Conquer Club

I obviously know the rule about secret alliances, but i am a little foggy about plans made in the alliances. I do not want to get negative feedback becuase i messed up. My question is this. "If i have already asked for an alliance and the other accepted it, do all our plans have to be put on the chat board or can they be made with private messages" And plans refer to things like, Coordinated attacks.....Fients.........pretty much all sort of plans. I would think this would be allowed to do since the persons alliance was said, but i want to be sure

Before I give any opinion, I want to say that I am not a mod and in no way is anything I say official.
Honestly, there is a lot of debate on this issue. The best thing would be to say in game chat "we are making agreements via PM" or something to that effect. My personal feeling is that once you have made the alliance, the only thing that must be announced is the end of the truce. But again, not official and there is a lot of debate.

however... you should know... regardless of how you make an alliance, regardless of how you carry out the alliance, EVEN if it is done properly, it is still grounds for a negative from an opponent. as odd as that seems, it is true. being discussed in a few threads now, so you should keep that in mind.-0

p.s.-i hate alliances.. they are for weak players!!!

TheDominator5 wrote:I obviously know the rule about secret alliances, but i am a little foggy about plans made in the alliances. I do not want to get negative feedback becuase i messed up. My question is this. "If i have already asked for an alliance and the other accepted it, do all our plans have to be put on the chat board or can they be made with private messages" And plans refer to things like, Coordinated attacks.....Fients.........pretty much all sort of plans. I would think this would be allowed to do since the persons alliance was said, but i want to be sure

The only requirement is that the alliance is announced in game chat prior to occurring in a language all understand. It is not required to give specifics. However, this may change in the future.

You know that there are many "unspoken" alliances that occur in games because experienced players know what needs to be done... and do it. No words are exchanged and no plans are made, they just size up the situation and do what is best for the game.

I think announcing an alliance is the only proper thing to do, but discussing strategy and scheming outside of the game is very lame. In my opinion planning moves outside the game is both poor sportsmanship and disrespectful to all other players in your game. If you have the mental capacity to play, there is no need to secretly discuss attacks in private because it should be obvious what needs to happen if another player is dominating the map.

If you want a teamate? Join a doubles game and spare your singles competition the covert operations and give them a fair fight.

wicked wrote:The only requirement is that the alliance is announced in game chat prior to occurring in a language all understand. It is not required to give specifics. However, this may change in the future.

Yea how did that discussion you where going to have end???
Not that it really matters as -O mentioned perhaps but it would be good to know if I'm a cheat or not. Kind of hard to tell when different mods have different definitions...

owenshooter wrote:however... you should know... regardless of how you make an alliance, regardless of how you carry out the alliance, EVEN if it is done properly, it is still grounds for a negative from an opponent. as odd as that seems, it is true. being discussed in a few threads now, so you should keep that in mind.-0

p.s.-i hate alliances.. they are for weak players!!!

if a player is laying back in a continent and letting other players fight and weaken themselves, while the player builds up armies, it is ESSENTIAL to form an alliance to take the continent from him (especially in cardless games). otherwise, they will just wait until their advantage is the greatest (i.e., everyone has decimated each other's forces fighting over other continents), and then win the game very quickly. strategy has no room for posturing like "weak" and "strong". strategy is rational, plain and simple.

i do agree that its odd. you shouldn't get a negative rating for being strategic on conquer club.

shbedr wrote:if a player is laying back in a continent and letting other players fight and weaken themselves, while the player builds up armies, it is ESSENTIAL to form an alliance to take the continent from him (especially in cardless games). otherwise, they will just wait until their advantage is the greatest (i.e., everyone has decimated each other's forces fighting over other continents), and then win the game very quickly. strategy has no room for posturing like "weak" and "strong". strategy is rational, plain and simple.

i do agree that its odd. you shouldn't get a negative rating for being strategic on conquer club.

disagree, i play about 99% no cards games, and i have never formed an alliance. granted of that 99% about 97% are team games, soooooo, there you go. i just don't like alliances, see no need for alliances, and when playing standard games, like to play my own game.-0

p.s.-don't make me come defend my words, over 2 months after a thread is dead! nice bump!

all it is all has to be put in the chat thats it so all u plans to

assassin07 wrote:all it is all has to be put in the chat thats it so all u plans to

yeah, that was stated over two months ago, this thread has been bumped. and as was said before, even if you put it in chat, it is (or was back then), grounds for a negative feedback.. which, i assume now would translate to a poor rating...-0

owenshooter wrote:

shbedr wrote:if a player is laying back in a continent and letting other players fight and weaken themselves, while the player builds up armies, it is ESSENTIAL to form an alliance to take the continent from him (especially in cardless games). otherwise, they will just wait until their advantage is the greatest (i.e., everyone has decimated each other's forces fighting over other continents), and then win the game very quickly. strategy has no room for posturing like "weak" and "strong". strategy is rational, plain and simple.

i do agree that its odd. you shouldn't get a negative rating for being strategic on conquer club.

disagree, i play about 99% no cards games, and i have never formed an alliance. granted of that 99% about 97% are team games, soooooo, there you go. i just don't like alliances, see no need for alliances, and when playing standard games, like to play my own game.-0

p.s.-don't make me come defend my words, over 2 months after a thread is dead! nice bump!

I personally would not give someone a negative for forming an alliance, but some people do consider them "cheap tactics", and like "double turning" in freestyle, etc. may end up with you getting a low rating.

Some people also get suspicious of alliances as a "multi" issue, especially if you make an alliance with the same person in more than one game.

A lot of people consider them poor form in a 3 player game unless things are heavily out of balance already, but all of that is just opinion and just depends on who you play.

owenshooter wrote: and as was said before, even if you put it in chat, it is (or was back then), grounds for a negative feedback.. which, i assume now would translate to a poor rating...-0

Not to mention the changes to rule 2 that has been made since this thread was started.....

owenshooter wrote:disagree, i play about 99% no cards games, and i have never formed an alliance. granted of that 99% about 97% are team games, soooooo, there you go. i just don't like alliances, see no need for alliances, and when playing standard games, like to play my own game.-0

p.s.-don't make me come defend my words, over 2 months after a thread is dead! nice bump!

ha, sorry about the late response. i am new to the site and had some curiosity about how alliances are viewed.

anyway, while i appreciate your game preferences, the strategic worth of an alliance is all that i am addressing and not whether one likes them. in a cardless game, a temporary alliance imo is an effective (and sometimes necessary response) to the rise in the use of the "sitting back in a continent" strategy that occurs in cardless games.

sorry again for the late bump.

shbedr wrote:

owenshooter wrote:disagree, i play about 99% no cards games, and i have never formed an alliance. granted of that 99% about 97% are team games, soooooo, there you go. i just don't like alliances, see no need for alliances, and when playing standard games, like to play my own game.-0

p.s.-don't make me come defend my words, over 2 months after a thread is dead! nice bump!

ha, sorry about the late response. i am new to the site and had some curiosity about how alliances are viewed.

anyway, while i appreciate your game preferences, the strategic worth of an alliance is all that i am addressing and not whether one likes them. in a cardless game, a temporary alliance imo is an effective (and sometimes necessary response) to the rise in the use of the "sitting back in a continent" strategy that occurs in cardless games.

sorry again for the late bump.

i don't know what type of games you are playing in... i play mostly teams, and there isn't really any sitting back and sitting on a bonus... i have come across some stockpiling in standard games, in which case, if you are talking standard/no cards, i'll have to semi-agree with you... get a team together and come roll the bones against me and one of my partners!-0