Conquer Club

When you're a prat.

KoolBak wrote:You want opinions?

Making truces / alliances is such a miserably spineless action in the first place that the entire question of breaking one is moot. No worse than entering into one in the first place.

Every player I've ever seen offer / make an alliance has been targeted and foed......in fact, that's how I met ol' Wacicha 6 years ago because be BOTH reacted the same way.....with honor....lol. And THAT'S why I love our group because there's at least 100 people that play with honor. Cowboy up.....win and lose like you got a pair. You wanna play teams, play teams.

I haven't been out here on CC very long, but I "Totally" agree with everything he says here...I've said it to many people in games I have played, "If you want to play Teams, Play Teams!!"

Man Up!!! Grow a Pair!!!

I dont think making a truce is cowardly. What if its a 4 player game and two of the players form a truce. Does it not make sense that the remaining 2 make a truce as well to even the playing field?
I've made truces but I've never broken one.

People that disparage diplomacy don't understand how to be diplomatic themselves.

In other words, if I can't fight well, then I'll yell at anyone who chooses to fight.

BigBallinStalin wrote:People that disparage diplomacy don't understand how to be diplomatic themselves.

In other words, if I can't fight well, then I'll yell at anyone who chooses to fight.

You say diplomat, I say pussy

KoolBak wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:People that disparage diplomacy don't understand how to be diplomatic themselves.

In other words, if I can't fight well, then I'll yell at anyone who chooses to fight.

You say diplomat, I say pussy

Now, now, lets compromise. Diplussy. Or maybe, Pussomat.

Anyways, I actually maybe agree with BBS. Ha.


--Andy

Viceroy63 wrote:Then why not post the agreement and show us that as well?

The suicide thing is a different issue. He's definitely wrong there just saying that even in joking.

How come ? Its a valid tactic to threaten to suicide.Lots of players do it and it really makes an opponent think,even put them off game play.
To actually suicide is another matter.

OK AndyBallz....I respect differences of opinions (hell, I've managed to stay married for 24 years )...I didn't mean to offend guys (tosses bananas and poutine oot for all).

KoolBak wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:People that disparage diplomacy don't understand how to be diplomatic themselves.

In other words, if I can't fight well, then I'll yell at anyone who chooses to fight.

You say diplomat, I say pussy

You say pussy, I say strategerie.


As Sun Tzu says, the successful general is one who wins the war without deploying a single soldier. I'm still figuring out how to apply this to ConquerClub....

In a way this is also a role playing game but the thing is that we carry our roles into every game we play. So if we break our agreements then eventually our reputations will proceed us.

If we make a truce it should be towards a certain specific round. For example: "Pink, can we have a truce until round 18?" Then on round 18 the first player to go can fire on.

BigBallinStalin wrote:As Sun Tzu says, the successful general is one who wins the war without deploying a single soldier. I'm still figuring out how to apply this to ConquerClub....

That's too deep for me man. LOL.

Viceroy63 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:As Sun Tzu says, the successful general is one who wins the war without deploying a single soldier. I'm still figuring out how to apply this to ConquerClub....

Imagine a scenario where everyone in the game misses turns and deadbeats. The winner, if they similarly missed turns and never deployed would have deadbeated, but the game crowns them the victor without ever deploying a single soldier. Ha.

Not really a strategy one can employ though on command!


--Andy

Viceroy63 wrote:In a way this is also a role playing game but the thing is that we carry our roles into every game we play. So if we break our agreements then eventually our reputations will proceed us.

If we make a truce it should be towards a certain specific round. For example: "Pink, can we have a truce until round 18?" Then on round 18 the first player to go can fire on.

BigBallinStalin wrote:As Sun Tzu says, the successful general is one who wins the war without deploying a single soldier. I'm still figuring out how to apply this to ConquerClub....

That's too deep for me man. LOL.

Haha, don't be discouraged. It goes like this:


You undermine the State, or create/take advantage of a tension between its rulers and their people. This renders the State/political leaders' ability to craft policy and wage war less effective. Much of this is performed through the 5th column (spies). A longer framework would incorporate making alliances against the enemy (or engaging in mutual trade embargos/sanctions). The internal pressure increases, and the external threat of force (from your own forces and from your allies) would hopefully force the enemy to sue for peace---before the physical war has even begun.

Thus, the successful general is one who wins the war without deploying a single soldier.

AndyDufresne wrote:

Viceroy63 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:As Sun Tzu says, the successful general is one who wins the war without deploying a single soldier. I'm still figuring out how to apply this to ConquerClub....

Imagine a scenario where everyone in the game misses turns and deadbeats. The winner, if they similarly missed turns and never deployed would have deadbeated, but the game crowns them the victor without ever deploying a single soldier. Ha.

Not really a strategy one can employ though on command!


--Andy

Have you noticed the domestic turmoil as of late? Declining numbers, people are pissed at the mods, they demand lackattack, no response for lackattack! THE END TIMES ARE NIGH!

WHO IS RESPONSIBLE!!

MAJORCOMMAND.COM, THAT'S WHO!

They've read Sun Tzu's Art of War. They're manipulating us against ourselves. We'll show them...... YES... we'll show them all right.


(inb4 Andy joke, "Everyone! Man your Banana Stations!")

I think by warning him you are essentially giving notice that the alliance or truce is over. Thus there is no more truce at that point. If you attacked with no warning that would not be kosher.

Truces are meant to be broken. Yeah, it might be "cheap" to break a truce without warning, but hey, we're all playing to win, right? Next time, don't enter into a truce. Or if you do, never fully trust anyone. That's a surefire way to lose.

(I rarely enter into truces, ftr - can't remember the last time I did)

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Viceroy63 wrote:In a way this is also a role playing game but the thing is that we carry our roles into every game we play. So if we break our agreements then eventually our reputations will proceed us.

If we make a truce it should be towards a certain specific round. For example: "Pink, can we have a truce until round 18?" Then on round 18 the first player to go can fire on.

BigBallinStalin wrote:As Sun Tzu says, the successful general is one who wins the war without deploying a single soldier. I'm still figuring out how to apply this to ConquerClub....

That's too deep for me man. LOL.

Haha, don't be discouraged. It goes like this:


You undermine the State, or create/take advantage of a tension between its rulers and their people. This renders the State/political leaders' ability to craft policy and wage war less effective. Much of this is performed through the 5th column (spies). A longer framework would incorporate making alliances against the enemy (or engaging in mutual trade embargos/sanctions). The internal pressure increases, and the external threat of force (from your own forces and from your allies) would hopefully force the enemy to sue for peace---before the physical war has even begun.

Thus, the successful general is one who wins the war without deploying a single soldier.

That sounds like a lot of work...
I always took it to mean that if you slowly explain to your enemy that resistance is pointless, the actual fighting becomes merely a formality.
Also, peace is not the goal, victory is the goal.

ConquerClub is just not advanced enough to encompass all of Sun Tzu's philosophies. So we can ignore his "supreme excellence is to defeat your enemies without fighting". However great it is.
This one is one can be followed however:
'There are roads which must not be followed, armies which must not be attacked, towns which must not be besieged,positions which must not be contested.'

Gillipig wrote:ConquerClub is just not advanced enough to encompass all of Sun Tzu's philosophies. So we can ignore his "supreme excellence is to defeat your enemies without fighting". However great it is.
This one is one can be followed however:
'There are roads which must not be followed, armies which must not be attacked, towns which must not be besieged,positions which must not be contested.'

Sounds reasonable.

The only real way that I see where a player can win without deploying a single troop is to have such a huge reputation for awesomely winning games and putting other players to shame, that he simply stares his opponents into deadbeating on the game. LOL.

Funkyterrance wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Viceroy63 wrote:In a way this is also a role playing game but the thing is that we carry our roles into every game we play. So if we break our agreements then eventually our reputations will proceed us.

If we make a truce it should be towards a certain specific round. For example: "Pink, can we have a truce until round 18?" Then on round 18 the first player to go can fire on.

BigBallinStalin wrote:As Sun Tzu says, the successful general is one who wins the war without deploying a single soldier. I'm still figuring out how to apply this to ConquerClub....

That's too deep for me man. LOL.

Haha, don't be discouraged. It goes like this:


You undermine the State, or create/take advantage of a tension between its rulers and their people. This renders the State/political leaders' ability to craft policy and wage war less effective. Much of this is performed through the 5th column (spies). A longer framework would incorporate making alliances against the enemy (or engaging in mutual trade embargos/sanctions). The internal pressure increases, and the external threat of force (from your own forces and from your allies) would hopefully force the enemy to sue for peace---before the physical war has even begun.

Thus, the successful general is one who wins the war without deploying a single soldier.

That sounds like a lot of work...
I always took it to mean that if you slowly explain to your enemy that resistance is pointless, the actual fighting becomes merely a formality.
Also, peace is not the goal, victory is the goal.

An enemy cannot rely solely on your explanations. You have to change his incentives and his mental calculations in order to convince him.

Victory can be many things. If your goal is to extract wealth from the defeated, then you can demand money when the enemy sues for peace--without having to use your armies. That would be a victory.

Another victory is the pursuit of total war, or war at all costs, and according to Sun Tzu, that ain't a victory but an inevitable loss for both sides.

....such is life.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

That sounds like a lot of work...
I always took it to mean that if you slowly explain to your enemy that resistance is pointless, the actual fighting becomes merely a formality.
Also, peace is not the goal, victory is the goal.[/quote]

An enemy cannot rely solely on your explanations. You have to change his incentives and his mental calculations in order to convince him.

Victory can be many things. If your goal is to extract wealth from the defeated, then you can demand money when the enemy sues for peace--without having to use your armies. That would be a victory.

Another victory is the pursuit of total war, or war at all costs, and according to Sun Tzu, that ain't a victory but an inevitable loss for both sides.[/quote]

Ooh, I like it when you talk dirty!
Victory without battle and through sheer presense alone. This is the idyllic wartime scenario.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Viceroy63 wrote:In a way this is also a role playing game but the thing is that we carry our roles into every game we play. So if we break our agreements then eventually our reputations will proceed us.

If we make a truce it should be towards a certain specific round. For example: "Pink, can we have a truce until round 18?" Then on round 18 the first player to go can fire on.

BigBallinStalin wrote:As Sun Tzu says, the successful general is one who wins the war without deploying a single soldier. I'm still figuring out how to apply this to ConquerClub....

That's too deep for me man. LOL.

Haha, don't be discouraged. It goes like this:


You undermine the State, or create/take advantage of a tension between its rulers and their people. This renders the State/political leaders' ability to craft policy and wage war less effective. Much of this is performed through the 5th column (spies). A longer framework would incorporate making alliances against the enemy (or engaging in mutual trade embargos/sanctions). The internal pressure increases, and the external threat of force (from your own forces and from your allies) would hopefully force the enemy to sue for peace---before the physical war has even begun.

Thus, the successful general is one who wins the war without deploying a single soldier.

OK; But whether you employ spies or the agents of Chaos to undermine the state or opponent, are you not still deploying a troop. Maybe not a military troop but deploying some one none the less? Or am I wrong about that? =)

What a twunt!12141551

You can only break a truce on Tuesday