who hates alliances?

[wacicha]

it is not considered cheating unless you do the alliance not in the chatroom another words it has to be public record for that game but most of the people can't handle the added opposition so they freak some of us never allie like myself and all the xigame members which i also am a part of but most of them play in private games so they know there will be no allieing me i takes my chances and have lots of fun (and lots of turns)

[Black Jack]

it has to be public record for that game

OK, that is how we run FtF games... pre-made and/or secret alliances are considered a no-no, too.

but most of the people can't handle the added opposition so they freak

Heheheheh, you mean that they are to childish and immature... to be playing competitive games.

The Ignore List is one of the best features... on this site

[agarvin]

Most of my Risk back-ground is with the board-game version.

In FtF encounters, in-game deals were considered a natural part of play.

Ganging up on the top-dog... was just a fact-of-life

Why is it considered cheating in online versions?

I'm not advocating a pro or con stance on the topic... I'm still in an information-gathering mode

Yeah, my background is similar. Lots of Risk games back in college, so many my grades suffered in fact (well, Risk, Diplomacy, D&D, Advanced Squad Leader, Chess, Axis & Allies, Kings & Things, Backgammon...). Sometimes we'd play with house rules that said no alliances, though I think that makes for a boring game. Sometimes the negotiations had to be public, which is effectively the same rule as here.

The most fun games, though, were the games where secret alliances are allowed. You break away from the game for 30 minutes or so, every couple turns or every turn, and everyone goes off and discusses the games in private. Trying to overhear private discussions is not forbidden, and adds another fun element. Backstabbing is allowed, though I consider it unwise, cause you'll never be trusted again. Better to mislead other players about what you actually mean.

It makes things very interesting. To be implemented here, it'd need some kind of honor code to make alliances only for a single game; you wouldn't want pairs of players who always agree secretly to support each other in all games.

Here, I've found it rather difficult to make alliances, because I'm playing strangers who don't always respond to posts or suggestions. So sometimes you have to just try to create general good will ("I have no intention of attacking you on X border" or "We should avoid attacking each other to prevent [some other player] from gaining strength"). That's a fine art that I'm beginning to find quite a bit of fun.

[Comrade]

It's politics, get over it.

Risk is not merely about being the most dominant player, but playing your political cards well.

Why did Milan survive so many hundreds of years in the Italian peninsula (before finally being annexed in reunification in the 1800s), when it was one of the most delicate states?

Diplomacy.

You know what's ghey? The Chinese Communists convinced the Nationalists to form an alliance against the Japanese.

The Japanese basically go "OMGWTF that's ghey" and decide to exterminate as many communists as possible, including killing all Hainanese they can get their hands on in the occupied territories (Singapore, Malaysia) because they thought they were all communists.

Ghey, indeed. I mean, that's really gay right? "WHAT RIGHT DO THEY HAVE TO FORM AN ALLIANCE FOR THEIR MUTUAL INTEREST?"

"That's like, GAY!!!!"

The Japanese then execute all homosexuals in the blood bath of the Sook Ching, and anyone who ever tried donating to the ROC or the CPC. Because that was like, gay, man. What an alliance. That was so unfair. If not for this gay alliance, Japan would be ruling Nanjiing right now. I mean, WTF man, with alliances there's no point or incentive in being the strongest player, and it rewards being weak.

Soviet Union teaming up with the United States against the WWII's strongest player: Nazi Germany. Then it takes the United States 46 rounds....er, years to beat the Soviet Union afterwards.

OMGWTF GAY???

Are you kidding me. Stop complaining about gay alliances and realise that's what half of Risk is, and why it's so beautiful.

Maybe one doesn't realise it rewards strong play but ACTING weak? Sun Tzu's art of war is based on deception. The most dominant player on the board at a certain round controlling half the world is not necessarily the strongest player. The strongest player acts harmless, but not harmless enough to be a sitting duck for people looking for cards, but not harmful enough that everyone hates him or her.

[howie]

There must of been 6 alliences in one of the games am in, its a bit crazy but fun. I agree with the last post just made about Risk having a deplomacy element. If theres a strong power and your among players that will be eaten alive on your own then naturaly your going to gang up on the big bad wolf