Honorable Reputations

[givmeyrmony]

Madeinchina: Interaction with the other players is one thing. I allways try and get a conversation going, even though no one might read it for at least a couple of hrs. I would expect a remark like you made from someone who cant win by themselves. Oh ya, I looked and you cant. You have lost every single game you have been in. You can only win with a partner. Hmmm is there a pattern there.... I think so. However, congrats, you should win your 1st single game, game #2787

[madeinchinain85]

FOR YOUR INFORMATION, the one game I did win (in doubles) the opponent had a deadbeat for a teammate so I don't even consider that a win. Also what you did was uncalled for. I was just expressing my opinion and you go around and turn it into a personal attack against me. It was an attack below the belt and I want an apology

In fact this is a new experience playing Risk, I've only played a few times before (twice in real life, and a few game in a real-time online version). Even though I lose I enjoy playing the game (that is possible isn't it, or are you one of those people that think winning is everything).

[Axelius]

Of course risk here is different from risk IRL, but I'll have to say that one of my best games of risk ever involved a bit of diplomacy. I did not win, but it was fun.
The thing was this, we were five players, one was soon eliminated and teamed up with one of the other players. Soon the world was split in three almost equal shares. Player A (who was the best of all of us) who hade Asia and Austrailia, Player B who had Europe and Africa and Player C who had both american continents, well not all... In the Northwest territory, Alberta and Alska I sat with approx 20 armies, surronded by C's armies. C and B made a pact against A, but I had allied myself with A, forming his rear guard. B was soon to be overrun by the Asian masses and soon both Europe and Africa fell, he himself got asylum at the American Coalition.
I myself was all but doomed. My 20 armies in Northwest faced 30 armies each in both Alberta and Quebec and in a last attempt to make things worse for C I took Greenland, East US and West US in one go. Five minutes later my forces was annihilated.

Now this kind of situation is probably more real in an IRL game then here, but one thing that differs this from here was that I did not give up my countries for "the greater good", ie using my forces to invade kamchatka and let C have N America...

And I got to admit, full out alliances are not that fun, except when you go for doubles, but regional pacts are one of the basics in risk to me.

[givmeyrmony]

Madeinchina: Since your posting was the last one I read, you're the one who took it off the chin and for that I do appoligize. I should have generalized my comment more.

Attrition and chance is the actual point of the game. A good player should be able to predict their apponents moves and strategically deploy, attack and fortify to increase their odds of reaching that goal "ANOTHER WIN". This should be able to be done even if there are alliances against you.

And yes, winning is everything. I don't know anyone successfull who accepts losing, other than to use that loss as a learning experience and apply that knowledge for greater success. The power of positive thinking.

Just remember, if you are willing to post a comment, expect a rebutle from time to time. Don't take it too personally. I do wish you all the luck and hope that you are learning from past experiences.

[givmeyrmony]

But one question..........What is that on your head???

[B-Vaughn]

It appears to be a prophylactic......perhaps even with a reservoir tip? Nice.............

[madeinchinain85]

Wow, you actually apologized, thanks. Not many people do that online...and I was getting ready for a flame war too :-p

Anyways, although this game IS about attrition and luck, you must admit "politics" adds a whole new depth to the game. The entire map can completely change if there are alliances or non agression packs in place. Even then you can't say you completely ignore "politics", unless you are always expanding on all your boarders. There must be times when you don't advance on another continent/player so that you focus on another front or player. Although you might say that is a strategic move, one could also say it was a political move. Because by not attacking him you are also hoping he'll return the favor and not attack you (you may even sway the decision by putting a large "deffensive" force there) and open a new front. Non-agression speaks subtly, but noticably, and depending on the situation, is very political.

I would also like to say that I can take attacks on my opinion fairly well, but not when they become personal. And would you believe me if I told you it was a "balloon"?

[SprCobra]

Alliances can be good sometimes if you can really benifit each other but in the end there can be only one and that so called allaince goes out the window when its one on one and you make it harder for yourself to win and easier for the enemy as he has alot of troops so do you one weak link in your defense and your a dead man!The masisve troop count causes for quick and effective sweeps meaning if your not fass enought to beat the enemy to the turn kiss your continets goodbye
Allaince shiuld be saved for Doubles and Triples games

[Anuknight]

HoosierCheetah honored his alliance in game 3171 between Egypt and the Middle East untill the end.

[Twill]

Scarus, I am going to go out on a limb here and disagree with the general trend of this thread and you in particular.

Peace agreements are a useful, valuable and very valid tactic in life and in the games.
I may not be the highest scoring person here (top 15 at the writing of this post), but I have played a few games here (40+ with somewhere over 50% win ratio) and use peace agreements as a core of my tactics on a regular basis. It is by no means the only way to win a game and I have won many without uttering a word in the game chat. Why fight on two fronts when you can fight on one?

I know that I will plough over the person I am making peace with soon enough and I know that every agreement I make will benefit me more than the other person otherwise I would not make it. To say that you would go kamikazi on me in a game in which I make peace with someone is a cowardly scare tactic - just because you cannot play a slightly more complex politicized game means that you are going to try to play with base fear? It's politicization of the game any way you look at it - make peace with someone and I will run you down? Please.

Peace treaties are what they are - a temporary way to gain an advantage without having to rely on dice, cards or cashins. It is a strategy that I have sitting in my toolbox right along with my placement of armies and where I attack.

I will never give up an option to win. Peace is a valid tactic in war and I will use it in any game, even one in which I am playing you.

Go "kamikzai on my ass" all you want, I'll still beat you because I play with people, not just with the dice.

Captain Twill

[Scarus]

Twill,

I appreciate your views, and I definitely recognize that we all must respect any tactics that are legal at this site. As for the whole kamikazi thing; that's also a legal strategy...lol I would rather just give up on any chance for myself to win, if I can take out a truce maker.

I come from a background of playing online in the MSN gamezone where games can take several hours and are a big investment of your time. As I've said before, in that environment, alliance makers are outcasts. Without alliances the most skillful player will win most of the time. With Alliances, and even simple truces, a lot of personal relationships come into play. I see that clans are starting here. How will you feel when two or three clan members start ganging up on you on a regular basis. Better yet, how would you feel if I start taking advantage of my longterm relationship with my many xiGAMES buddies and start having truces until we eliminate the non-members.....lol This is the sort of thing that xiGAMES was founded to eliminate. You will always have the same chance to win as any other player in an xiGAMES private game. Regardless of any past or current relationships between the players. It's a matter of honor.

I do see your point, and it might be workable in an environment where people didn't have prior relationships and didn't work together to win a game, but that's simply not the reality here. My attitude is that if you want a teammate, play doubles.

It is a simple truth that playing with honor appeals to some people while making deals appeals to others. I'm proud to fit squarely in the former category.

Respectfully,

Scarus

[Twill]

Perhaps our view of honour differs.

You seem to think that anyone who makes peace is dis-honourable...well, would that slot me into that category?

It makes things quite a bit more interesting in my opinion to have people gang up on me, then it is a challenge for me to form an alliance of my own - to "sweet talk" the other players of the game in order to form a formidable force against those who would attack me. It's an interesting dimension that you wont find in a doubles game.

Even if it's a 3 man round where the other two are ganging up on me it's interesting. I was Ale-rio's first victim, hell, I almost beat both of him on my own, I consider it a challenge. I have come back from 1 country to win a game, that is what makes this fun - seeing how crap a position you can be in and still kick some rear end.

All I have to say is bring it on - you form an alliance against me, I will do my best, use all my skills and all my strategy - both political and tactical - to bring the other players and other resources to bear on you and your team mates.

If you can't or wont play that game, then don't it's your choice. As you said, that is what xiGames was founded for, to avoid these challenges, and it's a fair way to play. I simply enjoy truces for the dimension they bring to the game.

I'm here to play, and I get my ass handed to me plenty by alliances, but I give as good as I get and will continue to do so. If you see that as a challenge or a spoiler, try playing that game with me some day - it can be quite fulfilling to bring people around through talk and playing low for a while etc.

Anyhoo, xi or not, honour is out there even in alliances and I will take issue with anyone who says otherwise
Twill

[Patroclus]

I'm here to play, and I get my ass handed to me.......

Ahhhhh, So how did I do Captain?

Geezuz....., you play me a couple more times and you'll be a Lieutenant again!

Ooooops! Sorry! This isn't the FLAME thread?

[Twill]

lol patroclus.

I blame the dice