Conquer Club

hi all.. need ur thoughts on this matter.. just wanted to know is it ok to make truces or alliances in a game with only 3 players?

if announced in chat is it legal?

thanks just wanted to know bout this...

dont think its judged as illegal in any sense but i dont agree with them , i tend to stray away from alliances as a whole.

what i will say is i tend to think that in a 3 player game if one player is overrunning its natural for the other 2 to both concentrate on him to even things out

but alliances from the start? thats just not cricket

Its allowed but not looked upon in a nice way. And take ur turn in the rt.

well if its allowed .. then just have to stay away from such players.. thanks for ur opinions..

If it's to keep the one strongest player from winning I don't see a problem, but alliances from the start in 3 player games (or any games for that matter) is complete bullshit.

MeDeFe wrote:If it's to keep the one strongest player from winning I don't see a problem, but alliances from the start in 3 player games (or any games for that matter) is complete bullshit.

well it was keeping the third player from winning but even so i dont see a need for an alliance or truce.... it should be common sense, or is common sense not too common.???

Just my worthless .02, but when you play with experienced players who understand the big picture, they tend to recognize who is the threat and govern them accordingly without even having to acknowledge that there needs to be something done or that there even needs to be a temporary alliance.

I don't make truces or alliances.

Aaaahhhhh...that post was a balm to the bruise I got from my knee-jerk response...Thanks FP!!

MeDeFe wrote:If it's to keep the one strongest player from winning I don't see a problem, but alliances from the start in 3 player games (or any games for that matter) is complete bullshit.

I agree with this as i have made these sort of alliances in 3 player games but it is not fair to ally from the beginning to make it a two player game.

However, I also agree with this:

Fireside Poet wrote:Just my worthless .02, but when you play with experienced players who understand the big picture, they tend to recognize who is the threat and govern them accordingly without even having to acknowledge that there needs to be something done or that there even needs to be a temporary alliance.

I've done truces rather than alliences, would never allie, it was only a truce over one border. And only done it the once.

Isnt table talk part of the game. And arn't truces, pacts and alliances a part of that. Its a strategy game and allying as well as backstabing when it is in your best interest is all part of the game. You do what you do to win and if making a pact with someone is going to help you win then i say do it up. A good player will be able to compensate for a pact againt him by offering a better deal, fortifying differently or just killing one of the conspiritors off. There are ways to beat the pact and thats a fun part of the game in my opinion.

Fireside Poet wrote:Just my worthless .02, but when you play with experienced players who understand the big picture, they tend to recognize who is the threat and govern them accordingly without even having to acknowledge that there needs to be something done or that there even needs to be a temporary alliance.

I don't make truces or alliances.

Ditto

Well said

well guys has there been a poll on for this.. i mean how many players would, would not at all, or would some times... Well if can some one can set one just for the sake of knowing, it would be nice.

Happy CC - ing all

there have been countless polls on and discussions about this topic, and we never agree.