Conquer Club

it hasnt ever costed me a game, but im curious if people call out and say "Blue almost has north america taken" in the game chat, should that be considered colluding/unannounced alliance since fog of war would prevent other players from knowing that?

No it wouldn't be considered anything of the sort.

It's called 'diplomacy', and it's an integral part of the game.

its called "i would leave negative feedback if a guy told others where i was hiding".

"Turnabouts Are Fairplay."

If they do it to you, do it right back.

How do you know somebody isn't lying or giving false intelligence? I think it's a part of the game and if you don't like it that is what the ignore list is for or don't play fog of war games. I can certainly see how it might be as annoying as hell to have somebody list everything they see.

wcaclimbing wrote:its called "i would leave negative feedback if a guy told others where i was hiding".

What appaling sportsmanship that would be... that's like giving negative feedback because somebody attacked one of your territories.

Dancing Mustard wrote:

wcaclimbing wrote:its called "i would leave negative feedback if a guy told others where i was hiding".

What appaling sportsmanship that would be... that's like giving negative feedback because somebody attacked one of your territories.

I have to agree.

Senfive wrote:

Dancing Mustard wrote:

wcaclimbing wrote:its called "i would leave negative feedback if a guy told others where i was hiding".

What appaling sportsmanship that would be... that's like giving negative feedback because somebody attacked one of your territories.

I have to agree.

i agree too; risk is not a quiet game -- it's about communication too, so, what's bad about warning the rest of someone, ( and get big yourself )

i dont know, i guess i just kind of feel it defeats the purpose of having a fog of war and there arent any rules against it at the moment, but like i said ive never had any major problems with it i was just starting debate incase it becomes a problem in the future

Bartoli wrote:

Senfive wrote:

Dancing Mustard wrote:

wcaclimbing wrote:its called "i would leave negative feedback if a guy told others where i was hiding".

What appaling sportsmanship that would be... that's like giving negative feedback because somebody attacked one of your territories.

I have to agree.

i agree too; risk is not a quiet game -- it's about communication too, so, what's bad about warning the rest of someone, ( and get big yourself )

Then you need to find better hiding places, wca.

nah its funny

stlcard1521 wrote:i dont know, i guess i just kind of feel it defeats the purpose of having a fog of war and there arent any rules against it at the moment, but like i said ive never had any major problems with it i was just starting debate incase it becomes a problem in the future

It doesn't defeat the purpose at all. Before I came to CC, all I played were fog of war-type games, and even if everyone else tells everyone everything they know, there is still purpose to the fog of war. From my perspective, it makes it easier to defend places like Europe and Africa with fog of war in play. For example, Africa: If I'm holding Africa, I can deploy one army on Middle East, Egypt, and North Africa, and hide the rest in East Africa. The guys holding South Africa and Europe could easily break me, but they're not sure if I'm sitting on 82 armies in East Africa, that will finish them off as soon as they make that my front line by attacking me. They can chat all day about me holding Africa, but the only important conversation is 'who's going in?'.

Chat it up about whatever you like, I say. That's what the in game chat is for.

there's nothing wrong with communicating on the chat board about what's going on. it's on the up and up and there's supposes to be some communication, that's why there's a chat board, and in fog of war, it's a great way to get someone to attack someone other than yourself.... If you leave neg feedback because of that, well, sounds like your crying to me........

Well I recently finished a game where one of the players was almost out. So he told another player where he was, how many he had, and what the best route was for him to come and get his cards. I gave him a neg feedback, because it was not strategy for him to win, it was just him deciding who to give the advantage to, his game was over.

Would you consider that a fair part of the game?

Juls wrote:Well I recently finished a game where one of the players was almost out. So he told another player where he was, how many he had, and what the best route was for him to come and get his cards. I gave him a neg feedback, because it was not strategy for him to win, it was just him deciding who to give the advantage to, his game was over.

Would you consider that a fair part of the game?

That's pretty rude, and can make things seem pretty unfair, but, I guess I feel the same way about that as I do about suiciding. It sucks when it happens to you, but it is part of the deal. If you don't want someone to suicide on you when you've got them trapped, or give themselves up to someone else, its on you to either not make them feel trapped, or finish them before they can. Diplomacy and timing are huge parts of this game. You have to realize when you've pushed someone so far that they feel the game is over for them, and make sure you finish them before they can get you back.

I think that if someone is telling everyone else what your doing its just the same as cheating. The purpose of fog is to make others want to expand their games so they know what is going on. If someone squeals that you are building alot of armies up then They are trying to sabotage your game. I really don't believe in alliances either. If someone is strong then the other players in the game should just know they have to work together to stop the strongest. It's not fair that people can talk in the chat and set up an arrangement that they don't attack eachother for so many turns. Everyone should just play for themselves and use common sense and not form gay alliances that usually end up killing the strongest player. If you need to work with someone in order to win then just play a doubles game.

I'd take your opinion seriously, only it appears that you're playing some game that I've never heard of. Y'see, CC works like this

The front page of this site wrote:Risk all your armies on a daring continent grab. Use diplomacy to coordinate a group assault on the game leader. Feel the thrill of victory as you eliminate your last opponent.

In other words: If you don't like alliances, then you don't like CC. If you don't like people bartering information in FoW games, then you don't like CC. Complaining about is just rude and dull.

Basically people (and I'm talking about all the dice-hating twats here too), quit bitching about things that have made you lose, they're a part of the game and you just need to learn to play around them, instead of crying when people don't just blithely ignore you and let you build up a gigantic advantage to crush them with. This is a cut-throat strategy game, and if you don't appreciate cut-throat strategy, then it isn't the game for you.

Dancing Mustard wrote:I'd take your opinion seriously, only it appears that you're playing some game that I've never heard of. Y'see, CC works like this

The front page of this site wrote:Risk all your armies on a daring continent grab. Use diplomacy to coordinate a group assault on the game leader. Feel the thrill of victory as you eliminate your last opponent.

In other words: If you don't like alliances, then you don't like CC. If you don't like people bartering information in FoW games, then you don't like CC. Complaining about is just rude and dull.

Basically people (and I'm talking about all the dice-hating twats here too), quit bitching about things that have made you lose, they're a part of the game and you just need to learn to play around them, instead of crying when people don't just blithely ignore you and let you build up a gigantic advantage to crush them with. This is a cut-throat strategy game, and if you don't appreciate cut-throat strategy, then it isn't the game for you.

This is one of the rare time I completely agree with Dancing Mustard.

Dancing Mustard wrote:

wcaclimbing wrote:its called "i would leave negative feedback if a guy told others where i was hiding".

What appaling sportsmanship that would be... that's like giving negative feedback because somebody attacked one of your territories.

I agree with DM. If you announce that so and so has all of a continent that you control the northern half of (as well as the northern entrance) this could easily convince some of the more gullible people to attack said continent from the south, thus weakening both players. This was kinda off topic, but I've just got to point out: just because your opponent says something, you don't have to believe it. Also, if someone is informing the other players of your location, you can turn that against them in the same way.

I could see that if I had anything to do with their being in a losing position, them suiciding on me or something. But in a 6 player esclating FoW game, it screws everyone else over in the game without any benefit to anyone, except of course, who he gave the info to.

autoload wrote:

Dancing Mustard wrote:I'd take your opinion seriously, only it appears that you're playing some game that I've never heard of. Y'see, CC works like this

The front page of this site wrote:Risk all your armies on a daring continent grab. Use diplomacy to coordinate a group assault on the game leader. Feel the thrill of victory as you eliminate your last opponent.

In other words: If you don't like alliances, then you don't like CC. If you don't like people bartering information in FoW games, then you don't like CC. Complaining about is just rude and dull.

Basically people (and I'm talking about all the dice-hating twats here too), quit bitching about things that have made you lose, they're a part of the game and you just need to learn to play around them, instead of crying when people don't just blithely ignore you and let you build up a gigantic advantage to crush them with. This is a cut-throat strategy game, and if you don't appreciate cut-throat strategy, then it isn't the game for you.

This is one of the rare time I completely agree with Dancing Mustard.

Not the only one!

I'm not a big fan of FoW because it doesn't suit escalating so well but I like it's concept and I realise that diplomacy and lying to each other is a much bigger part of the game than it usually is. The best FoW player would probably make a very good politician!

I don't have a problem with people giving out information in a bid to win the game, I realize that is part of the game, politics, tactics, strategy, whatever. But I still think giving your position out to another player so that they can take your cards is pretty lame. It doesn't help you win, so it just screws up the game for everyone else, particularly in an escalating game. I did win the game anyway, but I just thought it was pretty lame.
Oh well, I guess you just have to live with it. I will cease the whining now!

although i think DM said it best with his response, i just have to add one thing. I always here people on here say there traditionalists at the game and there should be no aliances and no calling out what others have in Fog games, but like DM said, this game is not just about strategy, it's also about diplomacy, and knowing when to be aggressive or passive until your oppertunity comes around. I've played too many players that are very good strategest, but have no concept of interaction with the other players, so they get strong in the beginning then the others gang up on them and crush them and then they whine and cry about aliances. It's really a simple process, have a good strategy, but get into the heads of the other players and you'll win more than you lose, giving that you get reasonably decent dice... it all depends on the dice........