Secret Alliances Rule

Contron13542 · Post by **Contron13542** » Sat Mar 08, 2008 7:19 pm

I disagree with this rule. In the real world, secret alliances can make a huge difference in wars. I think that conquerclub should allow secret alliances, or at least not ban them. They are a major part of real wars and I think that they should be a part of our wars too.

DiM · Post by **DiM** » Sat Mar 08, 2008 9:47 pm

this isn't real war it's just a game meant to offer you relaxation.
how would you like it if in every single game all your opponents had a secret alliance against you?? would you still feel any pleasure from playing???

iteachjava · Post by **iteachjava** » Sat Mar 08, 2008 11:00 pm

I think the real issue isn't so much secret alliances are disallowed as much as that you can't know who has a secret alliance. If you were playing around a board you could at least see who is whispering to each other. Then again, if you had friends that conspired against you before you sat down, you'd probably toss the board irl as well.

Itrade · Post by **Itrade** » Sun Mar 09, 2008 6:22 am

I say they have to announce that they have an alliance, but the terms can stay secret.

owenshooter · Post by **owenshooter** » Sun Mar 09, 2008 11:19 am

Itrade wrote:I say they have to announce that they have an alliance, but the terms can stay secret.

yeah... basically the rule... completely agree...-0

Risktaker17 · Post by **Risktaker17** » Sun Mar 09, 2008 11:28 am

Secret alliances are so dumb. Then 3 people can come into a 4 player game with an alliance and switch off winning, stealing the 4th players points

Warsteiner · Post by **Warsteiner** » Sun Mar 09, 2008 11:41 am

Secret alliances in the form of "attack this guy this turn" via a PM aren't even that bad in a way (it's still unfair of course, but I think you're referring to this). Secret alliances who are made before the game starts to make sure one guy wins are unfair for the other players and the ban on this will never be removed

KoE_Sirius · Post by **KoE_Sirius** » Sun Mar 09, 2008 12:23 pm

I think CC should ban alliances Secret or otherwise.

Beastly · Post by **Beastly** » Sun Mar 09, 2008 9:11 pm

If you want a alliance just play team games!

Itrade · Post by **Itrade** » Sun Mar 09, 2008 9:14 pm

Or you could specify in your game creation whether you want to allow temporary alliances or not.

TheBro · Post by **TheBro** » Sun Mar 09, 2008 9:14 pm

Not banning secret alliances would make people abuse the secret alliance system. It has to stay as it is.

Ditocoaf · Post by **Ditocoaf** » Sun Mar 09, 2008 9:16 pm

Beastly wrote:If you want a alliance just play team games!

but...

but... if he plays in team games, then the other guy will have a team too! It's no fun if the other guy has a team! :roll:

Itrade · Post by **Itrade** » Sun Mar 09, 2008 9:59 pm

You could play with multiple teams and ally your team and someone else's team against a third person's team.

It's something wicked would do, because she's a chicken for life.

BadMoonRising · Post by **BadMoonRising** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 12:41 am

Part of Risk/CC is the need for alliance.If my ass being kicked by player A and player B is having bad dice trouble as well you can gaurantee I will try and make some friendly terms with player B to try and slap player A down.

It depends on timing and circumstance. I also will pm them first to try and establish terms and if they agree then announce it. Some dont agree with that style. I dont care. As long as everyone is upfront in chat that is all that matters.

Ganging up simply fore the sake of ganging up or to share points is another matter. The issue is not black and white and everyone will not agree.

People who hate alliances need to understand that there is more then one perspective. They dont agree with me and i dont agree with them and thats OK. As long as we are not breaking the rules...no problemo..play as you please.

Play as NATO or play as Rambo if its in chat and not against the rules.KILLKILLKILL.

Itrade · Post by **Itrade** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 12:44 am

I think you should propose the alliance in game chat first, then establish the conditions in PM later. Or do both at the same time.

Doing it in secret via PMs first and then announcing it later sounds like something a sneaky chicken for life would do, like wicked.

trk1994 · Post by **trk1994** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 8:18 am

Contron13542 wrote:I disagree with this rule. In the real world, secret alliances can make a huge difference in wars. I think that conquerclub should allow secret alliances, or at least not ban them. They are a major part of real wars and I think that they should be a part of our wars too.

Secret alliances in real life is nothing short of terrorism. Think of the things going on in wars todays. Yes they do happen now, but what kind of coward does it take to hide behind secrets and lies? If you want an ally in battle, say so. A real warrior has pride in his/her tactics and play style. I say you should allways be upfront when trying to make an alliance. Sometimes that is what it takes to stay in a game and there is nothing wrong with that. Just remember to stay honest.

KoE_Sirius · Post by **KoE_Sirius** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 9:11 am

BadMoonRising wrote:Part of Risk/CC is the need for alliance.If my ass being kicked by player A and player B is having bad dice trouble as well you can gaurantee I will try and make some friendly terms with player B to try and slap player A down.

It depends on timing and circumstance. I also will pm them first to try and establish terms and if they agree then announce it. Some dont agree with that style. I dont care. As long as everyone is upfront in chat that is all that matters.

Ganging up simply fore the sake of ganging up or to share points is another matter. The issue is not black and white and everyone will not agree.

People who hate alliances need to understand that there is more then one perspective. They dont agree with me and i dont agree with them and thats OK. As long as we are not breaking the rules...no problemo..play as you please.

Play as NATO or play as Rambo if its in chat and not against the rules.KILLKILLKILL.

No need for an aliance there...Just a temp truce which is common curtesy in Hasbro and no need to annouce the obvious.

Rocketry · Post by **Rocketry** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 1:11 pm

Contron13542 wrote:I disagree with this rule. In the real world, secret alliances can make a huge difference in wars. I think that conquerclub should allow secret alliances, or at least not ban them. They are a major part of real wars and I think that they should be a part of our wars too.

yup i agree. I used to have a thread for people that wanted to play games WITH secret alliances turned on. It worked pretty well and played some good games. Everyone was more suspicious and careful with their moves. Got pretty tangled have to say.

Roc

CrabNebula · Post by **CrabNebula** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 1:53 pm

There's a better board game that is perfect for secret alliances: Diplomacy

BadMoonRising · Post by **BadMoonRising** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 1:58 pm

KoE_Sirius wrote:
BadMoonRising wrote:Part of Risk/CC is the need for alliance.If my ass being kicked by player A and player B is having bad dice trouble as well you can gaurantee I will try and make some friendly terms with player B to try and slap player A down.

It depends on timing and circumstance. I also will pm them first to try and establish terms and if they agree then announce it. Some dont agree with that style. I dont care. As long as everyone is upfront in chat that is all that matters.

Ganging up simply fore the sake of ganging up or to share points is another matter. The issue is not black and white and everyone will not agree.

People who hate alliances need to understand that there is more then one perspective. They dont agree with me and i dont agree with them and thats OK. As long as we are not breaking the rules...no problemo..play as you please.

Play as NATO or play as Rambo if its in chat and not against the rules.KILLKILLKILL.

No need for an aliance there...Just a temp truce which is common curtesy in Hasbro and no need to annouce the obvious.

I agree..my bad for causing confusion between the two. When I say form an alliance...I mean as in only temporary till trouble has subsided.

To form an alliance with someone at the start is just silly and not in the spirit of single player games. As others have stated, that is what team games are for.

Contron13542 · Post by **Contron13542** » Sat Mar 15, 2008 8:54 pm

DiM wrote:this isn't real war it's just a game meant to offer you relaxation.
how would you like it if in every single game all your opponents had a secret alliance against you?? would you still feel any pleasure from playing???

I wouldn't likeit, but that's part of war!

timmytuttut88 · Post by **timmytuttut88** » Sat Mar 15, 2008 9:01 pm

Contron13542 wrote:I wouldn't like it, but that's part of war!

people can go into a million games with a secret alliance and win. In three player games it would turn into "who can make the alliance the fastest".

no offense but that idea is terrible

Secret Alliances Rule

Do you think CC should remove the ban on Secret Alliances?

Secret Alliances Rule

Re: Secret Alliances Rule

Re: Secret Alliances Rule