Conquer Club

What makes people make alliances with the strongest player on the board? If someone holds all of Africa in a World 2.0 game, what good comes from making an alliance with them rather someone else? Do they think that being the last person taken off the board is some kind of accomplishment?


I know detlef is probably wondering why I am asking this question because I talked some poor fellow into having an alliance with me when I was holding all of Africa plus the Middle East subby Detlef sure tried to warn him

join 290308

they want to survive. if its esc especially they can bide their time and wait for the perfect oportunity to make a kill and roll through with cards

aphockey23 wrote:join 290308

You got a link? I'm lazy and hungover today ap.

joeyjordison wrote:they want to survive. if its esc especially they can bide their time and wait for the perfect oportunity to make a kill and roll through with cards

I could see that except in cases where the strongest player has 60% > armies on the board. Giving the strongest player a guarantee that one side of his continent will not be attacked only gives him/her even more strength.

I'm in a 5 player World 2.0 game right now where there have been some strange alliances. One guy holding most of Europe and all of N. America allies with the guy who holds all of S. America. So, the rest of us had a truce to attack them. Unfortunately one of the guys backstabbed me in revenge because I supposedly backstabbed him... Anyway, looks as if I'm about as good as dead now...

292160

An example of a game where an alliance with the strongest player (which is red or yellow, hard to decide) could be very benefitial for both grey and green. However, if one person allies, then it will probably turn into a 2v2, and then back into the current 1v1v1v1 situation.

I think a lot of you are just nit picking what what Iron is trying to say. I got ya, Iron. It's one of my pet peeves in CC:

The strongest player on the map is almost so strong that nothing can be done to stop him/her...but not quite. So instead of the other players coming together to knock the strong one down a peg and even the playing field, some player gets a "strategy" in their head that if they ally WITH this player then they'll have a better chance of winning. Give me a break. Barring a case of the worst rolls ever, this moron is just helping the strong player stay strong while hurting everyone else. If they're lucky then the strong player will keep them around and they'll be the last player eliminated. Bravo. Great "strategy".

Sorry, just a little vent there. Like I said, one of my pet peeves.

Same game as before and I'm eliminated now. Turns out the game has since swung the other way from the rest of us going all out to attack the two with the alliance. So, eventually another guy conquered all of Africa and S. America. However, he had a truce with the guy who held Europe and also with the guy who held S. America. So, that left one other player who didn't have a truce - me! I held Oceania and so the guy with Africa came through Antartica and annihilated me. Damn that pissed me off something unreal.

World 2.0 is unique anyways...almost every time i play there are treaties everywhere by everyone, but as weakest player, you sometimes have to accept the treaty or offer it to the biggest player...if you are going to lose you are going to lose...the color of the armies doing it is irrelevant. your only shot is that he gets attacked by the other players and averages out the field and you survive, granted if the weak player starts attacking one of the middle players, hes going to die very quickly

so in general theres nothing wrong with it, assuming it doesnt hand the game to the strongest player on a platter, which is what sounds like happened here...obviously this is just as much suicide as a suicide attack