Strategy question involving two builders and bonus holder

ltiyank · Post by **ltiyank** » Fri Jun 08, 2007 3:20 pm

I recently played a game in which I won.

San fransico, no cards, unlimited forts, sequential

I want to know if I did a good strategy and if it was cheating.

San Francisco. I control San Fran, green controls Marin + Alcatraz, cyan holds Contra Costa, Yellow has one territory and is fort building, Red has three territories and is fort building. Red is building on Redwood Park and Yellow on Fishermans Wharf. I have half of the avenues and green the other half. Green is breaking my bonus and then I take his. Back and forth until I didn't take his bonus. while we are attacking each other red and yellow are fort building. cyan is slowly expanding not to quickly keeping his borders well protected. I suggested to green in chat that we not attack each other and concentrate on the other players as the appeared stronger. I proposed a truce or alliance that would giv a two turnnotice before attacking. Green never responded. Red then proposed to cyan that he will not mess with him if cyan does the same. cyan never responded. Green did not attack me and I did not attack him. Green built up as did I to take out yellow and then he attacked cyan and I built up to attack red. red warned green because i had 35 armies ready to attack red who had mid 30's also. I would drop 9 on another territory and slowly brooke red and then ran my 35 through the board eliminating cyan and then eventually green.

Is this cheating by teaming up or are other players wrong mainly cyan by giving me negative feed back

RobinJ · Post by **RobinJ** » Fri Jun 08, 2007 4:59 pm

No, it was the other guy's fault (green) for not responding to your alliance - wouldn't worry about it - there a few sore losers on this site...

the liquidator · Post by **the liquidator** » Sat Jun 09, 2007 6:53 pm

This doesn't quite address your point,but I've noticed some players won't respond to your request for an alliance, will go along with you for awhile--then if they decide to attack you,well,"I never accepted"...if you attack them later on,they'll say "but we had an alliance". By not accepting they try to give themselves the best of both worlds--an alliance with no responsibility on their part. Having said that,it's still pretty dishonorable to propose an alliance and then immediately attack the intended ally,whether they accept or not...

jako · Post by **jako** » Sat Jun 09, 2007 7:23 pm

well green never accepted, no matter if he didnt respond, there was no verbal aggreement by both players that an alliance existed, therefore, there was no alliance so u are not at fault. hes just an ass for giving u bad feedback cause of that.

the liquidator · Post by **the liquidator** » Sat Jun 09, 2007 9:35 pm

Just to make clear,I wasn't referring to anything ltiyank did--I don't see anything the least bit wrong there...

civver · Post by **civver** » Sun Jun 10, 2007 9:52 am

the liquidator wrote:This doesn't quite address your point,but I've noticed some players won't respond to your request for an alliance, will go along with you for awhile--then if they decide to attack you,well,"I never accepted"...if you attack them later on,they'll say "but we had an alliance". By not accepting they try to give themselves the best of both worlds--an alliance with no responsibility on their part. Having said that,it's still pretty dishonorable to propose an alliance and then immediately attack the intended ally,whether they accept or not...

Just to be safe, assume there is no alliance, just a momentary ceasefire.