Conquer Club

I haven't been able to find suitable discussion on this topic, and yet this is the main reason I like to play this game. I will play several different kinds of games, but to give you some context, I prefer NO SPOILS, NO FOG-OF-WAR, STANDARD games. The reason is that one of the biggest parts of strategy for me is dealing with the other players.

There are lots of options and lots of things to talk about, but too many people neglect the strategic aspect of their communication or lack thereof with other players.

Not only that, but lots of us just unconsciously or subconsciously expect other players to act a certain way. When they act in a way that we think is irrational, how is it best to deal with it (especially if it hurts our own position)? Sometimes if you speak up, the other players will mock you or act like you're just complaining, no matter how respectful you are, but is that a reason to say nothing? What you say or don't say has an extreme effect on the game, good or bad, in your favor or not in your favor. People don't like complainers, but what does strategy say? And I'm not talking about the luck of the dice. Anyone can whine about bad rolls (although in fog-of-war, it might be useful to let people know that you just lost your advantage and they don't have to gang up on you anymore), but what do you do about a player who attacks you foolishly multiple times, putting you both in danger of losing? Do you say something? Do you suggest an idea? Do you stay quiet and bear the beatings? That may seem more gentlemanly, but is it strategic?

That is just one example (somewhat general/broad), but what are your thoughts? When do you stay silent, and when do you speak up? When do you bully, and when do you buddy-up? How do you gain knowledge about other players' temperaments and use it to your advantage? How do you, to sum up the question, play the players on the board?

Thoughts? Ideas?

If I am one of the weaker players on the board, and am attacked/targeted by one of the weaker players on the board I don't hesitate to humbly suggest it isn't the best course of action. What I say varies, but I try to be respectful and point out the simple truth, that the action is damaging both our positions and the only people gaining from it are the rest of the players.

If on the other hand I am the strongest player and am attacked I try to "punish" such attacks heavily, or if there is an alliance against me punish the instigator if possible. This is more difficult though and usually just ends in whining and/or bad blood.
This is usually the only time I'll enter into an alliance, ie a counter-alliance.

In general, my reluctance to engage in diplomatic talks unless needed is one of my biggest weaknesses as a "standard"-game player. Anyone who scoffs at such tactics has obviously not read "The Art of War", Sun Tzu is most vocal on the subject.

in CC there are examples of players who use this to perfection. Take t15 players Kiron & Xiangwang for example, hardly a game goes by in their 8player Waterloo/3rdCrusade battles where they don't manoeuvre into position utilizing diplomacy, and they are very successful at it.

It takes effort and subtlety, something the broader mass (myself included for the most part) hasn't the patience for I suppose

Arama86n wrote:It takes effort and subtlety, something the broader mass (myself included for the most part) hasn't the patience for I suppose

True, I don't use it that often, but when I use diplomacy, it tends to work out quite well. Especially in Fog games your number of territories (when it's low) can make you seem weak, when you actually got some nice stacks that nobody sees. A simple "I've got not enough troops to break [name]" can win you the game sometimes.

This is an example I recently came across:
2010-10-28 16:34:02 - Player A: B, i don't want to move any further in that direction. shall we have a truce on those two cards?
2010-10-28 16:45:45 - Player B: I think that would be wise for both of us. If you wanna give up the truce, let me know at least one round in advance, I will do the same.

It was a Poker Club game where he could've easily wiped B off 3 of his 4 territories (you don't want that on that map). Instead, he thought B had some more troops there. The idea of it scared him, while there was nothing to be scared of.
Later that game player C started hitting hard on player A, who had way more territories than B, after B announced he didn't have much to attack with.
2010-10-31 20:30:15 - Player A: you need to answer guys, I don't want to start attacking until we agree. Is the start of turn 15 good?
2010-10-31 20:43:03 - Player B: Well, I'm in no position to have any demands when it comes to attacks. Round 15 is fine by me, but I'm not sure if I can attack properly ^^
2010-10-31 22:51:17 - Player C: Yeah, that works for me.
2010-11-01 22:41:47 - Player C: B, youre killing us
- - - - -
2010-11-04 14:15:09 - Player B won the game

This is just one of many examples how you can play the players and it's all legit. It's all in gamechat, no secret diplomacy, just all in good fun.

- JBlombier

That's really interesting. That's partly why I don't play fog of war games that much. When I do, I get pretty frustrated, because people tend to say whatever they want, and other players have no idea what to believe. When there's no fog, it's all out there for everyone to see. But I did play a fog-of-war game recently where I used the chat to let the players know how weak I was. I couple of times I tried to veil this as compliments to other players: "Oh, man! That was brutal, red. Good job." I utilize some of the truth, so it's not completely uncalled for, but exaggerated enough for the others to think maybe red is just a bit too strong.

Interestingly, I've found that when others point out how strong you are, it can also be helpful just to stay silent. An objection tends to draw more attention, and people say hey, wait, he's getting defensive, and they suspect the truth. But I like to utilize silence to let others' disputes flare up.

Really? I love fog of war!
It really adds some excitement to the game, having to figure out who is where.

Concerning diplomatic purposes, you could take advantage of another players lack of knowledge of fog and coordinate them, or as you say, 'play the players' .

One example of playing the board by seeing what kind of player each of my opponents was:

I recently played an 8 person World 2.1 Singles game. I started in Europe as the pink player. The Green player started in Parana and South Africa. The Blue player built up really strong in the Middle East and the rest of Africa in the north, while the red player slowly took over the rest of Asia.

I was lucky in this game to be the farthest player away from Green, because Green was the most aggressive player with lots of armies. I had a pretty nice stand off against red and blue, all three of us slowly building around Moskva, Iran, Pakistan, and Komi/Kaz. Of course, none of us wanted to attack each other, since the third could easily swoop in.

It turned out that the green player was pretty vindictive. If anyone attacked him, he would lash out unrelentingly. He did this early on against yellow, and I resolved to stay out of his way and hope the others would hold him off. Eventially he got hold of Oceania and red had enough - felt he was getting too strong (in the meantime, I was taking over North America, trusting that Blue and Red would hold each other off from attacking me in europe). Red attacked green, and green went after him with a vengeance.

Blue saw this as an opportunity to take the rest of Africa away from green. Tactically speaking, it was the right move. Green didn't have the resources to take on blue, so he should have felt that the game was balanced enough (him in Africa, me in europe and NA, and green in Oceania, La Plata, and much of Asia), and he was just a bit stronger than the the rest of us. (Again, at this time I was in a conquest against Silver, and there wasn't really anything I was going to do about it.

The problem with Blue's move, though, was that he didn't count on what kind of player green was, even though the guy had shown it twice, lashing out against yellow and then red. All I had to do was wait for them to tear each other apart.

Green of course, struck back, giving me time to take out the silver player and build up my armies on my borders. Green also made some really bad diplomacy moves, making promises he didn't keep and offers that didn't make sense, so that none of us were going to trust him at all. So when, in the middle of an attack on blue, green noted that I (pink) was getting too strong, and that blue should attack me, this only made blue angry. All I had to do was say nothing. My first instinct is to object or argue, but I found it easy to stay out of the trouble until they had weakened each other just enough for me to swoop in and take an insurmountable lead against both of them.

It wasn't so much a display of my own diplomatic brilliance as it was an example of taking advantages of the bad diplomatic mistakes of others. Had Green been more careful or Blue less erratic (I guess, both, really), they both could have teamed up on me to take me down to size. If I had said anything, I'm sure they would have.

I'm mostly just musing on how those kinds of mistakes can be fatal. I understand when a player is going to die and they want to do as much damage as possible to the person who took them down, but lots of players just play with reactions. One player bursts into their land, and they turn it into their personal vendetta. How many times have you heard a player say, "That's it! I can't take it anymore, [player]. Take THAT!" Those are the times I just sit back and silently thank the universe for patience.

Very interesting topic...I never thought about playing the game this way. I guess this method just happens to be a byproduct of the way I play. I am quite flattered that other players check out my play logs/style/history and use it as a model to win.

Yes, patience is a nice virtue to have, especially in stalemate games. Those games, I just treat like I already lost those games and let it stand. I remember just finishing a very long game that I started in May just a few weeks ago (3 way tie, way patient enough that one eventually dropped lol and I was a bit stronger than the other player so I won! 3200 vs. 3100 troops equals me win!).

I also find positioning to be very important. Even when I am strongest on the board, if I am in the middle, I tend to give up my lead just to get a better position (aka a corner position) to aid me in winning later. Also forcing other players to fight each other is quite nice too, like wiping them out on one side of the map so they are forced to fight on the opposite and watching the bloodshed is sweet music to my ears

Again, with some sweet talking, one can take a losing position to a winning one if one tiptoes the balance of powers juuuust right.

So, a related question.

In a couple of games, I've noticed that talking and trying to maneuver through a game tends to piss a couple of people off. I guess sweet-talking has its merits, but I want to hear people's perspective on a couple of questions:

(1) How do you tell someone to stop attacking you (especially when it seems like bad strategy for them) without being labeled a complainer and making other players want to try all the harder to take you out or resent the fact that you survive if your "complaint" succeeds.

(2) Can you give an example of "sweet-talking" that is not going to piss somebody off or make them feel manipulated? Does that depend completely on the player?

(3) Are there benefits to grinning and bearing it when someone foolishly attacks you, refraining from saying anything?


You see, All too often I see someone get knocked around by a foolish player who weakens the both of them and neither says a thing, and of course they both lose. And yet, I've played many games, where when I stand up for myself, people get pissed off and call me a whiner or complainer - no matter how nice I may be or polite or nonchalant. We might whine about the dice, the luck factors, or something like that, but I'm confused about how adamant people can be about NOT trying to get another player to stop attacking them. I like to say something. Often it is too late, but in a recent game, i was able to survive and work the angles until I finally won out. Another player rated me really poorly, calling me a complainer/backstabber/etc./etc. You see for me, those are all strategic devices, and beyond that, I was never rude, but apparently some people thought I should just... grin and bear it? That just doesn't strike me as the strategic thing to do. Am I wrong? So that's my main question. Why do so many people on her seem to have a grudge against people who use the chat to try and survive?

Good question. I suppose it's mainly a personal thing. If you would've done that in a game with me, I'd applaud you for it. But other players might see their future victory plans crumble to dust, because you are trying to prevent it. People tend to get angry when that happens. They're like sore losers, who haven't lost yet.

There is no such thing as sweet-talking, only the possibility that someone will interpret it as sweet. What you might consider sweet, can be considered sarcastic as well. You can understand what consequences it might have if you turn your "sweet" sentences around. And btw, I don't think sweet is an appropriate word for a war game, lol.

Grinning and bearing can be done for 1 round, but if a player consistently attacks you for no strategic reasons, it's always good to say something about it. I usually tend to get one of the other players to attack the gameleader. In case I can win the fight against the noob who has a vendetta against me, the game is not lost yet and I can join the main fight again. Nonetheless, there is no correct answer to your question. It will differ from game to game and from player to player. Just remember diplomacy will help you in more games than it will hurt you. Sure, you'll get a bad rating here and there, but what do you care about a bad rating if you won a game fair and square by using some topnotch diplomacy? You don't care, exactly.

- JBlombier

on a slightly similar note, I was playing a game where one player was stretching ahead. I had no areas next to the leader, but everyone else did, so heres what I wrote and the reply I got:

bonzifan: I promise I won't break the bonus of anyone who breaks reds bonus next go
2010-10-18 06:52:34 - nazrag: and I promise to be good at playing even though blue is a faggot that wont do things himself
2010-10-18 15:38:26 - bonzifan: please don't be insulting. I was the only one without a boundary to you.
2010-10-18 18:39:32 - bonzifan: incidentally faggots are quite tasty

nazrag vicitimised me the whole game and we both lost naturally. When it was clear I had no chance of shaking him off I just weakened him as well, probably much to the other players fortune

@Onefist: The best way to avoid being seen as a complainer, IMO, is by point out that attacking you is not the best strategical move for the one attacking you. Show that he can gain more if he attacks someone else, mention that his actions are helping someone else, or even point out that he needs you in the future. Asking directly for him to stop attacking you is likely to upset people, because it doesn't look at the situation from their point of view. And if attacking you is the best move for them, it's better to keep silent. No point in seeking the diplomatic collission then.

For example, in the situation bonzi mentioned, saying "red looks to be getting ahead. I can't do anything about it myself, but it is probably a good idea if someone stops him", is far less likely to get an aggressive reaction. It's the same request, but worded from the point of benefit of the other players rather then your own.