Conquer Club

With all due respect, I just don't believe in alliances of any kind and think that anyone who practices "diplomacy", is someone who can't win a game on their own. I know that alliances and "diplomacy" are a part of the game here at C Club, and I wouldn't suggest that diplomats are less than honorable, it's just that I can't stand them, and I make a solemn oath that anyone who practices "diplomacy" in any game that I"m in will be the immediate target of a "kamikazi" attack by me.

Either you know how to play, and can win games on your own, or you can't. Nothing personal, just my policy, having played the board game for 35 years, and played online for five.

Again, nothing personal, in fact, I think Nobunaga is a pretty cool guy, and a class competitor. Just a personal fetish on my part. Something to do with personal honor, and skill.

Scarus

Hmmm I think that any good strategy involve "alliances" of some sort. You can't win if you're fighting agaisnt the whole world. I don't think all out alliances are good, but you need to make some treaties accross boarders or you'll never make it on top. I do think people who honor those kind of treaties should be honored, theres so much temptation to break them sometimes .

... I'll keep that in mind, Scarus, considering...

... But I have to agree with the above. Fighting the whole world all at once is a tough proposition. Permanent alliances are a waste of time, but border treaties are great, as much because you cannot be sure the other will abide the agreement, as the fact they free up some useful armies.

... 35 years? Damn....

... forget I mentioned it...

Napoloean Bonaparte: "If you wish to be a success in the world,
promise everything, deliver nothing."

... Not the most "honorable diplomat", I think.

Alliances arent worth the keyboard theyre typed on.....luckily i aint seen one yet here altho i suspect one was happening in a recent game i was in where euro and africa maintained borders with one army on each country for a number of rounds, leaving respective players to plunder elsewhere and consequently spoiling the game......im with Scarus on this one and if i see an alliance, its a red mist kami for me.
Maybe it would be a good idea to list diplomacy as an option when starting a game so peeps know what they are in for before commencing.

supermarcol wrote:Hmmm I think that any good strategy involve "alliances" of some sort. You can't win if you're fighting agaisnt the whole world. I don't think all out alliances are good, but you need to make some treaties accross boarders or you'll never make it on top. .

I've won hundreds of games without having to rely upon anyone else. I also know that there are many other players on this site who are quite capable of winning a very high percentage of the time, again, without relying upon anyone else.

Scarus

Maybe, but I do think its way hard to fight on all front without calling a truce on a boarder. And in anyway, I think that this whole diplomacy thing adds another dimension to the game, specially offline games, where you try to influences others to do your bidding! Its just more fun to me, and makes the game deeper. As for all out alliances as I said, I think they're out of the question unless two very weak players decide to unite agaisnt a strong enemy, these alliances don't last very long usually. Its just part of the game as much as its part of war.

I think diplomacy is one of the best parts of Risk strategy, unfortunately it works better in real life for some reason. Possibly because you can adress the person directly, not hope they see chat and also negotiate in real time.

You guys are right. It is sometimes hard to win against the whole world, but I would not hesitate to wager that almost all of the top players on this site are not interested in, and are not involved in "diplomacy". I think this is a strategy that more challanged players seek to utilize to unable them to actually get a victory.

I understand that diplomacy is technically part of the game. I remember that Castle Risk actually had "diplomacy" cards, or something like that. Also, the riskII cd, which I have used to play online for years, has an "alliance" button, which you use to propose private treaties to slected players. However, it's widely believed that this is just not an honorable way to play. If everyone plays on their own, then everyone has the same chance. Like you said, it's you against the world. However, when players agree to border treaties and such, then that virtually eliminates any real chance of winning for the honest players.

I know that my way of thinking about this is shared by most of the online risk community. I've been playing RiskII in the MSN gamezone for several years and I know that you would become a total outcast if anyone thought that you were involved in any kind of alliances, even border treaties. That's one of the reasons that xiGAMES was formed. So honorable people would be able to associate together and you wouldn't have to waste your time in games that were unfairly stacked against you.

I know I'm rambling, but one last point. I know that on this site that lackattack has said that border treaties are legal but that they must be publically announced on the game chat. My experience here has been that that just hasn't been happening. Only once have I seen such a treaty annouced, yet I have run into this a couple of times where it's appears that people are communicating in realtime, outside the game chat. I don't know. This just seems like something that will be constantly abused. I'd rather just kami anybody that's obviously involved in "diplomacy", than continue to play in a game where I was being taken advantage of and didn't have a fair chance.

Thanks for listening to my rants.....lol

Scarus

lol scarus,,but i do agree with you 100%,,treaties,border alliance however you want to say it wouldnt be tolerated at the zone,but we aren't there so we have to adjust,,im with you i see an alliance i feel a kami comin on!

Hmm what's this, people are complaining about how war is waged >.> You have your position of attacking them but it is realistic for say, two people who only control part of two neighboring continents to call a truce until they're stabilized. I also find it easier to think of risk as a huge civil war, and I don't accept any truces in my games. Please don't demean others who aren't cheating but can't hold out on their own from bad dice rolls/gang-banging/bad starting placement.

well said areon, bring a little indifference to the table. to address the original post, btw nobody asked anything other than who is honarable, [b]joetalk has always held true to any "border truces" they we have made, but make note these were truces and not alliances. for those i play doubles.

Thanx Dixie. I'm trying to adjust....lol I'm sorry if it appears that I'm demeaning anyone. I guess I am though....lol I have great respect for Nobunaga and JoeTalk and both of these guys have been accepted into xiGAMES as honorable players. However, I still think that most of the top players would disdain any type of treaty, but anyone is welcome to do anything they want here as long as it's legal, and the Great Lack has given his blessing to this.

I guess my point is that I'm just an old fart that's set in his ways. I like to attack, attack, attack. I'd rather go down in flames than be bamboozled by some border collies.......there I did it again.....lol I guess I just have no Respect....

I don't know, I know that I just woudn't get much of a rush by winning with someone's help. Sure, sometimes things don't work out, and you lose. I say just lose and say "gg everyone" on your way out the door. Don't try to save your game by playing pattycake with your neighbor.

Sure this is war, and maybe I am off base by quibbling about "rules" and "honor", in war, but I rather go out in a blaze than win with the help of my little sister, or any of her friends. I mean how does this work in reality? Do I have to get in trouble in the game first? Or is it okay to just announce on the gamechat that you can't cut it on your own, and are looking for similarly handicapped individuals to work with.....lol

Scarus

I think anyone who can't engage in diplomacy is a bad risk player, or at least lacking the essential skills to be a great risk player. Sure some of the top people at this site probably don't engage in diplomacy, but that's a feature with most players in this site.

Once you reach a certain technical level at risk (ie. more or less playing the perfect game) then diplomacy is where it really counts.

I'd like to see it more on this site, but I dunno if we will. My main problem is that there have been a lack of suitable diplomatic allies in my games, ie. people don't use chat.

I must say that I have really enjoyed reading these posts....having also played for over 35 years (am I experienced or set in my ways, good or bad?) I think it is obvious that temporary "agreements" spoken or unspoken are a way of the world. I have enjoyed working with a few folks and look for them in any potential game to join - I dislike playing with a few folks and actively avoid them in the same circumstance. Personal gripe are to those that freely vent frustrations that the rest of us expect...petty and a waste of time lessening the experience for all. I better be careful as I have a link to my small biz that I believe in with all my heart!!!

Thanks to all and especially ol' Lack as I LOVE this site.....hope to see you all on the field.......

Now I gotta go work on getting the motor in my old Chevy replaced...the real world can be a bear!

Its funny that Appledumpling has mentioned me as an honorable player, I feel that i have just played a good fun ethical game, when there is an advantage to be had, take it! Having said that I would have to return the honorable comment about apple..... He and I have only two or three games, but I have found NO ONE that I would trust on this site other than him. It is kind of ironic, because in more than owwwwe i would say 25 of the 35 games ive finnished i have had others gang up on or treaty against me in less than the first 5 rounds!!!!!! (perhaps this is because I often become a major component fast) I am not a big fan of the hole truce or aliance theory, (as its often against me) however at my current rate of about %15 wins I will do what I feel is necassary to increase those odds, if it means striking a treaty ill do it, however I cant wait to get my kali downloaded to actually play as is on msn games!!!!!!!!! As for my games on this site I am not likely to suggest a truce, but be warnned if it means a win, than kill or be killed is my moto.

I'd agree that this has been a fun thread and I do appreciate everyone checking in with their views. I think this kind of give and take is the reason that we're active in these forums in the first place.

One thing I hope that you will always be able to expect from me is common courtesy, a "gg" before I get taken out, (or take you out), and a congrats to the winner. I try not to take the game too seriously. Once a game ends, there's always another one, and I've never been too concerned about rank.

I also try to actively promote the activity in the gamechat. Let's make friends, even if it's only anonymously. Isn't that really why we're here?

Scarus

Joe you can probably increase your chances of winning by laying back a little bit, or perhaps by changing the type of game you are playing, i.e. flat vs. escalating. I do much better in escalating games as I am a total card whore.....lol You also have to take it for granted that if you do jump out to a big advantage that's it's only natural that the other players will jump on you. It may not have anything to do with alliances, or truces, it may just be that each player will see that if they don't attack you they will have no chance to win the game themselves.

I always think of how the other players will percieve what I am doing. I don't want to look like tooooo big of a threat until I am ready to deliver the coup de grace.

Someone famous once said; "float like a butterfly, and sting like a bee" This was the same guy who later employed the "rope a dope" strategy. Letting his opponent wear himself out pummelling him in the ropes, then later coming alive in the late rounds. There's a lot more to strategy than just blazing full steam ahead.

Scarus

The game of risk here is quiet different from face to face. I would suggest that any good diplomat with OK strategy could waste many players with better statistical/strategy skills if they ignore politics in room full of people.

Scarus: I agree with you whole heartedly. Alliances really are not a part of the game RISK. I just joined on January 30. Have only been involved in 5 games (one still pending) and have won the first 4. This was not done with any alliances. I read the rules, although I have played since I was a kid. And nowhere does it mention the use of Alliances. The name of the game is world domination. Which makes me laugh at the people who have mentioned that it is hard to conquer the whole world. ISN'T THAT THE POINT OF THE GAME. So hats off to the people with enough pride to play the game the way it meant to be played. And boo hoo to the ones who are not good enough or smart enough to do it alone. For those people maybe they should play snakes and ladders on Candystand

I look forward to finding you and playing against you Scarus

Could you also tell me a little more about the msn risk

> For those people maybe they should play snakes and ladders on Candystand

You got a link to that?

Yeah.... I've sort of come around to Scarus' way of thinking.

Anybody else here ever play the game Diplomacy? That's a fun game.

Even though it is possible for some people to play risk without interacting with people, it is alot more interesting and fun when you're interacting with other people. The psedo politics is quite entertaining in itself. If you take away that aspect of the game, what you are left is a game of attrition and chance.