Is this cheap

by **dominationnation** on Wed Mar 21, 2007 9:05 pm

In a recent game, there were three people left and i was in a truce with one of them( I know many of you think that all truces are cheap, if so please just don't responded to this question) The player I wasn't truced with had very few countries left. I knocked out all the countries I could except 1. Then when my partner knocked out all the remaining countries I knocked out the one I saved. I then used the cards to destory the player I was truced with. Is this cheap???

by **everywhere116** on Wed Mar 21, 2007 9:23 pm

This is a very good stratagy. Where did you hear it being cheap?

by **Serbia** on Wed Mar 21, 2007 10:10 pm

This is a game of Risk... they didn't have to make an alliance with you. Not all alliances work out well for both sides (look at Russia's alliance with Germany in WWII).

by **alex_white101** on Wed Mar 21, 2007 11:52 pm

what was the other guy thinking? did he not realise you had saved one? i dont think its cheap because i personally would never leavemy opponent a chance to knock someone out for their cards.

by **sully800** on Thu Mar 22, 2007 12:02 am

That is an excellent strategy, especially in freestyle games. If you are around when one of your opponents is trying to knock someone else out, wait until he conquers a bunch and then hop in and take the kill from him. It sucks to be on the receiving end of that move (I almost had it happen to me a few hours ago actually but I secured my own kill fortunately) but its perfectly legal. It's also one of the things every player needs to be careful of during freestyle games- you sometimes have to rush to take an opponent out, which might cause mistakes. Or you try to time your moves when you can't be interrupted. It's all part of a big cat and mouse game and thats what I love about freestyle....its just more exciting.

But heres a fun story- when I was fairly new I managed to do what you described in 2 of my games (seperated by a week or so). Coincidentally, in both games the user conquering all the territories was a guy by the name of 'moach' I believe. Both times I stole the kill he was working on and went on to win the game. He got pretty mad at me for it, and I started a thread on here asking if it was a cheap move, just like you did :wink:

by **chewyman** on Thu Mar 22, 2007 12:09 am

Is it cheap? Yes.
Do I blame you? No.

As stated previously, Risk is a strategy game, form and break alliances all you wish if you think it will help you.

by **tahitiwahini** on Thu Mar 22, 2007 12:25 am

Can you post the game number?

by **sully800** on Thu Mar 22, 2007 12:54 am

chewyman wrote:Is it cheap? Yes.
Do I blame you? No.

As stated previously, Risk is a strategy game, form and break alliances all you wish if you think it will help you.

He didn't break the alliance. He left one army alive of their mutual opponent so he could get the kill instead of his temporary ally. Then once it was down to the two of them he went on to win the game.

by **Genghis Khan CA** on Thu Mar 22, 2007 1:26 am

I agree with the other guys who say it was just good strategy... In fact freestyle is specifically designed for tactics like this to come to the fore.

This isn't even a grey area like double turns or intentionally missing turns, you simply outplayed your opponent.

by **yeti_c** on Thu Mar 22, 2007 2:06 am

When there were 2 people left the truce was over... if you didn't do it then he would've done it to you...

C.

by **chewyman** on Thu Mar 22, 2007 2:56 am

sully800 wrote:
chewyman wrote:Is it cheap? Yes.
Do I blame you? No.

As stated previously, Risk is a strategy game, form and break alliances all you wish if you think it will help you.

He didn't break the alliance. He left one army alive of their mutual opponent so he could get the kill instead of his temporary ally. Then once it was down to the two of them he went on to win the game.

I wasn't specifically referring to that act, only in general terms.

by **ahchin** on Thu Mar 22, 2007 3:41 am

case to case basis.

by **dominationnation** on Thu Mar 22, 2007 3:11 pm

another question-Can you beak an allience. I did that to someone and they left me negative feedback but I thought it was part of the game

by **RobinJ** on Thu Mar 22, 2007 3:54 pm

yeti_c wrote:When there were 2 people left the truce was over... if you didn't do it then he would've done it to you...

C.

Exactly - I mean you can't continue a truce with no-one else left in the game. It was a good strategy - one I try to use myself. Obviously the other player was just stupid.

However, the bit I find cheap is your truce with the guy in the first place. Why was it needed when the other guy was the weakest player

by **Genghis Khan CA** on Thu Mar 22, 2007 4:59 pm

dominationnation wrote:another question-Can you beak an allience. I did that to someone and they left me negative feedback but I thought it was part of the game

You deserve negative feedback if you break an alliance. What is the point of an alliance if you can't trust the other player to keep their end of it?

A good alliance will have an 'out' - either it will end at a certain number of rounds, or players agree to give a certain number of rounds' notice before ending it.

Make sure you and your ally have a good understanding of the terms of the alliance right from the start - then no one can be upset when the alliance finishes in accordance with those terms. If you break an alliance you are playing without honour and will soon end up with a lot of negative feedback and on a lot of ignore lists.

by **Kahless** on Thu Mar 22, 2007 5:02 pm

An alliance automatically ends when the allied players are the only 2 left. If someone wants an alliance that won't be broken, he'd be better off playing a doubles game.

by **The1exile** on Thu Mar 22, 2007 5:11 pm

Alliance breaking sucks. Stealing someone else's kill doesn't.

by **podge** on Thu Mar 22, 2007 5:29 pm

RobinJ wrote:However, the bit I find cheap is your truce with the guy in the first place. Why was it needed when the other guy was the weakest player

Seconded. An alliance to break down a stronger player is acceptable, to eliminate a weaker player is not

by **dominationnation** on Thu Mar 22, 2007 7:05 pm

when we started the allience the player that we knocked out was stronger

by **podge** on Thu Mar 22, 2007 7:12 pm

Then in my opinion the alliance should have been broken when all was near equal again. If I am the strongest player in a game I accept that the other players will focus their attention on me and expect it. But it really pisses me off when they take it too far by eliminating me.

by **KomradeKloininov** on Thu Mar 22, 2007 7:27 pm

I agree, however, once a player has begun a downslide due to being attacked to level the playing field, it does not take much for that player to then be attacked outside a truce for cards. It can be a bit sketchy I have found.

by **Hologram** on Fri Mar 23, 2007 12:26 am

chewyman wrote:Is it cheap? Yes.
Do I blame you? No.

As stated previously, Risk is a strategy game, form and break alliances all you wish if you think it will help you.

Also, it's not like you could have done anything else, what with the last person being the last person and all.

Is this cheap

Is this cheap

Is this cheap

Who is online