Conquer Club

It's illegal to make secret alliances. Duh.

My question is, what does everyone think of the scenario where player A sends a PM to player B proposing an alliance. Player B accepts, and then one of the two players posts in the chat announcing the alliance.

The strategic benefits of this are obvious - if there is a target of the alliance, he/she doesn't get mad at player A before player B even responds, thus saving player A a lot of embarrassment if player B rejects the alliance. However, this can also be seen as plotting in secret, or making a secret alliance and then revealing it to the other players.

I'm still making up my mind on this matter. I'd love to hear other player's responses (and maybe a moderator clarification on whether this is actually against the rules or not).

- jecko

I think everything must be said in chat. Strategies and everything must all be in chat!

Risktaker17 wrote:I think everything must be said in chat. Strategies and everything must all be in chat!

Nope. The details of the alliance may be kept in secret as long as the fact that there is an alliance actually going on is made public.

I'd disagree and think that you only need to announce the final verdict in chat....

..Yeah right, like I read the first post before voting!


I think you first have to propose a truce in the game chat, and then discussing the details in PM's. That's ok.

theres no "think" it is stated in the rules that secret alliances are illegal and as such you cant make them through PM and what not, it must be in the game chat for all to see and it must be in a language that all can understand as well.

im not sure but i think hecter is rght when he says details can be secret but the fact that there is an alliance must be public

yeah the fact that the alliance exists can be put into game chat right after it is confirmed through PMs'...

Well, if you do this and then mention it in game chat right after your not gonna be banned and you prolly won't even get a neg. mostly cuz no one will ever know....

The only reason I'd see that there is to do this is if another player might go on a rampage just attacking you if you mention it in game chat, even if the alliance is turned down....

Just my thoughts (quoting my bro)

how 'bout I just pm lackattack and see what his final verdict is! yes I will!

Top Dog wrote:how 'bout I just pm lackattack and see what his final verdict is! yes I will!

Don't Lack is fucking busy enough without people pming him stupid questions that would get answered if you just wait a little while longer for one of his lackey's (pun not intended) to come around and answer for him.

Not cool! In the open. I guess the good thing is I DON'T think it has happend in a game i've been in. But who really knows. I know if I got a PM asking for one, I would bust him in chat.

I've been in a game where a 3 way union was formed via PM when it was down to 5 players. It was a very long match and this action had a big impact on the direction and outcome of the game. It was small satisfaction when the player who initiated the secret alliance was turned on by his droogies, lost his advantage and eliminated. These devious schemes suck big time for everyone else in the game.

If you want to create an alliance? Put it in the game chat. If you are concerned that the player in question may not see it, send them a PM and ask them to read the game chat. Anything else is not only against the rules but against the spirit of a good competitive game.

I think that such PM-s mustn't be used at all.
Not only that alliances have to be public, but ENTIRELY public. That means that every detail of the agreement should be public. More than that - every idea, every analysis, every suggestion should be public and available to "foes" in the same moment (and in the same form) as it is available to "friends". I understand that sharing secrecies offers strategical/tactical benefit - but we have team games for that purpose.
That's my personal opinion, though. I don't know what CC's policy says about that issue.

P.S. One example:
I am just going to lose one game because cyan missed a move (he should break yellow's bonus). I felt an impulse to send him a PM - "Hey man, you have to play your move or the game is as good as over!", but I missed to do so. He probably slept as a dead horse, but even if I new that my PM would successfully alert him - I still wouldn't send it. I think that I just have no right to send game related PM to my actual opponent.

Technically it's not forbidden to ask for an alliance by pm, it's also not forbidden to form an alliance and discuss the details by pm. As long as you let the others know when it has been formed. However, the other players will certainly be somewhat irritated if out of the blue someone post something along the lines of "me and green have an alliance" in the gamechat.
Some people will give negative feedback if they know that discussions are going on behind the scenes. I once got a negative because I asked an other player (in the gamechat) if he wanted to use pms to discuss the exact terms of the truce we had already agreed to in the gamechat. The guy who left it felt that that would constitute a secret alliance, he removed within 2 days though once we'd discussed it.

So to be on the safe side, ask and discuss any alliances in the chat.

Alliances suck full stop..Anyone forms an alliance in my game they go straight on my ignore list.A truce is another matter..This annouces what is already obvious in most cases.None of the above go thru PM's.

I always pm the proposed alliance member, not to offer the alliance, but to tell them I am posting on the game board and would ask that they read it.

I think this is acceptable. No private deals are made, only the heads up.

alliances must be announced in game chat first/discussed/proposed etc.
once this is done and everyone is aware. u then can talk in pms about tactica and strat. i read this somewhere when wick posted it a while ago

lord voldemort wrote:alliances must be announced in game chat first/discussed/proposed etc.
once this is done and everyone is aware. u then can talk in pms about tactica and strat. i read this somewhere when wick posted it a while ago

That would be an interesting post to read.

Let me play devils advocate.

This is a strategic war game simulation.

Fog of War was introduced to give more realism to strategic conditions.

Secrete alliances have always been a part of war and peace time. There are pros and cons to every side of this argument. I have PMd folks to state my case for a cease fire, twice so far. Not to gang up on the other player but to stop the bleeding while the other party sits backs and waits for us to kill ourselves.

one guy didnt respond...the other guy did and offered a 3 turn cease fire.

There is a difference between an alliance and a cease fire.

If you like fog of war you should have no qualms about alliances. Just my opinion of course.

Iron Butterfly wrote:Let me play devils advocate.

This is a strategic war game simulation.

Fog of War was introduced to give more realism to strategic conditions.

Secrete alliances have always been a part of war and peace time. There are pros and cons to every side of this argument. I have PMd folks to state my case for a cease fire, twice so far. Not to gang up on the other player but to stop the bleeding while the other party sits backs and waits for us to kill ourselves.

one guy didnt respond...the other guy did and offered a 3 turn cease fire.

There is a difference between an alliance and a cease fire.

If you like fog of war you should have no qualms about alliances. Just my opinion of course.

if there is no difference than why not make it public. Imo people like you are why that rule exists. Would you consider it fair if two players had a secret cease fire that you didn't know about?

You want a 3 round cease fire? Put it in the game chat.