Conquer Club

im new at this game and im truly enjoying it. i have read some of the strategy of this game and i have encounter aboout "making alliances".

my question; how does one make alliances? does one just ask another player if he/she wants to be an ally or the alliance just occur by "accident" (during play one observe that we have a common enemy or needs). is it legal to discuss this matters in play?

gracias

as long as you ask in the public chat then it should be okay. If you pm them then you will have a "secret alliance" which is against the rules.

If possible, only make alliances for a few turns like "Red, I won't break your bonus for 3 turns if you do the same." And don't make alliances in games with 4 or less players, it's just asinine.

Alliances can very easily lead to ruined games and negative feedback if done "improperly." Most people don't like them.

Alliances usually end off with people getting really pissed off at one another. I designed a map that promotes temporary alliances with not too much potential for people getting mad. Of course, no one seems too interested in it, but I think it's cool...

Ha, my favorite topic. I think aliances are a core part of the game, especially on certain conditions/maps/game options.

Better call them "truces", or "agreements" though; people don't like the word alliance as it implies ganging up on someone.

Now, first HUGE problem is that not all players even look at the chat. They do themselves a great disservice with this. LOOK AT THE CHAT, it SAVES LIVES!

Typically, agreements come into play the most in conditions where owning continents matters. So you'd find them less in Escalating games, and more in no-cards games. In some formats they'd be completely silly, like Assassin. And in some cases they're almost implied: like in a 3 player situation with 1 playing the dominating force, it just simply doesn't make sense for two weaker players to weaken each other even further. In this case you need not even talk about "this big Alliance", merely stating something like "Ok Blue I'm going to leave you alone for a while because if we keep banging on each other then this will all be over in a couple turns and Red will walk the board.."

I greatly prefer wording it in that way in a positive 'matter of fact' kind of statement, often citing a quick and completely obvious analysis of what's going on. I prefer this to an 'asking' format like "Blue, can we do an alliance against Red?" I think that sounds bad, and is not very specific.

Personally I also like people who USE the chat, even if 'just' for chat. I don't like players who are quiet all the time and then suddenly announce: "Red, 3 turn truce in North Africa/Brazil?".

Then, there's a lot MORE than just truces, often if you just ask, people will MOVE out of your way! Like:

"Blue, I how about defening S. America from Brazil and not North Africa.. My only hope in this game is getting Africa so I'm gonna go for it next turn.. I'd like to do it without wasting your and my armies unnecessarily and killing both our chances.. It's your call of course."

Or, on the Europe map, something like "Pink, I can see you fancy Scandinavia and you're welcome to it, don't put any guys in Denmark and I'll move out of the whole area next turn." (this is especially useful in Escalating games where some fairly newbie people still desperately go for continents, as if a 3 or 4 army bonus matters in the slightest when 15-20 army bonuses are flying around by turn 7 or so. )

Alliances are for people who need more friends. There are obvious times when you should not be attacking each other but they should remain unspoken and never formalized. Alliances are lame.

There's nothing wrong with aliances as long as there done on the up and up. ask for it in the chat, not in a private pm, don't assume there going to last for ever, make sure there is a designated time limit and that everyone understands how long that will be for. As for some players saying there a no go in 3-4 player games, that's assinine in my opinion, the boards are set up with a luck of the dice on placement, some players start out with the best position, so gee, i'm sorry if that power doesn't like me talking to another weaker opponent about working together for a round or two until things are evened out more. That's partly what the chat box is for, if there not willing to use it then that's there loss. I've used alliances in many of my games and any one that looks at my feedback can tell, there's no NEGATIVE ones.....

PD

peanutsdad wrote:There's nothing wrong with aliances as long as there done on the up and up. ask for it in the chat, not in a private pm, don't assume there going to last for ever, make sure there is a designated time limit and that everyone understands how long that will be for. As for some players saying there a no go in 3-4 player games, that's assinine in my opinion, the boards are set up with a luck of the dice on placement, some players start out with the best position, so gee, i'm sorry if that power doesn't like me talking to another weaker opponent about working together for a round or two until things are evened out more. That's partly what the chat box is for, if there not willing to use it then that's there loss. I've used alliances in many of my games and any one that looks at my feedback can tell, there's no NEGATIVE ones.....

PD

Some people just don't understand that bit. . . I prematurely ended an alliance or two (off of CC, but still in RISK) and now have my friend who I was playing against that time giving out a waring at the beginning of a game to the other players that I'm untrustworthy and that making an alliance of any sort is the worst possible thing that could happen.

The Moral is: If you make an agreement or alliance, try to keep it or just not play with the other person again

your absolutely right, if you don't follow it completely and everyone doesn't understand it from the beginning it can lead to trouble and lost friendships. sorry about you and your friend you untrustworthy cheat you.....hehehhee just kiddin....


PD

or don't make an alliance

EmperorOfDaNorth wrote:In this case you need not even talk about "this big Alliance", merely stating something like "Ok Blue I'm going to leave you alone for a while because if we keep banging on each other then this will all be over in a couple turns and Red will walk the board.."

I greatly prefer wording it in that way in a positive 'matter of fact' kind of statement, often citing a quick and completely obvious analysis of what's going on. I prefer this to an 'asking' format like "Blue, can we do an alliance against Red?" I think that sounds bad, and is not very specific.

This what I call a clever answer. That's exactly what's all about. Alliances are just another strategy that you have in your toolbox. You need to use them wisely. You can't dismiss a strategy because these are tools that you can use depending on circumstances.

Like any other strategy, you need to know how to correctly execute them. In CC Risk, it all comes down to the couple of sentences you type in the chat room. There are no eye contact, body language, sigh or anything. Just pure text. With that you want to pass your message without creating a negative effect. To make it more challenging, not all players are native English speaker, so it gets even worst.

This is why many players, having tried the diplomacy and chat get frustrated when it backfires at them. It could simply be because they haven't done it properly or because, like any other strategy, it failed in that game. It doesn't mean alliances are bad, it means you need to structure your sentences better next time.

There is a whole lot of human knowledge behind this, so the effort is certainly not waist full. You get to learn a lot in the process.