3 players left...
Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 10:07 pmThere are three players left, and two make an alliance...is that fair? http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=2400608
It is within the rules however, so they didn't do anything wrong
Conquer Club
Conquer Club, a free online multiplayer variation of a popular world domination board game.
http://rzmhprwww.conquerclub.com/forum/
3 players left...
http://rzmhprwww.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=52533
Page 1 of 1
Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 10:07 pmRe: 3 players left...
Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 10:11 pmFair? Definately not.
It is within the rules however, so they didn't do anything wrong
It is within the rules however, so they didn't do anything wrong
Re: 3 players left...
Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 10:22 pmYeah, I know it is, but it's still bull!
Re: 3 players left...
Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 10:24 pmAgreed. I've had a few alliances in my day, but I don't think I've done it when there were only 3 people left...
Re: 3 players left...
Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 10:36 pmIf you did this in a tournament game, you would probably get a few negatives, huh?
Re: 3 players left...
Posted: Sat May 31, 2008 4:22 amDaGip wrote:If you did this in a tournament game, you would probably get a few negatives, huh?
tournament games generally alliances are no-no unless the tourny says so, if it is a tourny speak to the organiser
Re: 3 players left...
Posted: Sat May 31, 2008 11:52 amDaGip wrote:There are three players left, and two make an alliance...is that fair? http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=2400608
some people did that to me aswel - they made it in like round 5 - said i was "way too strong", they really pissed me off - i wasnt strong - i just took out his castle in feudal.
anyway - check my feedback left/received and those people left a posotive for me just to piss me off - i demanded they remove it but they wont
stupid spannish puff
Re: 3 players left...
Posted: Sat May 31, 2008 4:31 pmThere is nothing bull about 3 player alliances. Any smart player knows if they make them self strong there gonna get bullied out of it. A player who cant handle the alliance that they know is legit against them is just a shield at their frustration. 
Re: 3 players left...
Posted: Sat May 31, 2008 5:28 pmgimil wrote:There is nothing bull about 3 player alliances. Any smart player knows if they make them self strong there gonna get bullied out of it. A player who cant handle the alliance that they know is legit against them is just a shield at their frustration.
alliances are for weak players, period. if you want an alliance, play a team game.-0
Re: 3 players left...
Posted: Sat May 31, 2008 6:07 pmowenshooter wrote:gimil wrote:There is nothing bull about 3 player alliances. Any smart player knows if they make them self strong there gonna get bullied out of it. A player who cant handle the alliance that they know is legit against them is just a shield at their frustration.
alliances are for weak players, period. if you want an alliance, play a team game.-0
Even though it is perfectly legal, it's definately a cheap tactic...I consider people who use alliances to be dis-honorable, but hey, that's just me. Fortunately, I've never had to deal with them....
Re: 3 players left...
Posted: Sat May 31, 2008 7:46 pmDaGip wrote:There are three players left, and two make an alliance...is that fair? http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=2400608
Sir you know in a game it is always one against all, that they voice it is just for their benifit.
Re: 3 players left...
Posted: Sat May 31, 2008 7:53 pmowenshooter wrote:gimil wrote:There is nothing bull about 3 player alliances. Any smart player knows if they make them self strong there gonna get bullied out of it. A player who cant handle the alliance that they know is legit against them is just a shield at their frustration.
alliances are for weak players, period. if you want an alliance, play a team game.-0
Well its generally weak players than need alliances to get back into strong positions so that statement is correct, a smart player always makes alliances when its for there benefit.
I will make an alliance to get myself back into a good position or if I can use the alliance in a smart way to help me win. Remember this is a game of strategy, not honor. If an alliance is part of a winning strategy there is no reason to not use it.
Re: 3 players left...
Posted: Sat May 31, 2008 7:54 pmwacicha wrote:DaGip wrote:There are three players left, and two make an alliance...is that fair? http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=2400608
Sir you know in a game it is always one against all, that they voice it is just for their benifit.
Indeed, the wise man knows all.
Re: 3 players left...
Posted: Sat May 31, 2008 10:31 pmwacicha wrote:DaGip wrote:There are three players left, and two make an alliance...is that fair? http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=2400608
Sir you know in a game it is always one against all, that they voice it is just for their benifit.
as well said as could be said, but alliances still suck...
Re: 3 players left...
Posted: Sat May 31, 2008 10:53 pmowenshooter wrote:gimil wrote:There is nothing bull about 3 player alliances. Any smart player knows if they make them self strong there gonna get bullied out of it. A player who cant handle the alliance that they know is legit against them is just a shield at their frustration.
alliances are for weak players, period. if you want an alliance, play a team game.-0
Team games are the wimpiest form of alliance because you can't break them...
Re: 3 players left...
Posted: Sat May 31, 2008 11:18 pmgloryordeath wrote:wacicha wrote:DaGip wrote:There are three players left, and two make an alliance...is that fair? http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=2400608
Sir you know in a game it is always one against all, that they voice it is just for their benifit.
as well said as could be said, but alliances still suck...
I agree, I never ally. but it happens so play accordingly
Re: 3 players left...
Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2008 12:48 amThis has actualy been a very fun game, which is not a team game now but a 3 player game strat wise.
There will always be self righteous folk who disagree so I lose no sleep
The game is built on luck, strategy AND manipulation of your enemies. Those who dont get it, well they wont. Some in this understand the motivating force when it happens.
Ive watched folks trade ones in games for cards, Ive been ganged up and elimated because higher ranks didnt want to lose to me. The other day I posted on somthing I perceived as a stupid move during an escalating game. The game had gone perfectly for me uintil...wello until it didnt lol. I was told by players whose opinions I respect that indeed the player I questioned indeed did a smart thing. Its all a matter of perspective.
In this game Green has played an outstanding game. He was at the point where he could sit and build with out a care, which is what he was doing, while blue and I killed each other over the boarders of Gondor. At the time of his choosing he could simply haul off and storm through with a massive army. I simply forced his hand and took the brunt, which only confirms what his strategy was going to be. I just called it out.
World history is based on just such alliances. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. There is great irony in that now blue can sit back as green pitbulls me. But thems the breaks and this is just a game.
And on one final note...im sorry Gip is so upset and neaded to air this horrid affair /sarcasm off...But by far the Stupidest play of this game was Gip leaving ONE sole red army for me to take out 2 countries away and both with ones. I was shocked at the stupidity.
Also my team mate (my son) was taken out first. I had been playing solo against the other two teams when Gip made his fatal blunder. Green and I never made any alliance but there was a few turns we were on the same wavelength to eliminate yellow. Yellow over extended into greens territorry and thought he could go into Greens hornets nest safely. I took out yellow completely out on my part of the map suspecting that green would try and eliminate yellow in his part. he didnt dissapoint.
Strategy is not black and white folks...if we wanted to roll numbers with out the politics we would play a computer.
Have a good night all.
There will always be self righteous folk who disagree so I lose no sleep
The game is built on luck, strategy AND manipulation of your enemies. Those who dont get it, well they wont. Some in this understand the motivating force when it happens.
Ive watched folks trade ones in games for cards, Ive been ganged up and elimated because higher ranks didnt want to lose to me. The other day I posted on somthing I perceived as a stupid move during an escalating game. The game had gone perfectly for me uintil...wello until it didnt lol. I was told by players whose opinions I respect that indeed the player I questioned indeed did a smart thing. Its all a matter of perspective.
In this game Green has played an outstanding game. He was at the point where he could sit and build with out a care, which is what he was doing, while blue and I killed each other over the boarders of Gondor. At the time of his choosing he could simply haul off and storm through with a massive army. I simply forced his hand and took the brunt, which only confirms what his strategy was going to be. I just called it out.
World history is based on just such alliances. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. There is great irony in that now blue can sit back as green pitbulls me. But thems the breaks and this is just a game.
And on one final note...im sorry Gip is so upset and neaded to air this horrid affair /sarcasm off...But by far the Stupidest play of this game was Gip leaving ONE sole red army for me to take out 2 countries away and both with ones. I was shocked at the stupidity.
Also my team mate (my son) was taken out first. I had been playing solo against the other two teams when Gip made his fatal blunder. Green and I never made any alliance but there was a few turns we were on the same wavelength to eliminate yellow. Yellow over extended into greens territorry and thought he could go into Greens hornets nest safely. I took out yellow completely out on my part of the map suspecting that green would try and eliminate yellow in his part. he didnt dissapoint.
Strategy is not black and white folks...if we wanted to roll numbers with out the politics we would play a computer.
Have a good night all.
Re: 3 players left...
Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:07 amWell said, sir.
War is hell, unpredictable and full of pitfalls, chance and treachery.
So suck it up, cupcake.
J
War is hell, unpredictable and full of pitfalls, chance and treachery.
So suck it up, cupcake.
J
Re: 3 players left...
Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:58 amI personally never have used them, but I think alliances are legitimate. It's a strategy--if you form an alliance, you're more likely to win (unless of course it sets you up to lose to the other person). I agree that weaker players tend to be the ones to start alliances, but a stronger player could benefit from doing so as well -- they just chose not to, due to honor.
Re: 3 players left...
Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2008 12:51 pmIron Butterfly wrote:This has actualy been a very fun game, which is not a team game now but a 3 player game strat wise.
There will always be self righteous folk who disagree so I lose no sleep
The game is built on luck, strategy AND manipulation of your enemies. Those who dont get it, well they wont. Some in this understand the motivating force when it happens.
Ive watched folks trade ones in games for cards, Ive been ganged up and elimated because higher ranks didnt want to lose to me. The other day I posted on somthing I perceived as a stupid move during an escalating game. The game had gone perfectly for me uintil...wello until it didnt lol. I was told by players whose opinions I respect that indeed the player I questioned indeed did a smart thing. Its all a matter of perspective.
In this game Green has played an outstanding game. He was at the point where he could sit and build with out a care, which is what he was doing, while blue and I killed each other over the boarders of Gondor. At the time of his choosing he could simply haul off and storm through with a massive army. I simply forced his hand and took the brunt, which only confirms what his strategy was going to be. I just called it out.
World history is based on just such alliances. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. There is great irony in that now blue can sit back as green pitbulls me. But thems the breaks and this is just a game.
And on one final note...im sorry Gip is so upset and neaded to air this horrid affair /sarcasm off...But by far the Stupidest play of this game was Gip leaving ONE sole red army for me to take out 2 countries away and both with ones. I was shocked at the stupidity.
Also my team mate (my son) was taken out first. I had been playing solo against the other two teams when Gip made his fatal blunder. Green and I never made any alliance but there was a few turns we were on the same wavelength to eliminate yellow. Yellow over extended into greens territorry and thought he could go into Greens hornets nest safely. I took out yellow completely out on my part of the map suspecting that green would try and eliminate yellow in his part. he didnt dissapoint.
Strategy is not black and white folks...if we wanted to roll numbers with out the politics we would play a computer.
Have a good night all.
You call my move stupid, but your alliance only serves your own demise. It doesn't serve you to win the game at all. Can't you see that?
No offense to my partner, because he was doing fine until the alliance, but if I was playing Lindon instead of him, this game would had already been over with. I have beaten teams all by myself as long as I can hold Lindon.
Your alliance only smoked my partners armies out, to both yours and blue's benefit, however, why give the game to blue? I thought you wanted to win? Don't you see that when you make an alliance that that leaves the person being ganged up on no choice but to decide on which player he/she wants to take out with them, and my partner is choosing you because you offered the alliance, blue just took you up on it.
If you couldn't see the error of your own alliance, I think that makes you the stupid one.
Have fun losing the game!
Re: 3 players left...
Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2008 3:02 pmIf a condemned man is about to die and his only chance of escape will probobly insure his death I gaurantee he will still take the chance.
I grasp the logic.
I just get bothered by some elitists who feel their way is the only way to play. Your deemed dishonorable if you go against the group think.
I grasp the logic.
I just get bothered by some elitists who feel their way is the only way to play. Your deemed dishonorable if you go against the group think.
Re: 3 players left...
Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2008 4:53 pmIron Butterfly wrote:If a condemned man is about to die and his only chance of escape will probobly insure his death I gaurantee he will still take the chance.
I grasp the logic.
I just get bothered by some elitists who feel their way is the only way to play. Your deemed dishonorable if you go against the group think.
9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB!
Re: 3 players left...
Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2008 6:40 pmThe irony!
Re: 3 players left...
Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2008 7:25 pmIron Butterfly wrote:The irony!
You shall bow before your elitist Over Lord!! Boohahahahaahaaa!
