game as it was set up? If you want to collaborate in an activity, you should try quilting or join a book club or something--risk is not for the weak or the co-dependent. Having an alliance in risk, is similar to taking “loans” out of the bank in Monopoly--it completely defeats the purpose of the scenario the game was meant to simulate.

Side note--if you want games that include some collaboration/negotiation (I know of no online games that include collaboration/negotiation, to a great extent) go to http://www.boardgamegeek.com they have some pretty good games that have interesting aspects of this sort. I don’t work for this site or anything, they just have cool stuff.

This is probably the longest post in conquer club history, but it annoys me to no end that I win some games simply because people make stupid alliances--I like the challenge of winning games based on strategy--not other players poorly thought out alliance/collaboration strategies.

[qeee1]

In escalating card games, are pretty useless and the uncertainty involved usually means they're not worth the risk. However I don't play escalating games as they're too luck based (imo) especially in freestyle play.

As regards your other points yozapower. Well the two main points:

1)there are no second place points in risk

Yes, the point of alliances is to get first place not to ensure you come second.

2)both parties to an alliance have a compelling interest in breaking a treaty to win. An alliance is counter-productive and pointless because you are only strengthening an opponent you will have to defeat in the future, in order to get the points.

You are strengthening yourself too, as is the idea in an alliance. Always ensure you get as much or more out of an alliance than your opponent or it's pointless... except in circumstances where you're powerful enough to grant them a little more without damaging you chances of victory (a rare situation). As for breaking alliances, well yes there is always a risk, in offline games, this risk is generally insured against by the fact that you're going to play with the same people again and nobody will ally with that person. In online games the insurance is obviously not there to the same extent, but there is still some insurance. Plus there's the whole honour thing, you seem like a player who sees anything happening in a game as being just in the game. I don't break my word in games or in real life.

This situation is when weaker players will try to make alliances to break the strong player, but what is the difference (to the weaker player) between being knocked out of the game in turn 3 versus turn 6? A player who is on the verge of extinction at this point will benefit short term from the alliance (not being killed by the strongest player), but in this case, what is the difference between being knocked out in the 3rd or 4th round by the strong player as opposed to being helped by an alliance, only to be knocked out by the player you helped in the 3rd & 4th rounds? You still get 0 points for all that work!!!

In game 10387 I formed an alliance with red to take out yellow, despite being the weakest player (of 6) on the field. In the end I won the game. Check the details yourself if you care. The point is, it does work. You've said again and again that alliances don't work, and maybe that's true in escalating games, but I've worked with them and they have.

Game theory is based on a purely selfish conception of the world, and usually takes situations out of context. For example in any risk game your desired outcome is obviously to win, however one usually takes future games into consideration too, and in the long run breaking an alliance may be more to your disadvantage.

Sorry, gtg, further ranting will ensue later.