Conquer Club

I was in a rt game today and I thought for sure I had the game under control - I had the most armies (50) and 4 cards with a set. It was me and 2 other players still in, and I thought I was in a very good position to win in a few rounds.

The player after me cashes a set for 25 and deploys all his armies on a country, to make 49 armies on that country, and then proceeds to try to wipe me out when I was spread out over about 26 countries and had as many or more than him. I kept saying to stop, because I knew unless his dice were exceptional he wouldn't make it but he kept on, saying it was his only chance to stay in the game. I thought he would have still had a chance if he didn't go on this crazy suicide, but he took me down to about 15 armies before stopping and the third player still alive easily took me out and won the game.

Of course I got angry, but all he would reply was about how he had to take the risk or else he would have lost. He lost anyway but he lost it for me too. I don't think this is a very good way to end a game that had been very enjoyable up to that point.

sometimes the only hope is a suicicde mission, esspecialy if its terrminator or assisan

If you have almost no shot at winning a game, sometimes the next best thing seems to be to shift the balance of power on the board. That way your eventual loss doesn't feel total since your final actions were at least of some consequence.

In escalating games, sometimes a "suicide" is the best option. It's worked against me far more than it's worked for me..

can you post the game number?

I hate those people. they are too bad to win for themselves nut want to feel important so they shift the balance of power as much as they can! I really wish i wasn't that guy!

GrazingCattle wrote:I hate those people. they are too bad to win for themselves nut want to feel important so they shift the balance of power as much as they can! I really wish i wasn't that guy!

I don't know that it's always that simple. I win as often as I lose, but I don't see the harm in going out with a bang if I have to go out. Seems like sour grapes on the part of those who count their chickens before they hatch.

badonkadonk wrote:

GrazingCattle wrote:I hate those people. they are too bad to win for themselves nut want to feel important so they shift the balance of power as much as they can! I really wish i wasn't that guy!

I don't know that it's always that simple. I win as often as I lose, but I don't see the harm in going out with a bang if I have to go out. Seems like sour grapes on the part of those who count their chickens before they hatch.

I seem to notice that it only pisses off the good players. any thoughts on that?

Actually if you are a good propagandist then that doesn't happen to you too often. I can get the weakest players to attack each other while I take the win. Mind you that is against newer players. People who know how to play don't care what you say. they are confident in their ability. But few people suicide unless they are newer. you see what I am getting at?

Try propaganda and if that doesn't work, then they probably won't suicide on you. Thats what I do!

GrazingCattle wrote:I hate those people. they are too bad to win for themselves nut want to feel important so they shift the balance of power as much as they can! I really wish i wasn't that guy!

It's not about shifting the balance of power, it's about trying your best to win the game. When the odds are extremely against you, sometimes a suicide move can be your best chance of winning.

Here's one game where Fireside poet, used a suicide move (that failed) as it was his most viable strategy:

http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=288456#gmtop

Suicide is never a "viable strategy". (you even said it failed). Sometimes we over extend ourselves in trying to take a esc game, but that isn't suiciding if you have calculated the risk and find that it is likely. Thats the difference.

Some times you go for someones cards and get poor dice. you hope the dice will turn around and continue to press the attack. That isn't suicide. thats getting unlucky. CK's guy who said he was taking a risk didn't calculate the troop cost and thats why it was suicide.

What newbies do when they know they can't win so they just attack with everything they have is called suicide. when a advanced player catches a bad break when going for someone else's cards is called getting screwed. there is a difference.

I hope this explains the difference between CK's game and the one with you and FP.

GrazingCattle wrote:Suicide is never a "viable strategy". (you even said it failed). Sometimes we over extend ourselves in trying to take a esc game, but that isn't suiciding if you have calculated the risk and find that it is likely. Thats the difference.

Some times you go for someones cards and get poor dice. you hope the dice will turn around and continue to press the attack. That isn't suicide. thats getting unlucky. CK's guy who said he was taking a risk didn't calculate the troop cost and thats why it was suicide.

What newbies do when they know they can't win so they just attack with everything they have is called suicide. when a advanced player catches a bad break when going for someone else's cards is called getting screwed. there is a difference.

I hope this explains the difference between CK's game and the one with you and FP.

Oh, ok, I get that, but really what I meant was that FP's attack was pretty hopeless anyway, (less than a 30% chance of sucess I'd say) so to some it would be considered suicide, it brought about his destruction a turn sooner, but in reality it was his most viable strategy, due to the odds stacked against him.

Suiciding for no reason is stupid yes, if we're only gonna call that sort of thing suicide, then players should be careful about what they call suicide as they may just not understand the strategy involved.

Suicide rounds are perfectly legitimate.

Alright, quit analyzing my suicidal style of play.

Seriously, in that particular game I had no choice. lusi had a fat 37 sitting adjacent to my objective and would have taken it anyway ... sometimes you are just left to fall on your sword and hope you miss.

Personally I think suicides are fun! If I've definitely lost a game, I attack everything closest to me and hope the other guy gets the worst dice ever. If he doesn't, then I'm out that bit more quickly.

In terms of using it as a strategy, go for it by all means. Assassin games seem extremely succeptible to this. Everyone notices that one guy is going to win so everyone attacks like crazy at their target. (although I do realise this is a different sort of suicide but it is still fun)

i dont like to do it but i have did it before. if there is like 3 players left and i know im not gonna win ive tried to make sure the higher ranked player wins so i lose less points

last ditch efforts are often the only chance people see, you have to consider that different people see there situation different ways and you telling him to stop attacking him sounds very self preservative

i have been a victim of the suicide tactic at least three times in my last few games. Twice the game was mine if the other player would have stood their ground and twice they did attacks that did nothing more then give the game to a player that clearly did not deserve the win.....the other time it was clearly a tactic by the player to take out an opponent and cash in...the dice turned on them...bad luck ...it happens..

1 more player got a neg and is on my ignore list as a result , the other one i left a neutral comment stating that what they did effected the game out come...as far as the 3rd player goes well they had bad luck , so I took it for what it was a potential game winning tactic that went bad.


So expect unfair tactics it happens,,, thats why feedback and ignore lists exist .

CHEERS !!!!!!!!!

The one thing nobody has mentioned yet is retribution. We are all human ( well most of us ) if you know you are dead in the water and someone has been busting your balls every round, you throw everything you have at them and think suck on that smartass. Ok you lose, you would have done anyway but at least you lose with a smile on your face.

Right. If someone's been playing stupidly and attacking you when he shouldn't have been, causing you to lose, it's entirely justifiable to screw him out of the game in return.

richardgarr wrote:1 more player got a neg and is on my ignore list as a result , the other one i left a neutral comment stating that what they did effected the game out come...as far as the 3rd player goes well they had bad luck , so I took it for what it was a potential game winning tactic that went bad.

In my opinion, you should not leave negative feedbacks for the subject's style of playing (for example, playing boringly or stupid) since it will always be possible to debate about it. Instead, you can leave negative feedback for how he behaves outside the game (rude in game chat, deadbeats without explanation and so on).

Suicide attacks belong to the former group. One explanation for that is that you can never tell if it is the subject's best attempt to stay alive.

That's really cheap.

Suiciding (really suiciding) only pisses other players off and can get you on their ignore lists. If you really want to get out of the game, attack everyone equally or something. But what's the point of screwing one other person over?

It happened to me in a game recently, three players left, a major, a private and me, it was pretty even, but guess who goes "I have no chance of winning this" and attacks me all out. He was sitting there with 40+ armies fearing one of the others (we had 40-50 armies) would take him out in a no cards game on the Ancient Greece map. I tried to explain that it wouldn't have been economical for either of us to do so, but I'm not sure whether I got my point across.


In 150052, by contrast, Heimdall gave an early warning and attacked everyone when he had to get out of the game due to him quitting CC. That's fine, everyone's hurt equally and noone gets an advantage over the others, not from neutral armies standing around and blocking off choke-points either, as might happen when a player deadbeats.

ConquererKing wrote:I was in a rt game today and I thought for sure I had the game under control - I had the most armies (50) and 4 cards with a set. It was me and 2 other players still in, and I thought I was in a very good position to win in a few rounds.

The player after me cashes a set for 25 and deploys all his armies on a country, to make 49 armies on that country, and then proceeds to try to wipe me out when I was spread out over about 26 countries and had as many or more than him. I kept saying to stop, because I knew unless his dice were exceptional he wouldn't make it but he kept on, saying it was his only chance to stay in the game. I thought he would have still had a chance if he didn't go on this crazy suicide, but he took me down to about 15 armies before stopping and the third player still alive easily took me out and won the game.

Of course I got angry, but all he would reply was about how he had to take the risk or else he would have lost. He lost anyway but he lost it for me too. I don't think this is a very good way to end a game that had been very enjoyable up to that point.

1 word bro NOOBIES

GrazingCattle wrote:Suicide is never a "viable strategy". (you even said it failed). Sometimes we over extend ourselves in trying to take a esc game, but that isn't suiciding if you have calculated the risk and find that it is likely. Thats the difference.

Some times you go for someones cards and get poor dice. you hope the dice will turn around and continue to press the attack. That isn't suicide. thats getting unlucky. CK's guy who said he was taking a risk didn't calculate the troop cost and thats why it was suicide.

What newbies do when they know they can't win so they just attack with everything they have is called suicide. when a advanced player catches a bad break when going for someone else's cards is called getting screwed. there is a difference.

I hope this explains the difference between CK's game and the one with you and FP.

Agreed. It's like some people can't perform simple math. You cash in a set of 10, add it to your 10 and you have 20 armies. You then try to take out Player B who has 30 armies spread out on 22 countries. Even if they win every single roll, they don't have enough armies to take you out.

Suicide players are sore losers who deserve negative feedback each and every time they do it.

Call it the "Jilted Minor" rule. More games are won or lost based on the actions of players who had no clear chance to win than were won or lost based on the tactics of the eventual winner.

When it comes down to it, you have to judge the personality of the player your in conflict with. Some are thrashers who will strike out at whomever pissed them off last. Some are tunnel vision players who pick one thing to do and bang their head against the wall until the game is over. Some like to play policeman, and some are smeagols who will guard their little corner of the board and never venture out. And every now and then you run with players who actually take a pragmatic approach.