Conquer Club

please leave an opinion and please don't leave an opinion without leaving your rank

I think a complete team shouldnt ally in any situation. But once both teams have missed a member, and the other one is dominating, I think an alliance for surviving is ok. They dont need attack each other and deliver the game to the single complete team. This is my opinion.

Don't think the original poster will see this as I'm already on his ignore list, but here goes anyway.

Alliances are a proper and ethical tool to use under the appropriate circumstances, although the same results can often be obtained with a more limited form of alliance, namely a non-agression pact.

I've also noticed that the people most upset with NAP's tend to be high ranking players (especially high ranking players who often play with -- or prey on, if you prefer -- much lower ranking players). I sense a whiff of the air of self preservation to their arguments. Nothing wrong with that, but it does put their high sounding pronouncements about sportsmanship in a different context. These players also seem to me to value tactical skill on the battlefield (which they have polished through playing many games on the same board under the same rules) far above strategic or diplomatic skill. That's fine if that's their style of play, but it doesn't mean other styles of play are necessarily unsportsmanlike.

More of my argument can be found here:

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12305

In particular, it is interesting to note the following from the Conquest Club's home page (ht to Captain Crash for bringing it to my attention):

Risk all your armies on a daring continent grab. Use diplomacy to coordinate a group assault on the game leader. Feel the thrill of victory as you eliminate your last opponent.

By the way, I'm a sergeant, with 15 games completed (so those so inclined can attibute my heresy to inexperience).

I say if it's within the rules and it's to your advantage exploit it!

I'm a lieutenant and 31 popints away from Captain.

I think the ideal situation is to have good enough players that alliances are never necessary. That's the most fun in my opinion anyway.

It would be nice in a way to adopt the rules of the risk world championship- I don't remember exactly what it says, but its something to the effect of 'no teaming, hinting, prodding etc'. So you couldn't even make the comments like 'wow red, nice turn, you are very strong now!'. I don't think that CC should adopt that as a rule, but it would be an interesting way to play I think, because then you must rely strictly on the game and not an ounce of persuasion to win.

I accepted a border ceasefire one game when I was a noob and I regret it to this day...I ended up winning but it still feels like a cheap win and a game Id rather forget...Its no fun to win that way...to beat 3,4 or 5 people on your own...much more fun...

selected the first one Absolutely Not but meant

if everyone knows how to play you wont need any...

tahitiwahini wrote:Don't think the original poster will see this as I'm already on his ignore list, but here goes anyway.

*(edit)* ohhh I remember you! The guy who truces at every chance he gets! Thanks for the reminder bud!

I agree with sully on this one big time... if your skills can't win you the game and you need to resort to verbal diplomacy that definitely says a lot of how much you suck

The positioning of troops is all that needs to be said!

hmm, after much thought I have come to this conclusion.

I voted absolutly not. In team 3team doubles, much like in 3 person match, you should never need to say, "hey, lets work on killing the other player first and then fight." I never verbally ally in 3 person match. Most players are smart enough to know that if we are fighting each other while one of us gets bigger and bigger we will lose. Thus the two weakest normally attack the strongest player until one player becomes stronger than the other two and this continues until certain situations arrive.

I never say, "we need to team up on another player." I also won't create NAPs in three way game. They only mean you can't hinder one player and could mean that you get stalled by the Big dog and end up losing.

I suppose I should have answered "if all the players are smart then there is no need for truce, allies, or NAPs"

Now the same goes for doubles team match scenario dictated above. The players need to recognise the danger or suffer the fate they deserve.

Hinting is never a bad thing. Propaganda is your friend, because you commit to nothing but can affect the way the game is played.

*Just off the top of my head these were my thoughts and are thus under no affirmation at a later date

Oh ya, major who is closing in on games needed to complete for LT.

GrazingCattle wrote:Oh ya, major who is closing in on games needed to complete for LT.

IMPORTANT: GrazingCattle come to a complete halt immediately and execute about face manoeuvre, now proceed ahead....

you were heading in the wrong direction dude. At the rate you were going you're lucky you didn't end up becoming a private again.

http://www.conquerclub.com/public.php?page=instructions4

Molacole writes:

and please don't leave an opinion without leaving your rank

Why? To much trouble to check out a persons profile page? OR are only certain ranks entitled to an opinion?

I'm a Noob so you'll probably ignore mine but here it is anyway...

In a team game while all members are there then there should be no need to voice an alliance. I.e. yes if everyone knows how to play, but then we come back to 'does everyone know how to play'...and high rank and high score does not mean that you play the same way as all other participants in a game.

Diplomacy is about the talking and negotiating and convincing, aka manipulating your opponents into doing what you want them to do. This occurs all the time in RL so why not here?

Don't assume anything, you'll get your butt kicked!

I added the wink to show sarcasm... I guess it didn't work.

LOL, sry got my rankings confused! LOL sgt working towards LT. thats better!

I am such an ass!

Marvaddin wrote:I think a complete team shouldnt ally in any situation. But once both teams have missed a member, and the other one is dominating, I think an alliance for surviving is ok. They dont need attack each other and deliver the game to the single complete team. This is my opinion.

My thoughts exactly.

So my answer is yes, depending on the circumstances.

Colonel

i am KoE.pre-established friends on open chat i am against.on kO team with koeafter set up only ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,less t5han 5% of my games.i play 10 to 15 games played in simo. SUNTZU

I'm a Colonel...but I'm recovering.

I think if everyone knows how to play, alliances shouldn't be necessary.

I won't participate in an alliance. I won't offer one. I will act in my own best interest which very well may mean attacking the team that's remaining versus the other single player, but I consider that just being smart. When and if it becomes in my interest to attack the other single, I will. A lot of that depends on whether it's flat or escalating and the board position....and whether or not the other single is going to get knocked off by the other team if I don't do it.

Lots o' factors, really...but the bottom line is that while public alliances are legal, I don't do them.

Uh-uh. I don't tip. Whaddya mean you don't tip ?

dbz

I think if everyone knows how to play, alliances shouldn't be necessary.

I think the ideal situation is to have good enough players that alliances are never necessary. That's the most fun in my opinion anyway.

I disagree with this line of thinking (quotes from two different people). I, personally, am not into alliances. Nevertheless, it's all part of the game. If you can convince someone to partner up with you for a few rounds, all the while knowing you'll get the better of them in the end then you're simply playing smarter than others are. You may not want to have to bother with alliances, but that doesn't mean they are for weaker players or make the game less pure or anything like that.

Just my $.02