Conquer Club

I'm in a 3 player game where in round 4 the game is effectively over for myself and the other player. An alliance has been proposed and i've accepted but its been put this is unsportsmanship. all chat including strategy is in the chat window.

So hey ho always up for a majority decision - vote away and if the majority is no then i'll cancel the alliance when I get home tomorrow.

Tals

tals wrote:I'm in a 3 player game where in round 4 the game is effectively over for myself and the other player. An alliance has been proposed and i've accepted but its been put this is unsportsmanship. all chat including strategy is in the chat window.

So hey ho always up for a majority decision - vote away and if the majority is no then i'll cancel the alliance when I get home tomorrow.

Tals

A link to the game always helps for those with little time to waste.

http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=82422

And the game is not effectively over, but I normally play up an alliance with the other weaker player in a 3-man game if one person is dominant, effective until things have evened out. This works about half the time. The other half, either the strong person is too strong already, or the other person takes it. But it's perfectly fair, provided the other person is aware. If you do this with a consistent partner, it's complete bullshit and I'd give you terrible feedback for being a douchebag. However, with random people, it's perfectly acceptable as long as you're civil about it. Your feedback will reflect how well your playing style is received.

Sorry didn't post the link to the game because the chat was so amusing.

Anyway you are right the game is never over - but it's bloody close

Still stand though if majority is against i'm happy to go with it - it's all for fun anyway tbh.

Tals

Get this.......... I don't play in 3 person games anymore, because I had a alliance before I could even play..... The beginning of the game.... so..... I believe it is really rotten to alliance in a 3 person game. but heck, even 6 person games can end up with 3 players, sooooo... whatever... I just don't join 3 person games anymore.

personally i got my first negative feedbac for bein accused of having an alliance but the guy asked me 2 comment on his game and i told him wut he did good and bad and the guy considered it as a secret alliance and gave me negative feedbac so i would just stay awy form them if i were u there just stupid

I'm curious to see the results of this poll, for obvious reasons, and because I am actually interested.
Ususally I don't make a thing of three player alliances, I think it was the comment "I suggest an alliance till Green is either eliminated or a 1 turn warning?" that I got annoyed with. How is it fair to keep going until the person is eliminated? What chance does anyone have in a three player game if two are after you until you are dead??

Emily_W wrote:I'm curious to see the results of this poll, for obvious reasons, and because I am actually interested.
Ususally I don't make a thing of three player alliances, I think it was the comment "I suggest an alliance till Green is either eliminated or a 1 turn warning?" that I got annoyed with. How is it fair to keep going until the person is eliminated? What chance does anyone have in a three player game if two are after you until you are dead??

Ahh now that was my fault following this thread

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6710

I thought it would be better to be clear rather than have the same misunderstanding.

I tried to treat this alliance like I would if it we were sitting around a table. Hence all the up front strategy. Even though I then ballsed that up by hitting return when I had end fortify on the screen

Interesting discussion though.

Tals

p.s lol its 6 6 - if this goes against me its a total vote against 3 player games having alliances within them....

Just to point out - I never said it wasn't totally above board, just that it was unsporting play. It takes the fun and the strategy out of playing, in my opinion, if two people ally in a three player game. I don't have anything against alliancing in four (or more) player games, as long as there aren't only three people left. If you want to play with someone in a game with only one other opponent, try a doubles game!!

Emily_W wrote:Just to point out - I never said it wasn't totally above board, just that it was unsporting play. It takes the fun and the strategy out of playing, in my opinion, if two people ally in a three player game. I don't have anything against alliancing in four (or more) player games, as long as there aren't only three people left. That's why doubles and triples games were invented!!

Yep to clarify I took the positon that unsportsmanship was as good as cheating. Vote on all

Tals

p.s I should say that an alliance in a normal game is totally different from a team game - the chat for one I think should be very clear ala as though you are around a table

Beastly wrote:Get this.......... I don't play in 3 person games anymore, because I had a alliance before I could even play..... The beginning of the game.... so..... I believe it is really rotten to alliance in a 3 person game. but heck, even 6 person games can end up with 3 players, sooooo... whatever... I just don't join 3 person games anymore.

From my stand point i'll be joining more - I want quick game turn arounds and I am trying not to play freestyle. 3 player games suit that.

Tals

nyg5680 wrote:personally i got my first negative feedbac for bein accused of having an alliance but the guy asked me 2 comment on his game and i told him wut he did good and bad and the guy considered it as a secret alliance and gave me negative feedbac so i would just stay awy form them if i were u there just stupid

That is actually different - he is blaming you for your actions, not for actually being in a declared alliance. I'd agree it does seem to get people heated. Personally and this may sound hypocritical I would prefer alliances in non team games were banned because it is so sensitive. I'm in another game

http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=78977#gmtop

I know how Emily feels, more people but i've got myself into a nice position and its opened me up - you almost feel picked upon. However it is strategy IMHO and thats part of the game which you have to take into account.

However if alliances are available the question is are they fair and in this case its specifically regarding a 3 player declared alliance all cards on the table.

Tals

sure it's fair. diplomacy is part of the game.

I tend to lean toward...it is fair, as long as they announce it as a proper alliance. It may not be a sportsman like strategy, but who cares about sportsmanship anymore? **Spikes the world domination board and then proceeds to dunk it into a waste basket.**


--Andy

All alliances suck, it does not matter whether its in a three player game or 6 player game. If you can't win by yourself accept defeat and move onto the next game. All this rubbish about "real world", "tactics" is a lame excuse to cover up the fact that you feel guilty for ganging up on other players.

Unfortunatly the only option is to annouce at the beginning of the game that you are opposed to alliances. But if the other players don't agree tough luck.

ohh, the voting is so close! Only a few more hours of it left, so if you are of either opinion, please vote!

It is fair, half the skill in being reduced to 3 players, is to make yourself not appear strong, if you appeared so strong that you had an alliance made against you, you had it coming.

The object of the game is to win. If the alliance helps these players so be it.

ok, I sort of agree with your logic here, but how do you hide the fact you are strong? If you have a territory, you get the armies... you can't hide them somewhere!!

Qeeee posted so now I must! To answer the "fair" question....all is fair in love and war. Just sucks when it happens against you......

Over 600 games, never allied.....that is my stance. Come and get me!

Hide them in Kamchatka.

Em... people notice armies more in one place than in another. Also people won't attack a place if the see it as fruitless.

I'm not giving away my secrets but there are ways.

EDIT: so many alliance topics so little time eh kool?

Ohhh very close, i'm kinda of comfortable with it - never felt that good about alliances anyway but Emilys stonking start was just too hard to ignore. Anyway the alliance is still on but at a draw or a vote against and i'll cancel. Probably won't ever enter into an alliance again outside of team games - I think we could do with a diplomacy game option to actually build in a game where you can form proper team games actually in game. Now that could be quite neat Hidden alliances and the lot

Tals

I'll go back to the post that said something about annoucing at the beginning of games that you are against alliances. That pretty much summs up my position...lol

If anyone even hints at an alliance, no mattter how aboveboard it is, I usually immediately announce that it's my policy to immediately kami all alliance makers. In my somewhat skewed perspective the nutzo kami deterrent is just as much a part of the game as diplomacy...lol Kind of a North Korean Option.....

There is an alternative. There's a group of people that play here, koolbak is one of them, that do not permit alliances in their games. Check out xiGAMES at xigames.net

Can't really tell whether the poll has finished - but I gave it a day so I guess it has

20 say fair and 19 say not, way closer than I had thought. Good discussion though and has pulled me towards not having alliances. Although I would like to see some kind of proper diplomacy function bought into a 'diplomacy' style c&c game at some point.

As for our game - things developed and so I think we're back to 1v1v1 anyway

Tals