Can someone please define a suicide attack to me???

[risk master2000]

correct me if I am wrong but someone who suicides against you does so by attacking down to there last attackable man leaving just 1 on each of there territories right?


A suicided attack is not one where they have other stockpiles of armies and use one to attack and or eliminate a opponent while still having other spots that are stockpiled right ?


Or if I am wrong please correct me and tell me what you believe it to be

[owenshooter]

game number.... that is always helpful...-0

[MeDeFe]

Suiciding is when a person attacks one or sometimes several other players, with no chance of this attack winning the game. In most cases with all available armies. Like using 200 armies to go on a spree against someone who has 400, there's no chance of taking them all out, all that is accomplished is that the suicider has weakened himself to the point of extinction and often has his target weakened so far that a third stronger player can take them both out, either for cards to cash in in escalating, for points in terminator, or to win the whole game if it's standard.

[KoE_Sirius]

Suiciding is when a person attacks one or sometimes several other players, with no chance of this attack winning the game. In most cases with all available armies. Like using 200 armies to go on a spree against someone who has 400, there's no chance of taking them all out, all that is accomplished is that the suicider has weakened himself to the point of extinction and often has his target weakened so far that a third stronger player can take them both out, either for cards to cash in in escalating, for points in terminator, or to win the whole game if it's standard.

qft Mede...The suicide player is really emotional.What you need to do in the event of meeting a suicide player is to trick them into thinking you care...Offer flowers,chocolates or a continent etc.Then after the game has ended,swiftly open your interactive menu(found on the left of the CC page) and add them to your ignore list.

[jimboston]

Does anyone think that there are times when it is appropriate to suicide on another player?

I do... they are limited, but in my mind legitimate.

1) If you have an alliance with a player and he/she breaks it. I feel it's reasonable to suicide on that person... thus giving the game to the original victim of the supposed team-up.

2) If you see a player trying what I consider a dishonorable tactic... like the old "Missed Turns" strategy. Laying low to get a bulk of armies. I feel it's appropriate to suicide or otherwise "go after" that player.

Does anyone agree/disagree or see other times where it is valid???

(BTW... it seems like the missed turns trick/strategy is less common now after the rules change. I do however see it in games like World 2.1... when you have a lot fo players. Someone who has bad positioning early may skip the first couple turns... and then that serves the dual purpose of giving the player some direction and a bunch of armies all at once.)
(Sorry for off-subject post... don't know if it's worth it's own thread.)

Jim

[AAFitz]

a suicide attack would be someone attacking so hard, that there is no other possible out come of the game that a different player will win

there are many different situations they occur in, and decide many games

the threat of a suicide attack is present in every game. This is psychological warfare... its not as simple as attacking some territories, gaining position, and killing everyone else.. its doing so while not getting attacked... if you push someone too far, it can backfire.

An all out suicide attack is kind of pointless, it takes away all the fun of the game really. However, since CC is about many games, some players let it be known that they will attack to varying degrees of retribution as part of their strategy...

Avoiding them is one of the key aspects of the game

[Zemljanin]

The suicide player is really emotional.

Not necessarily. Four months ago, I desperately needed some free slots because of certain tournament. I've succeeded to find two honest, noble suicidal plans:

Game 1

I had significant power in Siam and could eliminate yellow in Ukraine and take his 5 cards. However, I'd spend more than gain; that clearly wasn't enough because blue was very strong.
So, instead of eliminating yellow, I attacked Alaska to break leader's bonus (which was actually necessary if I wanted to win). Next turn, yellow cached his set and eliminated me.
Blue won the game later, as he would anyway, so I ruined nothing. But I've got my so desired free slot.

Game 2
It was an early stage of no cards game and I was the only one without the continent. And, as I said, I desperately needed a free slot. So I made a "do or die" move - attacked Oceania with aproximately 17 vs 27 (I'd be eliminated next move).
Unfortunately, I had a great dice - not only I conquered Aussy, I kept 7 in Siam! Which was quit enough in that phase of game. I am actually still keeping Australia in that game, four months later...

I think that my two suicide tries are fully rational and honest.

Does anyone think that there are times when it is appropriate to suicide on another player?

I do... they are limited, but in my mind legitimate.

1) If you have an alliance with a player and he/she breaks it. I feel it's reasonable to suicide on that person... thus giving the game to the original victim of the supposed team-up.

2) If you see a player trying what I consider a dishonorable tactic... like the old "Missed Turns" strategy. Laying low to get a bulk of armies. I feel it's appropriate to suicide or otherwise "go after" that player.

Does anyone agree/disagree or see other times where it is valid???

1) I absolutely agree

2) I don't agree with suicide (you shouldn't make damage to yourself, but to him), but what you say is basically OK...

3) Third reason for suicide is if you REALLY need a free slot. You should just find an honest, acceptable way.

4) If you lead in a tournament group and there is a player who can reach you if he wins. You'll, normally, try to cripple him - to assure a qualification in next round.

[Twill]

There is a difference between a suicider and a king maker.

The suicide attack, in my mind is one where the person gives up or is just doing something plain stupid (a suicide attack can be on one country or all countries)

A king maker is someone who is making a calculated choice to give the game to another player. This is often done because on player is in a hopeless situation and to avoid losing extra points will give the game to the person with the higher score.


There is a fine line between the two, but a line there is.

Those are just my thoughts.
Twill

[Poisonflood]

Very simple in my cases:

someone has grown very strong. He will win. Either I am being eliminated defending some countries, or I attack him with all my armies dying a honourfull death.

[sully800]

The suicide player is really emotional.

Not necessarily. Four months ago, I desperately needed some free slots because of certain tournament. I've succeeded to find two honest, noble suicidal plans:

Game 1

I had significant power in Siam and could eliminate yellow in Ukraine and take his 5 cards. However, I'd spend more than gain; that clearly wasn't enough because blue was very strong.
So, instead of eliminating yellow, I attacked Alaska to break leader's bonus (which was actually necessary if I wanted to win). Next turn, yellow cached his set and eliminated me.
Blue won the game later, as he would anyway, so I ruined nothing. But I've got my so desired free slot.

Game 2
It was an early stage of no cards game and I was the only one without the continent. And, as I said, I desperately needed a free slot. So I made a "do or die" move - attacked Oceania with aproximately 17 vs 27 (I'd be eliminated next move).
Unfortunately, I had a great dice - not only I conquered Aussy, I kept 7 in Siam! Which was quit enough in that phase of game. I am actually still keeping Australia in that game, four months later...

I think that my two suicide tries are fully rational and honest.

Does anyone think that there are times when it is appropriate to suicide on another player?

I do... they are limited, but in my mind legitimate.

1) If you have an alliance with a player and he/she breaks it. I feel it's reasonable to suicide on that person... thus giving the game to the original victim of the supposed team-up.

2) If you see a player trying what I consider a dishonorable tactic... like the old "Missed Turns" strategy. Laying low to get a bulk of armies. I feel it's appropriate to suicide or otherwise "go after" that player.

Does anyone agree/disagree or see other times where it is valid???

1) I absolutely agree

2) I don't agree with suicide (you shouldn't make damage to yourself, but to him), but what you say is basically OK...

3) Third reason for suicide is if you REALLY need a free slot. You should just find an honest, acceptable way.

4) If you lead in a tournament group and there is a player who can reach you if he wins. You'll, normally, try to cripple him - to assure a qualification in next round.

Suiciding because you need to free slot is a terrible reason IMO. You are giving up on the game instead of actually playing (believe it or not, you win once in a while when you fight to the bitter end). You don't ever REALLY need a free slot, because if you did you would just buy premium

[risk master2000]

hows this for an example a 6 man game in feudal map all people are alive when I take rhu village I build up a force there and take great kingdom with that force stil all four other are battling down at bottom of boardI leave a substantial force on my original castle and a few on Rhu then completely eliminate foe in great kingdom. new round starts I take my turn have horibble run with dice and have opened 1 of the 10 army neutral broders and 1 of the four players at the bottom has an incredible run of the dice blows through 2 others at bottom who I assume had horrible runs like myself and then eliminates me and them. By taking Great kingdom the previous round had I commited suicide or was it a smart move in trying to win?

[lord voldemort]

if u have horrible dice then its not a bad move. just unlucky. but the defs that twill and aa medefe are reasonable

[owenshooter]

hows this for an example

again... game number?-0

[risk master2000]

1689201

[owenshooter]

By taking Great kingdom the previous round had I commited suicide or was it a smart move in trying to win?

that isn't a suicide... you took a calculated risk attempting to win a game...-0

[Zemljanin]

Suiciding because you need to free slot is a terrible reason IMO. You are giving up on the game instead of actually playing (believe it or not, you win once in a while when you fight to the bitter end). You don't ever REALLY need a free slot, because if you did you would just buy premium

Nice try, sully - BUT:

1) It haven't been enough time. Even if I've purchased premium, new possibilities would come too late. I had about 24 hours to join games and it was Saturday...

2) I haven't even thought about buying a premium, because it wasn't technically possible at the time. Only deposits via Paypal were possible. I don't have a Paypal account. (I you North Americans didn't know - Paypal exists in less than half of world's countries)

P.S. Lack finally brought a possibility of paying via credit card (at December 19), but then I was already in the semifinal of CCC Masters tournament. Final game should begin as soon as I free a slot (:mrgreen: ) and I am hoping for free premium .
So, we can conclude:
CC missed my $20 last year, because of slow adaptation to world's market . (However, there is still a chance that I'll have to pay $25, it's a nice 25% interest for CC )

Off topic:
Since we've touched a serious issue, I'd like something to add. Having a possibility of direct purchase via credit card is a great improvement, but...
Ewallets are popular with a good reason (Paypal would be ideal if everybody can have it). I've never had a problem with any Europian site and had a very few with some non-Europian sites. But the point is - nobody can't be sure that my Visa will be accepted by your payment processor, until I try and succeed.
(There was a guy from Latvia here, who's regular Visa have been useless. He finally had to find a relative to buy him a premium...)
So, ewallets are needed - you just should have Moneybookers besides Paypal... I already suggested it several months ago and now I took an opportunity to repeat the suggestion.
(Fortunately, I probably won't need it - because I'm going to win my premium on tournament )