Rozebud & hotspur

KEYOGI · Post by **KEYOGI** » Sun Dec 24, 2006 8:08 am

Edit: I no longer suspect any form of secret alliance, I changed my tactics to see how they would react and they in turn altered their strategy.

trestain · Post by **trestain** » Sun Dec 24, 2006 10:18 am

you had an alliance with blue so i am not surprised the other two teamed up, looks like they both just had the same idea of knocking you and blue down a peg or two too me.

don't make an alliance with someone in a 4 player game and then whine when the other two attack only you, a little bit hypocritical to say the least.

i personally think alliances are just as bad as secret ones and you should just stop whining.

Oz314 · Post by **Oz314** » Sun Dec 24, 2006 10:28 am

trestain wrote:i personally think alliances are just as bad as secret ones and you should just stop whining.

You're missing the point. If the other 2 players simply declare their alliance, this person would have nothing to complain about.

Because they didn't (if they have one), it's a rule violation. Simple.

By the way, I sort of agree with your sentiments on alliances - if there was some way to ban them, I'd be for it, but it's not possible, so they force us to declare.

Declaring is actually risky. It galvanizes the enemy, and paints a target on the alliance members backs...

Not to mention the perils of even asking someone for an alliance, or refusing one.

In the case of the former, I've seen the asker promptly destroyed by other players - I've done this myself. "Oh, you want an alliance against me? *boom* Ally with the ashes of the former player, eh?"

In the case of the latter, I watched someone ask someone else for an alliance and have that person refuse. The askee just wasn't up for it for whatever reason. What happened then? The person asking single mindedly destroyed the person who turned him down for an alliance, just because she refused...

You see my point? Secret alliances avoid all those pitfalls. Declared alliances are much riskier.

Just my $0.02.

trestain · Post by **trestain** » Sun Dec 24, 2006 11:08 am

ok oz what i meant was if i was in a 4 player game and 2 people made an alliance i too would not attack the person who wasn't in the alliance, this is just suicide for the 2 people not in the alliance.

therefore it is not a secret alliance just common sense.

I would concentrate my attacks on the 2 alliance makers and so would most people on this site, i am saying that rozebud and hotspur realised this and went about destroying the alliance instead of attacking eachother,

not a secret alliance

EDIT notice the person making these accusations was part of the declared alliance

KEYOGI · Post by **KEYOGI** » Sun Dec 24, 2006 3:33 pm

I understand your point trestain, but it was a border truce for three rounds. I don't normally agree to them, but I saw no point destroying my chance in the game by fighting over the same territory so early on.

I also, completely refuse to make any sort of alliance or truce when there are three players in the game. My point is, I think it's pretty obvious these two have an alliance they haven't mentioned in chat. Maybe they're just in tune with each other and have the same plan.

I guess I'm just sick of dirty/stupid tactics costing me games. I'm not saying Rozebud and hotspur are playing dirty, just stupid if either one of them wants to win the game. Round 36, hotspur was bordering Rozebud, the strongest player in the game who's holding Scandinavia, bonus of 4. They move to the other side of the map to take my bonus of 3, when I'm weaker than Rozebud.

To me that says alliance, they should at least announce it.

Teya · Post by **Teya** » Sun Dec 24, 2006 4:02 pm

I understand keyogi's frustration. There is a big difference between announcing a border truce in a 4 player game to not announcing an alliance when there are 3 players.
Rozebud & Hotspur dont seem to just have a simple border truce. It seems to be an all out attack on keyogi.
Ive been in the same situation.... 3 players, 2 have an alliance.
I hate alliances. I think they are a very dirty tactic that says you cant win a game without help.
In this case, I can see the point of a surrender button.

They could at least do it properlly & put keyogi out of his misery and eliminate him from the game.

rjp0305 · Post by **rjp0305** » Sun Dec 24, 2006 6:02 pm

Maybe there should be a button for when an alliance is made, and when that button is pushed, another pops up that lets you surrender.

I also hate it when there are three people left and two decide to team up. I just recently put two people on my ignore list for this exact reason.

AAFitz · Post by **AAFitz** » Sun Dec 24, 2006 7:55 pm

what you actually hate is losing...ive won many games with truces, lost many because of them...

they are an intregal part of the game, and are as difficult to negotiate as the game itself

if i was given free reign in every game i start to win, it would be a boring game

i would have a lot of points, but would hardly ever lose...

i always know when im playing good players, because, it is implied that the stronger player in game ((((I had higher rank here...but meant this))) will be taken down...

with less experienced players, it sometimes needs to be said explicitly, and the negotiations are half the battle

i reccomend you try and master both, but do not expect to succeed at both

some people will attack you just for the mention of alliances...so that is where the fun lies...

that is the point...the fun of it

reverend_kyle · Post by **reverend_kyle** » Sun Dec 24, 2006 11:26 pm

KEYOGI wrote:I understand your point trestain, but it was a border truce for three rounds. I don't normally agree to them, but I saw no point destroying my chance in the game by fighting over the same territory so early on.

Making an alliance there is where you went wrong, I would have said something like this instead..

"Hey, you douchebag, quit attacking that territory before you lose us both the game"

Teya · Post by **Teya** » Mon Dec 25, 2006 6:59 am

Who doesnt hate losing?
my 3 player game that 2 players made an alliance in... I still kicked their arses. They just prolonged the inevitable.
I personally will never make an alliance. If I cant win a game fairly, I dont deserve to win. That is just how I feel about it though.
And I play team games when I want an ally.

KEYOGI · Post by **KEYOGI** » Mon Dec 25, 2006 7:14 am

reverend_kyle wrote:Making an alliance there is where you went wrong, I would have said something like this instead..

"Hey, you douchebag, quit attacking that territory before you lose us both the game"

LOL, I'll keep that in mind for the future.

Oz314 · Post by **Oz314** » Mon Dec 25, 2006 10:35 am

trestain wrote:ok oz what i meant was if i was in a 4 player game and 2 people made an alliance i too would not attack the person who wasn't in the alliance, this is just suicide for the 2 people not in the alliance.

therefore it is not a secret alliance just common sense.

I would concentrate my attacks on the 2 alliance makers and so would most people on this site, i am saying that rozebud and hotspur realised this and went about destroying the alliance instead of attacking eachother,

not a secret alliance

EDIT notice the person making these accusations was part of the declared alliance

Trestain - well put. You've convinced me. :-)

supercram · Post by **supercram** » Mon Dec 25, 2006 12:10 pm

i actually have rozebud on my ignore list because of a game where his playing was totally whacked and he gave the game away to someone else.

do what i did. it will bring you peace.

Rozebud & hotspur

Rozebud & hotspur

hi

Re: hi

hi

Re: hi