Conquer Club

Are you "wrong" for breaking your alliance? No.

But thanks for the post, because I can put you on my list of people not to trust in games. You broke one alliance, you are more likely to break one in the future and try to desperately justify it after.

[quote="ZawBanjito"]Sorry, was this an escalating game? It sounds like it was... in which case, what are you making an alliance until Round 8 for? I've had 6-man escalating games end in Round 5, and a Round 7 end is very common. You should have seen this situation coming and it's your own fault man, because you're panzermeyer... you've been around.

Yes it was escalating, but the alliance didn't start till round 6. and all players were still alive and about even, so end of 8 seemed resonable. 250+ games maybe 3 alliances, that will certainly be the last!

I wanna play too!

600+ games; never had an alliance, never will. According to you, panzomeister, I am a "Dumbass"...LOL!!!! Well, you have called me worse my friend! According to Hal, I am NOT an Asshole - I dont know Hal, but it's a nice compliment anyhow.

I think there have been many threads re: breaking alliances (not saying you broke it). It seems the common feeling is if you are going to ally against other players (I F'ING HATE THAT), expect to get shafted.

If you did break it..so what? If not, you still made it in the first place (jackass!).

What is it Wicked says......Hike up yer big girl panties and press on!! (meant for your former opponent, not you, panzo-meister, my friend - but still a jackass!).

LOL!!!!!

I must say that when I got the negative feedback, the first thing I thought was that KB is going have fun with this one. I'm suprised it took you so long to post.

600+ games, no alliances, WOW! that's only because there is never a reason to offer you a truce!

LOL!! A formidable opponent!! You flatterer!

panzermeyer wrote:I must say that when I got the negative feedback, the first thing I thought was that KB is going have fun with this one. I'm suprised it took you so long to post.

600+ games, no alliances, WOW! that's only because there is never a reason to offer you a truce!

Not sure - I think if you want an alliance game then that's what the team games are for tbh.

Tals

Ford, Chevy...to each his own......

panzermeyer wrote:I was in a 6 player game and got into an alliance with one of the players until the end or round 8. In round seven I eliminated the 4 other players without once attacking my ally. I will point out that it would have been considerably easier to do this by reneging our agreement, as my ally had weakly held some countries blocking the easiest advances. I did attack my (former ally) only after all other players had been killed. There is no way you can have an allaince/truce with only 2 players, is there? I would appreciate some opinions as me former opponent is quite upset and I am receiving negative feedback and pm's from him.

I think its fairly obvious that when your four opponents had all died the alliance would be over. I would have expected that, perhaps you could have killed of those four and then advanced to the next turn to give your previous ally some time to react. But he must have been able to see that things were drawing to a close. I can't really see that you did anything wrong.

I agree, nothing wrong. All others eliminated, you can attack your ally at same turn. Its my opinion. A negative for doing this is ridiculous.

MeDeFe wrote:Isn't it "snakes and ladders"?

Same thing...
The most common edition of Snakes and Ladders in the US is Chutes and Ladders, produced by Milton Bradley.

My letter to whats his name...

"For the record, as a non partial third party, I say you made yourself in game 71565 for three reasons...

1. You can't expect someone to honor a truce if their are only two people present. This is common sense.

2. Your truce stated that you wanted non agression in Tunisia...You were attacked in Hungary.

3. If it becomes the best possible move for someone to break you, its gonna happen sometimes. Suck it up private. This is the game of Global domination, and last I checked there's no rules in love and war. Always have a backup just in case somebody backstabs you. A truce is only good so long as it benifits everyone involved.

P.S. You're on my ignore list for your bullshit. I don't play with people who don't understand the dynamics of agression and how to use them in this game."

panzermeyer wrote:I was in a 6 player game and got into an alliance with one of the players until the end or round 8. In round seven I eliminated the 4 other players without once attacking my ally. I will point out that it would have been considerably easier to do this by reneging our agreement, as my ally had weakly held some countries blocking the easiest advances. I did attack my (former ally) only after all other players had been killed. There is no way you can have an allaince/truce with only 2 players, is there? I would appreciate some opinions as me former opponent is quite upset and I am receiving negative feedback and pm's from him.

You shoulnt treat your ally that way,yes it was treachery and you know it!
you can check my responses to other Alliance related topic's
When your in an alliance you should expect from ech other mutual bennifits.
Wel here that's clearly not the case, you just trapt your ally in a formality, shame on you.
No the honest way would be to first end your alliance before expanding out of ballance with your ally, when you ally you should go for equality, then when there are only two lef, or before that you should end your alliance with a two full turn advanced warning.

enough, if anny one like to vote on the poll "LUCK" v/s strategy, then please post your insight or a reaction, or sugest another discussion.

cu

I'm very new to this game, so not sure if my opinion counts yet, but the way I see it you should have waited for one turn, to give your "ally" a chance to re-arrange their armies, since the previous layout they had was possibly to your benefit and their own detriment. Then after that one turn taken them out.

If I were in your situation I would have done the same as you, its only after giving it some thought that I changed my mind.

Then again, they should have seen your victory coming and prepared for it the turn before.

Perhaps in future specify that the agreement will be "until turn x, or until y number of turns after all other opponents have been removed"

I'm on both sides of this argument...

An alliance shouldn't still count if it's between you and the only other guy on the board. If there's no one else to attack, then you attack the last guy that's standing, unless the truce said specifically to end at round 8, regardless of whether you two are the last on the board

i think that if you made an alliance,,,,,,,of which i am against unless preposted.your face,,,,your honour,,,,zhine comrade to the death. SUNTZU

I would have honored the agreement. You didn't, therefore the negative feedback is justified.

Very useful posting. I think I learned from it to be very careful with the termination clause in an agreement. It's easy in hindsight, but difficult to foresee all the complications from an agreement. Makes the game really interesting though.

If someone offers me an alliance, you can bet your mother's life that I'm attacking him as my response. If you need to have an alliance to figure out that you need to take the major power down a few notches, then perhaps you should be playing Pokemon.

It's obvious that the alliance was voided once the other 4 players were eliminated. Sometimes common sense has to take priority.

I think you should have honored your treaty...if youre going to make it you should stick to it

however, i dont think the other player should have left a negative feedback of you either...he should have conceded that since you clearly won the game you might as well just finish it...however...if he could have cashed in cards and come back to beat you...then you breaking the treaty is what made you win....

but i still dont think the feedback is warranted, not to say completely unjustified..you held out to the end, you waited till everyone else was dead...hardly a traitorous move...I think it says as much about the person leaving it as it does about you...id just leave a positive explanation of what happened in its response, and everyone that reads it will know as much about him as they do you...

there are so many players that deserve real negative feedback, for ruining games...having secret alliances, abusive language, etc. I believe this is what the negative feedbacks should be used for...otherwise they become worthless

the feedback system is meant to make this place a better environment ...the positives create a positive environment by letting others know they are accepted and good players...and make people strive to get them by being freindly and not unfriendly....the neutrals allow for possibly negative things that some may want to avoid..as well as other situations that dont quite require a negative comment....and the negatives keep everyone in check...even if the person doesnt care about the feedback, the number is right there for everyone to see....I dont think it should be used for revenge for a minor infractions...and this certainly qualifies...I dont trust your treaties any less because of this...

I wouldnt expect many to hold out when im the only person left...I actually probably would, but that doesnt mean id leave a feedback for it...if so, it would only be neutral, to let the person know it was a little uncool