Conquer Club

So, I'm in a game where I get off to the best start of the other three players. I own SA and Africa on the classic board. I'm getting stronger with each turn. The other players gang up on me and agree not to attack each other, forcing me to take too many undesirable risks. Now my chances of winning are reduced dramatically. Very frustrating. WTF man. Truces should be banned.

Dude truces aren't a bad thing, besides it adds deplomacy to the game. Either way in a smart game they'd both be attacking you. Three player games can be really interesting since it is really necisary to hide your power.

hatchman wrote:So, I'm in a game where I get off to the best start of the other three players. I own SA and Africa on the classic board. I'm getting stronger with each turn. The other players gang up on me and agree not to attack each other, forcing me to take too many undesirable risks. Now my chances of winning are reduced dramatically. Very frustrating. WTF man. Truces should be banned.

They aren't to great when you're on the end of one, but they are an important factor of gamplay.

You can use this game as an example of an effective 'truce'. Green and I decided that instead of fighting over on territory back and fourth(this case being Solstheim) we would concentrate on attacking the stronger forces.. Now granted, I did end up killing him, but that was IMO, because of an error on account of Green.. He assumed that because I stopped attacking him for a few turns, he would be safe to leave his borders undefended. This of course, was proven false.

-X

My argument is: If there can ultimately be just one winner in a singles game, what good is a truce? The person with whom you make the pact will have to stab you in the back (or visa versa) eventually.

hatchman wrote:My argument is: If there can ultimately be just one winner in a singles game, what good is a truce? The person with whom you make the pact will have to stab you in the back (or visa versa) eventually.

That's why you wear amour..



Again, using my example. Green should've kept his border in check. That way, when one of us decide to 'stab' the other, at least we both would've been prepared..


-X

Are there such things as "unspoken" truces? I may have been in a few of those wothout being conscious of it.

hatchman wrote:Are there such things as "unspoken" truces? I may have been in a few of those wothout being conscious of it.

That's a fine line to walk...

I'd need a game example to comment...

Or perhaps, you could describe the situation more..


-X

hatchman wrote:Are there such things as "unspoken" truces? I may have been in a few of those wothout being conscious of it.

Exactly it should be obvious that if one player controls 60% of the armies on the board that he needs to ganged up on. It amazes me that I have to type it in game chat to make people realize it half the time.
.

Kugelblitz22 wrote:Exactly it should be obvious that if one player controls 60% of the armies on the board that he needs to ganged up on. It amazes me that I have to type it in game chat to make people realize it half the time.
.

You have a valid point.

However, I can understand why people would be reluctant to do this.

-X

Kugelblitz22 wrote:

hatchman wrote:Are there such things as "unspoken" truces? I may have been in a few of those wothout being conscious of it.

Exactly it should be obvious that if one player controls 60% of the armies on the board that he needs to ganged up on. It amazes me that I have to type it in game chat to make people realize it half the time.
.

That's pretty much automatic and I expect to see everyone's best shot if I'm fortunate enough to find myself in that position.

The only time, IMO, the decided leader shouldn't be the target is if you have the chance to take out a weak opponent, get his cards and establish yourself strongly.

detlef wrote:[The only time, IMO, the decided leader shouldn't be the target is if you have the chance to take out a weak opponent, get his cards and establish yourself strongly.

I agree..

-X

hatchman wrote:Are there such things as "unspoken" truces? I may have been in a few of those wothout being conscious of it.

Yes, in my opinion such "unspoken" or tacit truces are perfectly legal. They happen all the time, usually multiple times in each game. Whenever two weaker players attack a stronger player rather than each other, it can be considered a tacit truce.

It's perhaps a mistake to call them truces because they lack most of the defining characteristics of formal truces. They are not offered nor accepted. The have no explicit terms and therefore cannot be enforced. It is not possible to "break" a tacit truce, and a player should not receive negative feedback for doing so. Tacit truces have no termination condition, they have no formal beginning and no formal ending. The lack of formality is their defining characteristic.

In my opinion tacit truces do not have to be announced in game chat since there are no explict terms associated with the truce, hence the modifier tacit. They are not "secret alliances" because there is nothing to be secret about -- there are no explicit terms to the truce.

If a truce has explicit terms, those terms must be announced in game chat (in a language understandable to all the players in the game). If you do not do this you are violating the rule against "secret alliances." Tacit truces are not "secret alliances" because there is no "secret" information to disclose about the truce, because there are no agreed terms that govern the truce.

I think all discussion of the game should occur soley in game chat (in a language understandable to all the players in the game). If you follow this policy, it's not possible to have a "secret alliance." Unless that is, you agreed to a "secret alliance" before the game began which is clearly illegal under the rules.

Granted - all good points. But in focusing on the strong guy, isn't there a danger of letting down your guard, not looking out for yourself?

hatchman wrote:Granted - all good points. But in focusing on the strong guy, isn't there a danger of letting down your guard, not looking out for yourself?

I don't think so. Why should attacking the same player as everyone else be any different than normal? You always need to keep an eye open defensively.


-X

XenHu wrote:You can use this game as an example of an effective 'truce'.

Having played a 3-player game to XenHu on the Tamriel map, I can also attest to the fact that truces can sometimes go too far, and lead not to a renewed balance of power, but to one of the said truce-makers to become dominate and win the game - as was the case with XenHu, when I was the powerful one, got double-teamed, and XenHu went on to win because I got smacked around, and the third player never really got a foothold.

It was a fun game...





Here it is, for reference.

Oddly enough, some of the game chat is missing..

-X

hatchman wrote:Granted - all good points. But in focusing on the strong guy, isn't there a danger of letting down your guard, not looking out for yourself?

Yes, you have to keep on your toes. The situation can change very fast, there can be a new king of the hill in a single turn. Tacit truces offer the most in flexibility at the expense of the least in reliability. Formal truces offer less flexibility but come with more reliability. It's a spectrum, you have to choose the proper instrument for the particular game situation you face. If you use a tacit truce you don't have to declare anything; if you use a formal truce all the terms must be disclosed in game chat before the truce begins.

It's also very important to consider the termination condition of any formal truce you enter into. It has to be very clear to all parties when the truce is terminated (for example, one turn notification required).

Be carefull about entering into formal truces, because once you do you must scrupulously honor all terms of the agreement even if it means you lose the game. Entering into a long term formal truce is very risky because the game situation can change drastically. Anyone who breaks a formal agreement deserves negative feedback and a bad reputation.

Most people have a pretty well developed survival instinct, so I don't think it happens very often that a player lets down his guard and focues only on one thing. If you are lucky enough to be in a game with such an exception, you should exploit it as much as possible. By the same token, remain aware of how you figure in the big picture at all times. After all you are the only one looking out for yourself so you had best be doing a good job at it.

Okay. That is a lot for me to consider. I'm on a mean losing streak and I gotta remain flexible in my tactics. Too much tunnel vision before, which only got me so far.

Thanks to all for your advice.

hatchman wrote:Okay. That is a lot for me to consider. I'm on a mean losing streak and I gotta remain flexible in my tactics. Too much tunnel vision before, which only got me so far.

Thanks to all for your advice.

Anytime!


-X