Conquer Club

from what i understand in the rules, alliances are not allowed in standard matches. i'm not exactly sure of the rules, but could someone clarify for me? also, attached is some live game text from game no. 245942 to help with the clarification.

2007-02-23 00:29:09 - endowdly: wow, i just got unbelieveably shafter on the dice. wow.
2007-02-23 03:06:45 - tallfella27: how can you say that immediately after taking over nine territories? maybe you attacked too much
2007-02-26 15:24:15 - Dapper Tom: Tallfella: I propose a truce as green is really powerful. I won't attack you at all for 3 rounds if you agree to the same (and I won't attack you on this go now either)
2007-02-26 16:18:08 - tallfella27: I am green ... how about a truce anyway?
2007-02-26 21:39:44 - Dapper Tom: Hey Tallfella27. Sorry, being a bit daft. Truce for 3 rounds (i.e. until end of round 12 )sounds good. DT
2007-02-26 22:38:05 - tallfella27: sounds good ...
2007-02-26 23:56:23 - endowdly: that sucks
2007-02-27 00:35:40 - Dapper Tom: By the way, Tallfella, I don't mind if you attack my troops on Ontario and Quebec so that you can take North America (that will balance out our continents).
2007-02-27 01:49:40 - tallfella27: figured as much
2007-02-27 02:56:44 - endowdly: yeah so i got screwed. thanks guys. have a good time
2007-02-27 03:00:58 - endowdly: i hate those f'ing dice
2007-02-27 15:09:19 - tallfella27: truce is over ...
2007-02-27 15:57:13 - endowdly: lame
2007-02-27 16:26:16 - Dapper Tom: OK - nice while it lasted. May the best man win (I assume from your name that your a bloke).

note: i had oceania and asia at this point. when the truce occurred and both players attacked me, i was quickly defeated. so, is the above situation allowable or not?

thanks for your help.

alliances are allowed as long as it is announced in the game chat

Rule number 2 is no Secret Alliances and a little lower it says

Any form of collusion between opponents must be announced in the game chat.

So they followed the rules. Sucks to be on the tail end of an alliance but it is part of the game.

ah.

thanks for the clarification.

Definitely within the rules. Doesn't mean you have to be happy about it though.

There's a good deal of strategic advantage in appearing to be less strong than you really are. Some of this has to do with tactical positioning on the board, some of it has to do with aggressiveness. Sometimes less aggressiveness is perceived to connote less strength. You can sometimes use these perceptions to your advantage.

It's clear that the alliance benefited the parties and harmed you. Therefore, it was in your interest to prevent it from going into effect or short of that to influence the terms so that it would not hurt you as much (for instance, perhaps shortening the duration). Raise questions (and doubts if you're lucky) in the mind of the alliance partners. That's your role as a third party.

In my opinion it doesn't help to criticize players who attempt to form an alliance. As the alliance almost assuredly benefits both of them it is foolish to argue that they shouldn't enter into one out of deference to you (the fairness critique). Your job should be to show how it benefits one party more than the other. Get the alliance parties to focus on what happens when the alliance is over. Who benefits most? Who is likely to become the new dominant player. Focus your arguments on the weaker partner. Never be insulting, the weaker partner might well by your future alliance partner when the new dominant player starts to take control of the game.

Think carrots, forget about the stick. Use your understanding of people's self interests to further your own self-interest. Be subtle, but persistent.

Many a hopeless game may be rescued by diplomacy.

yup this thing happened to me in a game where i also had oceania and asia. the other 2 players made a pact between the 2 americas. i managed to survive but lost a lot of troops now i have north america and their truce is gone. but i'm slowly going down.

i see no problem with this thing even though i preffer people play on their own.

Seemed like a pretty fair alliance to me - if you have Oceania and Asia, expect to be attacked. However, I am guessing that your problem is with the length of the alliance and that the other two players continued to slaughter you for longer than was necessary. If that was the case, then I feel for you man.

Line 2 of the home page wrote:Use diplomacy to coordinate a group assault on the game leader.

Rule 2 wrote:No secret alliances.

So to answer your question: Legal yes.

I agree that it sucks to be on the receiving end..at all.. but even more so for longer than is necessary to bring the game to a more even keel.

It is after all World Domination.

Alright, so what happens if there's an alliance but nobody has announced it? I'm in a game at the moment (252470) where it just seems a little too convenient that green has left no protection on his border to blue and they've both come after me.

Green said a little earlier to blue that if they carried on fighting I'd win, but blue never responded. Yet, for some reason blue is not attacking green.

Sorry about the way your game turned out endowdly. Sometimes things just happen like that. I feel for ya.

Man Pony wrote:Alright, so what happens if there's an alliance but nobody has announced it? I'm in a game at the moment (252470) where it just seems a little too convenient that green has left no protection on his border to blue and they've both come after me.

Green said a little earlier to blue that if they carried on fighting I'd win, but blue never responded. Yet, for some reason blue is not attacking green.

Well, that's tough. It sounds very much like they made an allience or a peace treaty (completely going against rule #2) but is there a way to really tell?

Jake Kelton wrote:Sorry about the way your game turned out endowdly. Sometimes things just happen like that. I feel for ya.

Man Pony wrote:Alright, so what happens if there's an alliance but nobody has announced it? I'm in a game at the moment (252470) where it just seems a little too convenient that green has left no protection on his border to blue and they've both come after me.

Green said a little earlier to blue that if they carried on fighting I'd win, but blue never responded. Yet, for some reason blue is not attacking green.

Well, that's tough. It sounds very much like they made an allience or a peace treaty (completely going against rule #2) but is there a way to really tell?

Best you can do is leave negative feedback on both of their profiles. Then maybe the powers that be will take some action so the offenders will have to justify their actions. I know this is a small consolation.

a lot of the time people will not attack each other when it is obvious that if they do they'll both be beaten, i just finished a game where one person held both americas and a good chunk of asia and although i never once communicated with the other person (other than a "good luck" at the start) we didn't attack each other once for three or four turns, even leaving borders/continents wide open to attack.

it doesn't always mean there is an alliance or anything, just an obvious and mutually beneficial peace. had we kept attacking each other we wouldn't have lasted more than two extra turns.

Thankyou for making me add them to my ignore list any alliance is a bad alliance
The only one that will not find your way into my ignore list is a border alliance for 1 turn