Conquer Club

Allowed, but uncool.

Its the dirtiest trick in the book, and usually occurs between people who play with each other over and over, but technically legal. I no longer play 3-man games for this reason.

Depends on the circumstances. If one player is in a dominant position (say over 50% of the armies) and the two weaker players agree to a non-aggression pact until the situation is brought back into balance, I don't have a problem with that.

Assuming it's announced in game chat (i.e., not a secret alliance) then I think it's perfectly legal and under the circumstances I outlined above perfectly ethical.

What tahiti said.

The only problem is that it's easy to overbalance, and cause said dominate player to get completely wiped out, as well.

sirbrezalot wrote:Its the dirtiest trick in the book, and usually occurs between people who play with each other over and over, but technically legal. I no longer play 3-man games for this reason.

Not much of a protection from this happening, because at some point all games reduce to a 3-man game (unless a single player is eliminating multiple players).

I think it's important to look at all the circumstances surrounding the alliance. If it's the weakest players against the strongest I don't see how anyone can have a problem with it, unless you feel all collusion is unethical.

The rules clearly anticipate alliances because one of them says you can have "no secret alliances." If alliances were always improper the rule would say you can have "no alliances" rather than "no secret alliances."

I'm sympathetic to those players who would like to play without alliances allowed and I wish it was somehow possible to set up games with that limitation on them. But as the game stands today there's no way to enforce that beyond playing with people who agree to not engage in alliances.

I see nothing wrong with alliences in any position. unless it is secret all truces are legal and it adds another aspect to the game. It makes it more real when you have to negotiate as well as attack

Only the scumbags play alliances with a 3 player game. Play the game with honor.

GTE wrote:Only the scumbags play alliances with a 3 player game. Play the game with honor.

Says the guy who gives negative feedback to kids for going to bed at 3am. You have no honor, so don't speak of it.

They are legal, thats why i don't play 3 player games anymore..Thank you site for the options

play 4 player its jussst as fun.

Beastly wrote:They are legal, thats why i don't play 3 player games anymore..Thank you site for the options

play 4 player its jussst as fun.

But don't 4-player games turn into 3-player games when a player is eliminated?

I was ranked Sgt when I entered a 3 player game with a major. Another major joined the game....and when I began to do too well they formed an alliance against me. I laughed my butt off in the game chat, letting all my friends know the game number so they could visit and comment, and both majors are still on my ignore list.

i have had three player games that the 2 other players formed an alliance right off the bat....so i killed myself to save the them trouble of fighting a fair fight....and told them why I did it....there is no fun in that kind of senario..it is point stealing and very underhanded to do ....The only time i could see that being fair is when a player is clearly in control of the game and needs to be trimmed down to size...but if the other 2 opponents are any good they will realize this and not attack each other unless it means a game saving ploy for themselves....it is a given that the two weak players at this point would attack the threat not each other...no alliance is needed .....But an alliance declared is legal...even if it isn't needed...poo poo on them if they need to ally early...and take it as a compliment if they do.....I however enjoy the game not the win or loss...so when 2 people play against 1 in a 3 player game it takes the fun out of the game for me. When I play 3 player games I make it clear from the set up point that I do not wish to play a game of alliances...People usually agree...Fight hard, show no mercy,take no prisoners and take over the world !!!

3 player games between good players should never technically end except by unforseen dice winfalls...a 4 kills a ten and makes an opening, or if an other player makes a mistake...

a temporary alliance on a border is sometimes necessary if another is too strong...but an all out alliance against a third player is just pointless....obviously they cant come back from it, so it ceases to be a game...

I am glad I have the opportunity to play 3 players with great players...they really are the most fun, because the balance is always dangerously close to being changed....we chat about random stuff, and have a blast knowing everyone will play well, and not really throw off the balance too bad...I can leave my ones on a border with the other weaker player, knowing full well they wont be touched and without the other player calling it cheating...but I also know at anytime, that player will attack them when he sees an opportunity...so I just have to be a turn ahead...

I do feel bad for players who miss out on these games for fear of ridiculous alliances...they really can be the most fun

alliances is an automatic ban in my book. I dont have patience for the non- sense

It's gay!