Conquer Club

I am currently playing a 3 player, freestyle, classic, unlimited, no cards game. My best option was to take Oceania and so for the first few rounds I just sat and deployed while blue and red slaughtered each other in the middle. Then I noticed that blue had a little too much power - holding both N. and S. America. Red had Africa but only just. I wanted to keep red fighting blue so I decided that I would launch a few attacks on blue. However, red is new to the site so I decided to state my intentions in the game chat so that Red would not waste troops defending against me when I wasn't going to attack. When red began to drive blue back out of S. America, blue got rather angry. He accused me of being dishonorable by making it 2v1. I maintain that I was simply trying to keep Red vs Blue even and that it was not an alliance. Blue has now said that he will deadbeat out of the rest of the game.

http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=143819

By the way I do not like my tactics but occassionally they are the only way to play. What do you think? Flame me if you want. then i will know if I'm wrong.

Also, could someone explain to me how to make a URL

I never have understood the whole "honorable war game" mentality. It isnt the "Nice Nice Club" after all!

If you made a pact or promise and broke it, thats one thing...but it doesnt sound like you did.

Ok - sorted the URL thing now

THIS IS A VALID STRATEGY! thank God someone else brought it up. The name i gave it was that red was a "counter blalnce" to blue.

If you A) attacked red
or
B) didnt attack at all,blue would have overtaken red and then you. it was just a matter of time.

To remedy this situation you simply broke a bonus or distracted blue to let red get entangled and you could pull back out and build up yourself. Too many people do not understad this concept and have accused me of secret alliances.
THE POINT OF RISK IS TO WHEN BY KNOWING WHO TO ATTACK, WHEN TO ATTACK, AND HOW EACH AND EVERY ACTION WILL EFFECT THE OUTCOME. Hats off to you Robin J for understanding this concept of "Counter
Balance"
http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=122714

It all depends how you put it If you say is having an alliance in a 3 player game right or honourable, then the last time I ran this survey it was 50-50 each way, and put me off allying in future games. I play non alliance regardless. If red had wanted to defend against you so what - that would have been wasted troops on his side - i'm not really sure why you would want to stop that.

Anyway I am totally and utterly against declared alliances in game. Note the bold - it does actually mean something

Tals

Sorry, maybe i didn't explain properly. Red needed all the armies to defend against and then attack blue. If they were placed on the other borders, blue could have invaded Africa, making it too 1-sided. I repeat that I wanted to keep them fighting eachother

i use that tactic also if i can not keep the game even with a slight advatage to me i will hit the stronger and hope others follow suit. i do not post it and i think that is why said player got mad. he is being a child if he deadbeats. And should be Flamed accordingly. I will not play with him.
ASSHOLE he is

alliance and 2 people needing to reach a goal for two different reasons are different but could be classified as the same depends on who you talk to. I hate alliances in single play. But do not dead beat because of it so still an ASSHOLE

RobinJ wrote::oops: Sorry, maybe i didn't explain properly. Red needed all the armies to defend against and then attack blue. If they were placed on the other borders, blue could have invaded Africa, making it too 1-sided. I repeat that I wanted to keep them fighting eachother

Exactly my point. If you attacked red or even threatened red, blue would have won. but because you saw that the balance was in jepordy, you evened it out allowing you an oppertunity to win.

It's called 'strategy'. Send Blue a link to wikipedia

Your stratergy was good, but i think you telling red in the chat was kinda like an unofficial alliance. You should have said nothing in the chat. I voted your both wrong.

i totally agree that this is a sound strategy which i always use.. however i would not have announced it to the other party but just sit back and grow... just to remind all that this strategy does always get one into trouble as somehow one party will accuse u of secret alliance.. 2 vs 1, 3 vs 1 or whatever he can throw at u..

in certain games, i may choose to continue to hit the weakest while avoiding the strongest. this is so that now the whole board, or rather all the players would be eyeing on the weakest's cards.. and this is the time that i can actually grow peacefully or spring a deadly counter attack on the strongest party.. basically there should not be rules.. just do it!!

but like i always say, to win the war does not mean u have to fight all the battles urself. be an opportunist!!

I only posted it in the game chat because the player was a noob

Smells like alliance to me I understand your theory and Dog knows I have wanted to do the same, but........................

Not dishonorable, just a reprehensible pseudo-alliance and subjectively yucky....LOL!!!

The way it was suggested make it seems an alliance. You cant tell another guy to use all against other if its not an alliance. Although its not reason for deadbeat, I think I would add you to my ignore list if I was the blue player.

According to your strategy, they could now just attack you using all they have... correct?

LOL "i'll help you out a bit here - suits both of us - I won't attack Africa just yet so use all your men against blue"

thats an alliance - nothing wrong with that.

just to note:

i agree with blue, i don't like when players make alliances and in a 3 player It Is 'completely ridiculous'. I think you should let your actions and plays do the talking.

It sounds perfectly fine to me.

gerry22 wrote:LOL "i'll help you out a bit here - suits both of us - I won't attack Africa just yet so use all your men against blue"

thats an alliance - nothing wrong with that.

just to note:

i agree with blue, i don't like when players make alliances and in a 3 player It Is 'completely ridiculous'. I think you should let your actions and plays do the talking.

I suppose you are right. I wasn't really intending an alliance but when I read your post it does sound like one. I still maintain the guy I said it to was a noob but I suppose I should not have told him to use all his men against blue

KoolBak wrote:Smells like alliance to me I understand your theory and Dog knows I have wanted to do the same, but........................

Not dishonorable, just a reprehensible pseudo-alliance and subjectively yucky....LOL!!!

I think that you are probably right as well. As I have said, the tactics I am using are not the nicest but sometimes they are necessary. I think that I should not have phrased what I said in the game chat the way I did

KoolBak wrote:Smells like alliance to me I understand your theory and Dog knows I have wanted to do the same, but........................

Not dishonorable, just a reprehensible pseudo-alliance and subjectively yucky....LOL!!!

Gee KoolBak, if you're gonna use all those tehnical terms, put in a link to CCpedia for us noobs