Conquer Club

I have played many 3 player games and I always come out on top...at first...until the two knuckle-heads decide that they should team up against me! I know that this is unsportsmanlike and stuff and personally think that this should be a rule...NO 3 player game ALLIANCES! grr...sorry for my rant and rave, but you all know what I mean...i hope.

Yeah, it always happens to whoever is winning at the start. I've recently adjusted my tactics for this very reason. I try and stay low and build up my forces in the hopes that the other two get a continent each and go nuts on each other, leaving me to take the scraps. It's a risk because if you keep holding back you'll end up too weak to do anything.

It's still a theory though, I'm trying it for the first time so we'll see how it goes.

I agree, im in a game at the moment, i was doing really well, and then got screwed over by 2 people teaming up against me. i guess it is part of the game, but i think its a bit harsh... you think it shouls be a 'rule 3'?? im not gonnna whine, but it dosent help your game...

116Soldier wrote:I have played many 3 player games and I always come out on top...at first...until the two knuckle-heads decide that they should team up against me! I know that this is unsportsmanlike and stuff and personally think that this should be a rule...NO 3 player game ALLIANCES! grr...sorry for my rant and rave, but you all know what I mean...i hope.

get over it

chewyman wrote:Yeah, it always happens to whoever is winning at the start. I've recently adjusted my tactics for this very reason. I try and stay low and build up my forces in the hopes that the other two get a continent each and go nuts on each other, leaving me to take the scraps. It's a risk because if you keep holding back you'll end up too weak to do anything.

It's still a theory though, I'm trying it for the first time so we'll see how it goes.

Yes - that is generally the best plan. Oceania can be really good in 3 - player if you want to win. Just sit on Siam and build up armies. Most players don't want to go near you so the other 2 usually slaughter themselves in the centre of the map. I usually try to keep it even between them so that, as I grow in power, they both grow weaker. When you've got enough armies, either eliminate one of them or try to take Asia. Usually, it's too late for them to do anything about it.

Of course, a really good 3-player game should go on for ages, with the strongest player always being bashed down by the other 2 until it swings in someone else's favour. However, someone generally eventually attacks the leader too much and leaves the third player an easy victory.

Yes - there should never be any need for alliances in a 3 player game. Because any player who gets too strong should automatically be the target of the other 2.

solution - stop playing 3 player games

116Soldier wrote:I have played many 3 player games and I always come out on top...at first...until the two knuckle-heads decide that they should team up against me! I know that this is unsportsmanlike and stuff and personally think that this should be a rule...NO 3 player game ALLIANCES! grr...sorry for my rant and rave, but you all know what I mean...i hope.

this is one of many reasons why I play limited singles games.

tjees man, act normal. i play 70% 3 player games, and only somethimes i see people making alliances say about 1 of the 30 games i play. and then also poeple go always on the strongest, don't you do that too? get over it

steve monkey wrote:solution - stop playing 3 player games

mmm...that works until there are only three people left from a 4,5 or 6 player game.

whilst I've seen two players team up too often in a 3 player game, I've not seen the same tactic displayed very often when a 6 player game gets down to the final three.

116Soldier wrote:I have played many 3 player games and I always come out on top...at first...until the two knuckle-heads decide that they should team up against me! I know that this is unsportsmanlike and stuff and personally think that this should be a rule...NO 3 player game ALLIANCES! grr...sorry for my rant and rave, but you all know what I mean...i hope.

yeh i know exactly what you mean. but i still like 3 players.

116Soldier wrote:I always come out on top...at first...until the two knuckle-heads decide that they should team up against me!

You've already solved your own problem Just hide your strength and don't dominate the board too quickly!

Yes - there should never be any need for alliances in a 3 player game. Because any player who gets too strong should automatically be the target of the other 2.

I see people saying this kind of thing a lot. It's not necessarily true, though. Just because someone's in the "lead" (which is kind of subjective) at a given moment doesn't mean the best strategy is to attack that player.

Three player game alliances make perfect sense, because if either of the other two player want to win they have to team up, usually its not complete anihilation of the other guy, but it can be

chewyman wrote:Yeah, it always happens to whoever is winning at the start. I've recently adjusted my tactics for this very reason. I try and stay low and build up my forces in the hopes that the other two get a continent each and go nuts on each other, leaving me to take the scraps. It's a risk because if you keep holding back you'll end up too weak to do anything.

It's still a theory though, I'm trying it for the first time so we'll see how it goes.

this is the best strategy for 3 player games and i garentee you it will work just take over aussie or something and sit there slowly increase you card counts then maybe one of the noobs will take over europe or something and the guy that has both americas will attack him and weeken him so mich that you take control by eliminating green then eisely take out red with esc settings

116Soldier wrote:I have played many 3 player games and I always come out on top...at first...until the two knuckle-heads decide that they should team up against me! I know that this is unsportsmanlike and stuff and personally think that this should be a rule...NO 3 player game ALLIANCES! grr...sorry for my rant and rave, but you all know what I mean...i hope.

Would you prefer they let you dominate the game and win?


And...

Guilty_Biscuit wrote:Yes - there should never be any need for alliances in a 3 player game. Because any player who gets too strong should automatically be the target of the other 2.

is completely right.

Would you prefer they let you dominate the game and win?

Is that a serious question? I think the answer would be a pretty obvious yes if it was

Guilty_Biscuit wrote:Yes - there should never be any need for alliances in a 3 player game. Because any player who gets too strong should automatically be the target of the other 2.

Check out Game 336041 for a good example of this. The 3 of us have been going round and round attacking each other for about 40 rounds. I know I have the edge in armies, just not enough to launch a major assault without the 3rd player damaging me heavily in response to my getting "too Strong".

At least I've already gotten enough points from this game that I won't be negative when the game finishes (having taken out 2 of the 3 players so far).

Plus the dice seem to be a big factor that brings anyone trying a major assault down to earth.

Yeh - I've got a Senate game like that. It was 6-player and then it became 4. It went on for ages like that until 1 guy got fed up and suicided, leaving 3. It looks set to go on for ages this way too. The only solution is escalating cards