Conquer Club

Anybody who has to create a formal alliance is an absolute dolt.
They never end up well: one of the two (or three) players in a formal alliance will always end up on top, and create tension.
If you don't know what to do if another player is ahead (albeit block or hit), then you need some training.
I'll tell you this, if you form an alliance toward me in a game, the person proposing will nine out of ten times get suicided by me.
I'm good enough to get the points back in other games.

The voice of reason....Thank you Nester ;o)

That sounded so much better than my crass "alliances are for pussies"....lol. I, and all my 100 bretheren in the xigames group, will also, as individuals, retaliate against any heinous alliance maker, whether its the "acceptable" type (you break S, I'll brek N) or the "unacceptable", as outlined by someone above. I see no difference.....it's like being kinda dead or kinda preggers.....lol.

Anyway, thats the beauty of freedom, eh? We can all have our opinions ;o) Carry on!

ps - I also thot the TITLE of this thread was a crack up; people here whine about EVERYTHING....I whine aboot the dice on a daily basis!! Why not whine aboot this????

nesterdude wrote:Anybody who has to create a formal alliance is an absolute dolt.
They never end up well: one of the two (or three) players in a formal alliance will always end up on top, and create tension.
If you don't know what to do if another player is ahead (albeit block or hit), then you need some training.
I'll tell you this, if you form an alliance toward me in a game, the person proposing will nine out of ten times get suicided by me.
I'm good enough to get the points back in other games.

To Elijah: you said you won't kick a player when they're down. Ummm, how do you eliminate your opponents then? The point of CC is to win, not to keep everyone on equal footing. You seem like a good player though, so I doubt that's what you really meant.

To Nester: suiciding on one player is just as bad in my eyes as allying is in your eyes.

As usual, this is a threat that has come to an impass. Though I'm sure some more will hop on to type about how they feel about alliances. I'll end my part by quoting the front page of this website:

Risk all your troops on a daring land grab. Use diplomacy to coordinate a group assault on the game leader. Feel the thrill of victory as you crush your last opponent.

My whining about whiners is done for now, since the game is over and I won.

Elijah S wrote:I've given up on trying to convince players that the tactic of ganging up, to the point of eliminating another player, is dishonorable. -The truth is, many players on this site will do anything to get a cheap win.
If they feel condoned in using cheap methods, than nothing written in any thread is going to change that.

I've always found honorable combat to be quite silly.

Here's an example -
In a game I'm currently in, my team was attacked 11 times while the other two teams attacked each other 0 times; As the game progressed, we were attacked 40 times, while they attacked each other four times.
In this particular game, they didn't even announce a truce, -which is another subject altogether.

That's a secret alliance, and not allowed in the rules.

Anyway, the idea is that you try to convince the weaker of the teams to stop doing what they're doing because they will lose if you're eliminated.

But my question is, if you enter a game with 3 players, or 3 teams, and the other 2 have decided to eliminate you, essentially assuring one of them the win, is this a demonstration of being a better player, or a chicken shit way of gaining points?
To me, this is worse than newb-farming, and is one of the reasons I'll probably not renew my membership.

If they do that when there is no reason for it, then I'd say leave them a bad rating and find better players. If your biggest threat convinces the other to attack you with him then I'd say he's a good player.

TurinTurambar wrote:

Risk all your troops on a daring land grab. Use diplomacy to coordinate a group assault on the game leader. Feel the thrill of victory as you crush your last opponent.

My whining about whiners is done for now, since the game is over and I won.

Too bad that's on the front page. Alliances are for pussies. I would probably be a colonel by now if it wasn't for games like this. I can understand why you would attack the leader, but COME ON people. I've been in games where people suicide against me in the hope that they can keep the game going before I win. And I always finish those people off. Can't people accept that the other person has climbed to the lead from superior strategy and skill, and probably deserves to win the game? Then there are the games where people attack me early on in my lead because I'm highly ranked and will almost certainly win the game.

If you want to work with another person, play team games. They don't allow 2-on-1 matches in tennis or boxing, and for good reason.

And you did not "win", Turin. Almost everyone in this thread is against you. You lose, we win.

john9blue wrote:

TurinTurambar wrote:

Risk all your troops on a daring land grab. Use diplomacy to coordinate a group assault on the game leader. Feel the thrill of victory as you crush your last opponent.

My whining about whiners is done for now, since the game is over and I won.

Too bad that's on the front page. Alliances are for pussies. I would probably be a colonel by now if it wasn't for games like this. I can understand why you would attack the leader, but COME ON people. I've been in games where people suicide against me in the hope that they can keep the game going before I win. And I always finish those people off. Can't people accept that the other person has climbed to the lead from superior strategy and skill, and probably deserves to win the game? Then there are the games where people attack me early on in my lead because I'm highly ranked and will almost certainly win the game.

If you want to work with another person, play team games. They don't allow 2-on-1 matches in tennis or boxing, and for good reason.

And you did not "win", Turin. Almost everyone in this thread is against you. You lose, we win.

Sorry that was a misplaced term, I guess. I meant I won the game not this argument. You can't win an argument on the internet. There will always be another blogger there to call you an idiot and express their opinion either eloquently or expletively.

TurinTurambar wrote:

john9blue wrote:

TurinTurambar wrote:

Risk all your troops on a daring land grab. Use diplomacy to coordinate a group assault on the game leader. Feel the thrill of victory as you crush your last opponent.

My whining about whiners is done for now, since the game is over and I won.

Too bad that's on the front page. Alliances are for pussies. I would probably be a colonel by now if it wasn't for games like this. I can understand why you would attack the leader, but COME ON people. I've been in games where people suicide against me in the hope that they can keep the game going before I win. And I always finish those people off. Can't people accept that the other person has climbed to the lead from superior strategy and skill, and probably deserves to win the game? Then there are the games where people attack me early on in my lead because I'm highly ranked and will almost certainly win the game.

If you want to work with another person, play team games. They don't allow 2-on-1 matches in tennis or boxing, and for good reason.

And you did not "win", Turin. Almost everyone in this thread is against you. You lose, we win.

Sorry that was a misplaced term, I guess. I meant I won the game not this argument. You can't win an argument on the internet. There will always be another blogger there to call you an idiot and express their opinion either eloquently or expletively.

I think the key phrase in your quote is "game leader".
As I've already stated, I'm all for alliances to confront someone who's running the board; But. for the 3rd time, to maintain an alliance with the sole intention of eliminating other players, thus assuring you or your ally wins, goes against any grain of integrity.
If I'd incorporated that attitude I'm sure my win % would be much higher than it is now, but I find no honor in winning that way.

At any rate, it's been good keeping up with this thread and seeing that many others share my opinion.
Best to those of you who have the same sense of fairplay, while those who argue the opposite opinion, fortunately, won't have the chance to excercise your questionable tactics against me.
-Yes, the Foe List is a wonderful thing!

Yeah, alliances truly are a part of this game. So is suiciding, deadbeating, giving away information through fog of war. Why whine about any of these? Hey, flaming is apart of the game too. And harassment, racial comments, bigoty, so stop complaining about all these things!

For the record, I foe you if you don't have the balls to play on your own and have to ally with someone to win.

Snorri1234 wrote:

Elijah S wrote:I've given up on trying to convince players that the tactic of ganging up, to the point of eliminating another player, is dishonorable. -The truth is, many players on this site will do anything to get a cheap win.
If they feel condoned in using cheap methods, than nothing written in any thread is going to change that.

I've always found honorable combat to be quite silly.

Here's an example -
In a game I'm currently in, my team was attacked 11 times while the other two teams attacked each other 0 times; As the game progressed, we were attacked 40 times, while they attacked each other four times.
In this particular game, they didn't even announce a truce, -which is another subject altogether.

That's a secret alliance, and not allowed in the rules.

Anyway, the idea is that you try to convince the weaker of the teams to stop doing what they're doing because they will lose if you're eliminated.

But my question is, if you enter a game with 3 players, or 3 teams, and the other 2 have decided to eliminate you, essentially assuring one of them the win, is this a demonstration of being a better player, or a chicken shit way of gaining points?
To me, this is worse than newb-farming, and is one of the reasons I'll probably not renew my membership.

If they do that when there is no reason for it, then I'd say leave them a bad rating and find better players. If your biggest threat convinces the other to attack you with him then I'd say he's a good player.

Exactly! "Look! The boogey man is in the corner...we must defeat the boogey man together!" Is an age-old Risk tactic and one without any honour at all....which is why I like it!

Elijah S wrote:

TurinTurambar wrote:

john9blue wrote:

TurinTurambar wrote:

Risk all your troops on a daring land grab. Use diplomacy to coordinate a group assault on the game leader. Feel the thrill of victory as you crush your last opponent.

My whining about whiners is done for now, since the game is over and I won.

At any rate, it's been good keeping up with this thread and seeing that many others share my opinion.
Best to those of you who have the same sense of fairplay, while those who argue the opposite opinion, fortunately, won't have the chance to excercise your questionable tactics against me.
-Yes, the Foe List is a wonderful thing!

Yes, oh prophet Elijah.

You said it best, I never realized the forum could be a way to weed out the weak the infirm and the insipid among the CC players. Now, however, I am possessed of the truth. Now I understand the way to the truth. And, now, for all you ninnies who think you have to make alliances with some slobbering ninny fellow ninny who can't drink at any bar in North America, well, f*ck you and your momma! Let the real warriors have at it, and please, just step aside...for the Foe List is my friend, my own truest and most trusty friend. And for all you Scott-Landian, high scoring LACKEY's of CC, you are the only reason my list has not grown eough. Please send me your names ALL you a-holes who think alliances are good, decent or even human and I will add you to my hygiene preparations.

lol funny and true i like it

Please add me to your foe list if you're either going to suicide or give me a bad rating for employing the tactic of alliances in a standard format game.