Conquer Club

somebody asks somebody else to move their troops to avoid pointless fighting. ive seen this happen numerous times in games where people get pissed off over this

sometimes, if i have a lot of troops on one place, i offer to...and then some other person will freak out, "omg, they have an allience" bs like that..when all you want to do is move your troops...i think its stupid to freak out when they offer once to let you get them out of the way, or you offer to move them so that you don't lose troops

s.xkitten wrote:sometimes, if i have a lot of troops on one place, i offer to...and then some other person will freak out, "omg, they have an allience" bs like that..when all you want to do is move your troops...i think its stupid to freak out when they offer once to let you get them out of the way, or you offer to move them so that you don't lose troops

Personally, I've never seen this happen...( or for that matter, even heard of it), but now that you think about it, it seems like common curtesy.... Interesting

I have seen it happen and have done it myself. I usually happens at the beginning of the game.

I thought this was just common sense. Has anyone ever read The Art of War by Sun Tzu? Pointless fighting has to be avoided at all costs.

Does anyone ever use the flip side of this? I mean, using a third party as a defensive buffer between you and an enemy. For example, if I'm in South America and there's ten armies in North Africa, I know that anyone attacking me is going to have around ten less people by the time they get to me.

Since it works both ways, it's pointless to get angry about it.

the best defence is neutral armies, people dont like killing neutral armies, see it as a waste.

^
Yeah, that's the exact same principle.

Bishop wrote:I thought this was just common sense. Has anyone ever read The Art of War by Sun Tzu? Pointless fighting has to be avoided at all costs.

Does anyone ever use the flip side of this? I mean, using a third party as a defensive buffer between you and an enemy. For example, if I'm in South America and there's ten armies in North Africa, I know that anyone attacking me is going to have around ten less people by the time they get to me.

Since it works both ways, it's pointless to get angry about it.

You have a point there...

But sometimes 'mindless slaughter' is just more fun

Well considering who asked the question, I feel the need to reply.....

I have done it once and it happened to be in a game with the redman himself.....he gave me grief about making a pseudo allaince and I felt like hell.

It meant alot to me at the time...."Hey you...move aside and I'll get outta yer way...."......

I still feel shitty about it given my No Alliance harcore stance and I have never done it since.

I think given the right circumstances it is not uncool but I have never done it again.

Frikken Indians....LOL!!!!

Qeeeester, do I hear a reply?

That's bs though, its not a pseudo alliance its a ... it would help you too because then I dont have to barrel through your guys.

I've done it ocasionally, and the "flip side" thing as bishop called it, too, creating a situation where noone can attack because it would leave him too weak. Usually when I'm in the weakest position anyway.

KoolBak wrote:Well considering who asked the question, I feel the need to reply.....

I have done it once and it happened to be in a game with the redman himself.....he gave me grief about making a pseudo allaince and I felt like hell.

It meant alot to me at the time...."Hey you...move aside and I'll get outta yer way...."......

I still feel shitty about it given my No Alliance harcore stance and I have never done it since.

I think given the right circumstances it is not uncool but I have never done it again.

Frikken Indians....LOL!!!!

Qeeeester, do I hear a reply?

After being in an alliance when I started and felt equally shitty I now don't do alliances and hate it when others do. I'd agree that moving men out of the way can be construed as an alliance. I wish CC had a no alliance option. I play team games for my alliances.

Tals

my opinion....if that persons armies stand in the way of you and another person you are trying to attack, then yes it would bother me. The person moving out of the way is facilitating your attack which could be called an alliance. In this game people should be capable of deciding their moves on their own, without other people's help.

Nah... I like the idea of alliances. They add another dimension to the game. But i do remember one game on the middle Earth map where I was playing with a noob. I had to pile all my armies into one place to stop the noob from annihilating me. Meanwhile, the 3rd player sat back and then won the game after we had destroyed eachother...

RobinJ wrote:Nah... I like the idea of alliances. They add another dimension to the game. But i do remember one game on the middle Earth map where I was playing with a noob. I had to pile all my armies into one place to stop the noob from annihilating me. Meanwhile, the 3rd player sat back and then won the game after we had destroyed eachother...

That is far better play IMHO than the brashness of an alliance.

Tals

So far the only alliances I've seen in a game were against me, cause I was obviously winning at that point... luckily for me they were started too late and I won anyway But in my opinion, that is the only time I'd think of an alliance, is when one player is way stronger than the rest, or when you and someone else is just about dead, and only by cooperating can either of you survive.