Conquer Club

In a recent game (on world 2.1) I attacked a player in such a way effectively ensuring that he could not conceivably win the game. This attack did not however ensure my victory. So here is the question; if you were attacked in a similar fashion what would you do?

i would leave the computer and go break something, smash something, or just yell really loud, then comeback and think strategically about my next move. while i understand the need for revenge and i fidn that if u think clearly enough, somtimes ur able to comeback from a game. sadly this has not happened yet, but in my doing so, and not taking revenge on the last person to screw me over (unless he did a dirty underhand sneak attack on me or broke a NAP or alliance without notification beforehand) ur able to make friends better that way and besides, sometimes u just have to look at it from their perspective. it may be that the move they did on u was the most strategically good move and if it was u, u knwo u would have done the same thing.

andreweberman wrote:In a recent game (on world 2.1) I attacked a player in such a way effectively ensuring that he could not conceivably win the game. This attack did not however ensure my victory. So here is the question; if you were attacked in a similar fashion what would you do?

Before I can answer this - why did you pull that move?

I'm actually pretty level headed about this sort of thing and wont just attack a guy because he did me if there's a better move to be made.

However, in a few games, I've found a player to fixate on attacking me despite the fact that I can't see any way that it has gained any significant advantage (aside from the fact that there's one less person (me) who can now win the game, which is not enough, IMO if they've also fallen behind the board at large).

It hasn't happened often, but I recall two games where a player has devoted his entire deployment to cutting into me despite the fact that I was by no means the decided leader in the game. After the first turn, I'd regroup, after the second (a move that made no sense at all because if one could have considered me a front runner before the first attack, you certainly couldn't consider me one after it), I snapped. Of course, by now, I was in last place and he was pretty beaten up and middle of the pack at best.

In that case, I announce the fact that they're an idiot and have cost me a chance at the game for seemingly no good reason and that I will now devote all my efforts to seeing them go down with me. Then I do just that.

First and formost, I would place that person on my ignore list.
Second I would then go and find a way to try to win regardless of their lack of tactical knowledge and the point of the game.

Pointlessly attacking someone else to prevent them from winning is not the object of this game. Attacking someone, and thus ensuring you will not likely win is not the point of this game. The only point of this game is to win. To win you must control ALL the countries. To try to do otherwise in a game is a violation of the basic concept of the game.

I wouldn't fret. It's just a game after all. I would just continue playing, trying to regain my position or just doing something unexpected.

All your moves should be based on rational and logical thinking. You should always be trying to make the move which gives you the best chance of victory regardless of what others do.

If you attack purely out of revenge then your thinking is driven by emotion which leads to irrational and illogical play. Sometimes there is a logical way out of a desperate situation. Remember you can still use clever diplomacy as a weapon.

You could try reasoning with the offending player using calming reassuring language to try and get him to calm down and focus on others, or you may even see a possibility to form an alliance with another player as sometimes it can be in another players best interests to keep you alive.

If none of these options are open to you then it is best to just write the game off as a loss. These things happen. There are players out there that play on emotion and take attacks in the game as attacks on them personally. Often it will be against someone else and you will benefit from it.

And remember you can always give them negative feedback as a warning to others and stick them on your ignore list so you never have to put up with there play again.

I personally take solace from the fact I never have to play this guy again while he is burdened with his own irrational play in every game he plays.

well i had to choose between revenge and position becouse its both, its getting my position back with revenge

In my opinion, if no one yet still has complete control of the game, it is still anyone's game to win regardless of how weak you may be percieved at the moment. I say oh well shit happens and move on to try to rebuild and have won a surprising number of games this way (and have seen a number of opponents do the same). I believe there are a number of my feedbacks stating this backing up my claim here.

I would probably try to find a corner to hide in somewhere, hope not to to anyone and just play a build game. Also, I would hope to God it was escalating cards (I've found that anything is possible with them) and I would just hope that the other players kill each other without any of them taking complete control. Hopefully, I could eventually come in and clear up.

However, if someone had attacked me in such a way and had been an absolute asshole in game chat, or broken a truce or anything, I think I would just suicide on him (and then take the piss in gamechat).

this is A funny Game.I have at times purposely Attacked some one to make them weaker than me . Players are like sharks, The best go in and see who is the weakest and attack. this has let me build up to come back and win more times then i can count. As long as you do not make them so weak they are out on the next move of any player.

I have been told by players That I make stupid moves or that I am targeting them because of their points.

I always target the weakest player unless it is me then I pick the next weakest.

I am sure I have made a few Ignore lists and was told by 1 general for sure I am on his. But this is not a game of not attacking This is a game of both skill and chance.

Play Good Play Hard and only answer to yourself about your play you are the only one who knows why you do what you do

MikeFromLux wrote:

andreweberman wrote:In a recent game (on world 2.1) I attacked a player in such a way effectively ensuring that he could not conceivably win the game. This attack did not however ensure my victory. So here is the question; if you were attacked in a similar fashion what would you do?

Before I can answer this - why did you pull that move?

Tactically it seemed the most logical to me to try to ensure that I would eventually win the game. I can clarify more if you need but that is really the crux of it.

I would try and win one territory each turn to gain a card whilst keeping the majority of my armies in one place.

I would try to keep as many armies as possible and pretty much do anything to either get a new cont somwhere or just stay out of everyones way.


Although once in a 3 player game the other 2 players double teamed me when I was already having trouble breaking them.
The player who called for an all out 2 on 1 was the one who I screwed over relentlessly,

Unfortunately it helped the other guy a lot and he won the game.

Try to claw my way back, but when I'm down to my last couple of turns I just try and attack the lowest rank.

I agree with jako, you can always make a comeback. I've seen some spectacular comebacks here on CC, from 1 army on one country to holding South England and Land's End 3 or 4 rounds later on the British Isles Map is the most memorable so far. He didn't win the game, but he was really close. And that was flat rate for those who are interested.

try to make sure the person with the highest score wins

firth4eva wrote:try to make sure the person with the highest score wins

Would you mind sharing your logic behind that? I'm not being sarcastic at all, I'm really interested to understand why that seems like a good approach from your perspective.

Brownie points in case you meet them again in another game?
Helping someone get higher ranks?

Chalupacabra wrote:

firth4eva wrote:try to make sure the person with the highest score wins

Would you mind sharing your logic behind that? I'm not being sarcastic at all, I'm really interested to understand why that seems like a good approach from your perspective.

Brownie points in case you meet them again in another game?
Helping someone get higher ranks?

You lose less points losing to a major than a cook.

The1exile wrote:You lose less points losing to a major than a cook.

Aaah, I didn't realize that. Thanks.

i think its very sad to suicide on the lowest rank, just because you are going to lose does not warrant hitting the lowest ranked player to save urself some points. how would u have felt if people had done that wen u were a private? it seriously stops u progressing and is a practice only people who put too much inportance on points will use.

I think hitting the low ranked player is a disgusting way to play. Your ruining the game for someone just to save yourself a few points!

Imagine what it would be like if everyone played this way. All FFA games would be decided not by skillful play but by who suicided on who. FFA games would become a farce!

alex_white101 wrote:i think its very sad to suicide on the lowest rank, just because you are going to lose does not warrant hitting the lowest ranked player to save urself some points. how would u have felt if people had done that wen u were a private? it seriously stops u progressing and is a practice only people who put too much inportance on points will use.

It happened when I was in the lower ranks and I was pissed off.
It happens to me and I can do it too now that I'm in the middle ranks.
I will do it when I am in the high ranks.

It's just part of the game. I got over it, got a higher rank and now I can do it to others. In the greater scheme of things nobody is really hurt by this tactic.

Your wrong Chewyman. If this became common practice then ALL FFA games would become nothing more than a suicide fest with the winner being decided by who suicided on who.

We all would get hurt by this!

i hate this tactic, think it is a very very low thing to doi, thats wat im loving about these 2 player games, theres no way someone can be a sore loser and ruin ur game!