Conquer Club

In a game with only three players, is it considered poor sportsmanship or etiquette to form an alliance with another to make it two-on-one? I had a fairly high ranked player state to me in a game that it was but I can't really see the reasoning behind that.

It depends on the situation in the game. If it's the two weaker players agianst the strongest player, I wouldn't consider that poor sportsmanship. If it's an even game with two players ganging up on the third just to get rid of him, then yes I would consider that a bad way to play.

its opinion. generally it is considered unfair. the way i work out wether an alliance was fair unfortunately can only be done properly with hindsite but here it is:

a full alliance should only b made in the most desperate times. if the player on their own won anyway then the alliance was justified.
if the alliance succeeded in overthrowing the leader but only because of good dice it was justified.
if the alliance overthrew the leader without any major luck then it shouldn't hav been made.

the worst thing you can do though is carry on an alliance too long. if u overthrow the leader then beat him/her into submission then wipe them then it is very bad etiquette. border alliances are sometimes more appropriate and not as bad in my view

ALL alliances find themselves to my ignore list

The idea of standard is everyman for themselves

max is gr8 wrote:ALL alliances find themselves to my ignore list

The idea of standard is everyman for themselves

That's exactly what I think. Moreover, if you can't play without forming alliances, that's what doubles and triples games are made for.

If the idea behind standard is "every man for themselves" why is not part of the rules?

darvlay wrote:If the idea behind standard is "every man for themselves" why is not part of the rules?

because that would mean needing to gang up on people to survive. obviously the 2 weakest players in a 3 player game aren't going to attack each other, its just bad play if they do, no alliance needs to be formed.

Aegnor wrote:That's exactly what I think. Moreover, if you can't play without forming alliances, that's what doubles and triples games are made for.

Doubles and triples games are played differently. Alliances can be formed in games with 3 teams.

There is nothing wrong with it at all in any circumstances.

In the end, only one of them can win. Because of this, their alliance WILL end and they will be aware of it. Because they will be aware of it they will be hesitant to let the other get stronger than themselves.
Forming alliances is pretty much the only aspect of this game which depends on some kind of skill. Being able to manipulate someone into not killing you or into killing another for you can be difficult, where as all other facts are purely based on luck.

max is gr8 wrote:ALL alliances find themselves to my ignore list

The idea of standard is everyman for themselves

Thanks for your wrong idea! First off, alliance in a three man fight is dumb. You need to beat both of those guys to win, why would you allie w/ them? Plus, it should be pretty obvious when you need to stop attacking a weaker player in favor of the stronger. Any smart player will do the same.

Alliances are the MOST important part of the game!

I have two rules of thumb:
1). Never attack the Winner
and 2). Ally with who you need to to win.

Beyond those you have a million other choices to go after.

GC

P.S. Let me explain rule #1 because somebody always doesn't understand it. Never attack the winner means that you wil never attack yourself because you are the winner. Think about it for a second. Also it proves well in this case, the leader on the board is not you and you need to hinder him but don't want to kill yourself in the process. Have someone else attack (This also goes well w/ rule 2). Ally, beg, barter, or otherwise, but never sacrifice your position to stop the strongest player. Someone will, so don't let it be you.

If NO one does, you had better have a good excuse for not stopping the leader. I always have one prepared!

darvlay wrote:In a game with only three players, is it considered poor sportsmanship or etiquette to form an alliance with another to make it two-on-one? I had a fairly high ranked player state to me in a game that it was but I can't really see the reasoning behind that.

Let's see if I understand this correctly: a fairly high ranked player doesn't like alliances in a 3 player game. Well, let's chew on that awhile. I guess a fairly high ranked player would probably win a lot of games (I think we can safely assume that). I guess when you win a game you were at some point in that game the dominant player (by definiition at the end of the game, but probably also true at some earlier point in the game). Alliances in 3 player games are almost always between the two weaker players against the dominant player. The presence of such an alliance is usally detrimental to the dominant player. I can see therefore why a fairly high ranked player would most likely regard an alliance in a 3 player game as a display of "extremely poor sportsmanship." As the Romans said: "Cui bono?" It's largely a question of who's ox is getting gored. It should perhaps not be surprising that those who hold the "alliances in 3 player games are unsportsmanlike" principle in most favor are the very ones that benefit most from such a policy.

This has been discussed at length (perhaps ad nauseum) in this thread:

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

Suffice it to say that alliances are no more an example of poor sportsmanship in 3 player games than in any other size game. Those who believe otherwise either have an vested interest in believing so or buy into the notion that a player who jumps out to a lead in the game deserves to win the game.

Risk is a combination of strategy, tactics, and diplomacy. If you only want ot use two out of three of the tools available to you, that's fine, but please don't claim the moral high ground for making that choice.

the last two times i've had people team up on me i've won, and this is the third


that'll learn 'em

I play mostly 3 player games. In them if I am clearly the stronger player(hold 2-3 continents to the other players 1/no continents) I fully expect them to form an alliance to push me back and try to "even" things out.

I think alliances aren't fair in any situations.

Nameless One wrote:I think alliances aren't fair in any situations.

I appreciate your position, at the very least it's consistent and rational. I reserve my scorn for those who see a tremendous difference between alliances in 3 player game and alliances in more than 3 player games.

It must be frustrating to play a game in which they are allowed. Too bad there aren't "no alliance" games (in addition to standard, doubles, etc.), though I guess you can achieve the same effect by playing with like-minded players. To my mind it would be like playing with one hand tied behind your back. But then, come to think about it's really not that much different from playing with "adjacent," rather than "unlimited" fortification. As in some forms of poetry, sometimes restriction can lead to great beauty.

GrazingCattle wrote:Plus, it should be pretty obvious when you need to stop attacking a weaker player in favor of the stronger. Any smart player will do the same.

Unfortunately not everyone is a smart player.

MeDeFe wrote:

GrazingCattle wrote:Plus, it should be pretty obvious when you need to stop attacking a weaker player in favor of the stronger. Any smart player will do the same.

Unfortunately not everyone is a smart player.

Sad but true. Thats why i try and play only solid players and fewer new guys. This limits the Neg FB I have to mete out and increases my enjoyment of the game!

Dr. Jim wrote:There is nothing wrong with it at all in any circumstances.

In the end, only one of them can win. Because of this, their alliance WILL end and they will be aware of it. Because they will be aware of it they will be hesitant to let the other get stronger than themselves.
Forming alliances is pretty much the only aspect of this game which depends on some kind of skill. Being able to manipulate someone into not killing you or into killing another for you can be difficult, where as all other facts are purely based on luck.

This man speaks the truth

There is absolutely nothing wrong with alliances as long as they are made under the right situation (already explained by others). Besides, any decent player knows when to call a truce to stop a third party from winning. Actually, any decent player does not need to be told to ally or not - they will know when to attack the leader and when not to squabble needlessly over borders. As Dr. Jim said, successful alliances take a lot of skill, although there are other parts of the game that need skill

It seems that almost always, when ethics of alliances/treaties/truces are discussed, nobody seems to notice/remember that when each of us joined CC, we accepted something like that as a part of the deal.

Or what does possibly the second sentence everyone ever reads here mean? I don't quote it now - just click the Home tag above and see it there, again.

As it is one of the three things we all are advertised and asked to do here, maybe people who don't want to see it happening in their games shouldn't have joined in the first place?

.

^
Bravo - well said

Thanks for the discussion. I've only been here a couple months and I'm still learning.

I personally think there is more skill than just diplomacy. But everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

I was wondering about truces because they seem to really make some players mad. It is just a game, so this still surprises me at times. If I'm the strongest player, I don't even check to see if the other players have an official truce. Of course they're both going to attack me. This is also why I prefer games with more players.

One of my first games here was a three player game and one player was a deadbeat. I had a better position with all of the neutral territories formed. The other player and I fought it and he was a good sport about it when I won. It would be nice if there were an option to call a game like that though.

I would love to see a category for games w/o alliances. This would let those who don't approve of them play their own games. I would probably play in both.

just to throw this in:

war is all about surviving. in real life everyone with sense gets on the rite side of big nations whilst making themselves self-sufficient and able to protect themselves. if u want to conquer all then bide ur time and then break out. no point angering the person who can wipe u out

I've been involved in a few alliances in the past, enough to learn that they always end badly. Now that I no longer participate in them I quite often find myself on the receiving end of them, which is particularly annoying in three player games.

I understand why alliances and truces are made, but they always seem to shift the balance of power from one player to another, so it just creates another situation where one player is stronger than the rest.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. I don't like alliances, and don't use them, but as long as they are discussed openly I don't think there is much wrong with it, or that you can do about it.

One of my best memories of playing Risk as a kid, was getting my youngest brother to team up (IE Alliance) with me, to beat our middle brother! It made him so mad, and that was half the fun. We played our last game back in May while we were camping. We did it again, me and my youngest brother teamed up and beat my other brother. He complained and "cried" (we are, me 44, Kevin (the whiner and one we picked on) 42, and Steven, 39) as we usually did, we had a ball.

My youngest brother Steven, died unexpectedly just a few weeks after that last game. At his funeral, as I was doing the service, I mentioned that game and the fun we had had.

I guess my message is, life is way to short, and you don't know when your last day, hour, minute, or Risk game will be. Have fun, enjoy yourself, its just a game, life and death, are for real.

Windparson