Conquer Club

Of course piling all of your troops onto one territory is a valid tactic, and there are a few reason you may do it. One less honorable tactic is for a suicide into a player.

What are your opinions?

Please refer to Game 612338

just because hes suiciding on you, you have to cry about it?

If it were anyone else that he were attacking you wouldnt care. Get over it.

I suggest leaving the appropriate feedback for the user to let others know of his/her style of play. Also consider adding them to your ignore list!


--Andy

Hey Twinfists, I like the signature...not what i expected at all. TCO

It's war. Suicide, and suicide attacks have been a part of military strategy since the first armies on earth. Plan for it, and counter it, don't whine about it.
Kamakazies, human waves, "Over the top boys!"

Not that I'd recommend it......loosing sucks.

Johnny Rockets.

( No relation to whats his face...)

AndyDufresne wrote:I suggest leaving the appropriate feedback for the user to let others know of his/her style of play. Also consider adding them to your ignore list!


--Andy

I got retaliatory feedback for doing that.

I've suicided once.

I only had 1 territorie on antarctic (world 2.1)

So I built up my forces and attacked the strongest player with them, to even the game a bit.

so I was atleast a bit usefull.
The player understood and even had a feeling that it was going to happen some time soon.

It's nothing personal. It's just to make a difference in a game, contrary to just wait untill someone finds the time to finish you off.

Playing to win is the only valid strategy. Any other type deserves negative feedback

Thanks all for your input.

Here I came to talk you out of it and you were talking about the game and not real life.

I don't think there is anything wrong in going for that one last nothing to lose suicide attack. In Game 646115 I lost all my territories except Utrecht. I piled all my troops on Utrecht and attacked duday53 and conquered Oost-Netherland and made inroads into Noord Netherland. By doing this I am in a slightly more better position that I was. Anyway lets see how the game develops.

negative feedback.... ignore list

and stop crying about it

shit happens!

Wait, what? Why? What's wrong with this tactic? Why would you leave them negative feedback?

I've often won 'suiciding'
on certain maps.

Just incase you are wondering what happened next, i took my turn, deployed all my troops next to his 'suicide army', clicked auto-attack and we came out with 2 and 4 armies each.

So i was a little lucky with the dice.

I have only been suicided on once, and he had severe bad luck, serves him right!

f*ck that shit...

I'll suicide on anybodies ass who tries to drag the game out or when people refuse to attack each other. If people are actually playing and the game doesn't look like it will last over 50 rounds then I'll play it straight up otherwise expect my ass to suicide on somebody unless my odds of winning look good. You can't expect somebody who has no hopes of winning to just sit around and wait for you to pick them apart...

I just don't see the point of playing a 50+ round game because people would rather turn RISK into Sim City. For some reason you tend to see a lot of this with the higher ranks. Why? I have no idea maybe they're scared to lose or don't have enough balls to make RISKy moves for the win. For me there is nothing worse than seeing a bunch of people basically handing over bonuses to other players because they're scared to attack each other. Playing with lower ranked players usually makes for a better,faster and funner game as far as flat rate goes.

Molacole wrote:I'll suicide on anybodies ass who tries to drag the game out or when people refuse to attack each other. If people are actually playing and the game doesn't look like it will last over 50 rounds then I'll play it straight up otherwise expect my ass to suicide on somebody unless my odds of winning look good. You can't expect somebody who has no hopes of winning to just sit around and wait for you to pick them apart...

I've found the best time to move is right when it gets to the 40s in a build up game. For some reason I seem to always do well in 40vs40 roles if I'm attacking. I'm sure there is a statistical explanation but I don't care about that crap, as long as I know 40vs40 equals attacker wins.

"suiciding" on somebody is often a valid tactic

If the other player does not want to win
if a player continually suicides for no reason then yeah leave neg feedback and it will get picked up on.

If the other player is still trying to win
the occasional suicide or the threat of suicude (to convince a player to act how you want them to) is a vaible tactic which i think should be commended with positive feedback

Rocketry

I'm getting really confused with what some people are saying here. Maybe your definition of suicide is different to mine.

How is throwing a game a viable tactic?

Coleman wrote:Here I came to talk you out of it and you were talking about the game and not real life.

Here I came to say "Jump, Jump"

I was much disappointed.

TipTop wrote:I'm getting really confused with what some people are saying here. Maybe your definition of suicide is different to mine.

How is throwing a game a viable tactic?

it's not "throwing a game" ...

Some times you have to look at the big picture and be a realist about it. If I'm getting 9 guys per turn player 2 is getting 6 and you are getting 3 then the longer the game goes the less chance of winning you have.

This is when you start to get picked apart and or boxed into a corner where you're trapped or basically a non factor in the game.

The worste thing you can ever do is lose your threatening presence in a game. Once you do that you become a non factor and will slowly get picked apart. This is when a suicide is a viable strategy.

Here is an example of a recent suicide of mine. One player was getting around 12 troops per go while he was letting another player keep a bonus of 14. Both of these guys had breachable borders, but nobody had the sack to attack. The only thing that happens here is the weaker players get boxed in while the larger players pick them apart. I massed my troops, gave a warning to a player telling him to start challenging other players or I was going to hand him his ass. He tried to call my bluff and it didn't work. I took away his bonus and took complete control of the board for that round. Next time I play him or anyone in that game I bet they will think twice about playing sim city while I'm around. Basically the game is in round 22 and looks the same as when I left except for the person I suicided on lost his offensive presence and is constantly on the defensive. He's getting picked apart like he was trying to pick me apart. 2 people on top and 3 people slowly getting picked apart...

This is a game of war and if somebody ruins your chances to win you have absolutely every right to ruin their game in return. So if somebody broke up your borders and took over your continent and you find yourself looking like a 3rd wheel just hanging around waiting ot get eliminated for your cards then you either let them control your destiny/fate or you say f*ck it and get some well deserved pay-back! Or you could play like a bitch and attack the lowest ranked player so you lose less points.

It's all about your presence and playstyle and how you can manipulate people into doing what you want or paying the consequences if they don't. Either you sit back and let people control the pace of the game or you take control of the pace at all costs. If I'm getting picked apart I'm going to go for the person who is in the best shape to be attacking somebody and refuses while just stacking troops on their borders or the person who is noticably picking me apart while I have no real opportunities to gain any type of ground...

The reason I play like this is because those are the people who ruin the balance of the game and drag it out for 50+ rounds when there is no good reason why 6 people should be playing on the same board for that long. If that happens then it's because 1 or more players is handing over bonuses and doesn't understand how to keep the game balanced...

Molacole wrote:f*ck that shit...

I'll suicide on anybodies ass who tries to drag the game out or when people refuse to attack each other. If people are actually playing and the game doesn't look like it will last over 50 rounds then I'll play it straight up otherwise expect my ass to suicide on somebody unless my odds of winning look good. You can't expect somebody who has no hopes of winning to just sit around and wait for you to pick them apart...

I just don't see the point of playing a 50+ round game because people would rather turn RISK into Sim City. For some reason you tend to see a lot of this with the higher ranks. Why? I have no idea maybe they're scared to lose or don't have enough balls to make RISKy moves for the win. For me there is nothing worse than seeing a bunch of people basically handing over bonuses to other players because they're scared to attack each other. Playing with lower ranked players usually makes for a better,faster and funner game as far as flat rate goes.

LMAO what you mean like this game

http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=553841