Conquer Club

Alright I'm curious as to what you all think.....I was top dog in game 125015 but now im gonna lose cuz i was teamed by every other player on the board. I realize its smart to gang up on the strongest player, but when it gets to be 5v1 with a few people suiciding u (With armies upwards a hundred strong) isnt that a little bit cheap? Common I want some feed back here!

Wow, you're either really paranoid, or really don't understand this game. The 2 remaining players only started "teaming" you when you had already eliminated 3 other players. What do you expect??? Never did I see all 5 ganging up on you.

do you expect them to just watch u win they have to do something and the strongest player on the board is always the target

ah you're a beauty. You make deals & alliances, be prepared to stung by them. I don't make alliances and never will. I hate them.

I've said before and i will say again. Let your actions on the board do the talking. You shouldn't have to 'ask' or 'tell' someone what you are doing (e.g. "let me hold this continent for a round so i can dent Yellow because he's getting to strong") , to a good player this is obvious and makes me sick when i see someone doing it because the player you have just asked is likely to win the game.

n00b ^^

its cheap if it really is 5v1 although u could never get strong enough in a 5 player game to warrant them all ganging up on u. the best i hav done is in a 4 player game the remaining 3 players announced an alliance that was more like a union
they didn't attack each other and only attack me until i was out of the game but i don't hold it against them coz i got a lucky start and was dominating. i got really lucky at the start and my luck ran out ....

not cheap at all. The point of the game is to do whatever you can to help yourself win. If that means teaming up with another (or multiple) player(s), then go for it. Maybe you should have tried this strategy by telling someone to team up with you.

LOL. Wicked i was teamed by every player on the board. In then end, i had to start knocking off people if i myslef had any chance at wining. And it was the three remaining players player that really did the most damage. If u did check the game, u must have noticed that teal suicided me with a 100 man army. Then, after that lovely buisiness, red and green swooped in and started attacking me. It might just be me, but i think its some dumbshit that the guy who has been playing the best all game gets beat by a combined assault. Especially since only one guy from that attack can win anyway. I think i read it on another post that all this website is is the strongest player getting ganged on and then the second strongest player wining. If this is the case, i mean seriuosly half the people on this site must be retards if they are willing to fight and die agianst the strongest guy only to let some1 else win. And to the guy that called me a noob ur right i am =p.

I wouldn't call that cheap - shouldn't even have to be told to go after the leader

Rahm they didn't attack you exclusively until the end, when you were strong. it's common for players to attack the strongest player - duh! up until that point, all the attacking was even, and not ganging up on anyone, let alone you. if you make yourself out obviously to be the strongest player, you better be strong enough to fend off everyone!!

i dont always love a good starting position...everyone zeros in on you and forgets to stop attacking when you are down, while the other guy sneaks in and wipes them all out...id rather do the sniping

lie low in oceania and let the other players kill eachother, thats the good strat.. and build up middle east and ukraine and dont attack if its no cards.. then eventually you can hold asia and even teaming cant stop you..



if its escalating lie low in oceania and let the others kill eachother off til ones weak enough to eliminate when cards are worth it and go for it.

I'm suprised how much work it usually takes to convince people to do this, I recently was in a three player game where the strongest person had the center of the map and me and the other guy were on the edges, I convinced him to suicide against the stronger guy with m e and when the dust cleared the board was even again, its common sense, I don't see what your problem is, If you can't fight everybody then you aren't in control

The way I read it is he wants everyone to surrender to him since he was the strongest player. Either way he might be playing the wrong game.

alliances are legal anyway so there's no arguement

i feel for you mate, it does kinda suck. However, you should be able to talk your way so they leave you "weak" but strong enough to win later. Generally, once the crows start pecking, you shouldn't try to fight em all off. Rather, retreat into the fetal position and release your fury later.

I dislike alliances but unfortunately some players use them as a tactic so you have to account for that. I learnt fairly quickly that you want to work your strategy so you don't appear overtly strong - ie taking a continent quickly sets all sorts of alarm bells going - then the alliances come. I think in my games thus far i've had 2 alliances against me - maybe i'm lucky - albeit I rebuff all alliance attempts (regardless of my position) fairly strongly so that could also be a factor

Tals

Just so you all don't get the wrong picture, I'm not saying that everyone should just give in to the strongest player and lose. I'm rather saying that I think it's cheap that everyone gangs up on the strongest guy until way after the point where he isnt the strongest anymore. I want feedback on this not on me being some kind of idiot that doesn't know how to play risk. If you feel that I'm a retard, just keep it to yourself and let the players that actually have an opinion on the topic post thank you!

Rahm Es Hestos wrote:Just so you all don't get the wrong picture, I'm not saying that everyone should just give in to the strongest player and lose. I'm rather saying that I think it's cheap that everyone gangs up on the strongest guy until way after the point where he isnt the strongest anymore. I want feedback on this not on me being some kind of idiot that doesn't know how to play risk. If you feel that I'm a retard, just keep it to yourself and let the players that actually have an opinion on the topic post thank you!

You do know this is a public discussion forum? If we feel you're a retard we'll say so

Tals

Meanie =p

Rahm Es Hestos wrote:I think i read it on another post that all this website is is the strongest player getting ganged on and then the second strongest player wining. If this is the case, i mean seriuosly half the people on this site must be retards if they are willing to fight and die agianst the strongest guy only to let some1 else win. And to the guy that called me a noob ur right i am =p.

Good strategy is never appearing to be the strongest player. A good player doesn't make himself apear strong untill he gets in a position where he can't be beat, by alliance or otherwise. It may be the second strongest player that wins, but often that person is the best strategist and most skillfull player.

Basically, you fucked up by getting strong to early.

Ok in relation to that particular game, I was making 50 armies a turn......I mean seriously how much stronger can you get?

Heh u should all take a look at this. Nester is a sick bastard lol though I suppose I deserved it