Conquer Club

Anybody else hate when this happens in a standard format game? Maybe I'm just venting cuz I've been in a couple games (i.e. Game 3782594 )in a row where one person jumps to a strong lead, then get allied against, then they complain about the alliance. Sorry, but Risk is all about allying. It's also important not to expand so quickly that the rest of the players see you as a threat.

Alliances are silly and unneeded. The better players generally know what needs to happen and can adjust on the whim to attack who is in the lead without having to set cease fire agreements. I haven't seen an alliance in over a year in my games.

Bones2484 wrote:I haven't seen an alliance in over a year in my games.

now that you mention it... i havnt either... interesting

To alley is part of the game that we all must accept
but in must cases i have seen its just a ploy the real player in control fools another into thinking because of the appernce of another player that they are winning and need to be dealt with
but this is a strtagey as well so more power to you

I've been asked several times for an alliance. My response is that it's an unwritten rule in some cases to attack or minimize a game leader.

TurinTurambar wrote:Anybody else hate when this happens in a standard format game? Maybe I'm just venting cuz I've been in a couple games (i.e. Game 3782594 )in a row where one person jumps to a strong lead, then get allied against, then they complain about the alliance. Sorry, but Risk is all about allying. It's also important not to expand so quickly that the rest of the players see you as a threat.

Well said! :clap:

A game with no alliance:

Oh, look, someone has over half the map... maybe I should deploy against him... oh look, he is growing more powerful, maybe I should start bringing my troops from my other borders to attack him... no, that would be an alliance, and unfair... oh, "gg" (darn, I was hoping this would last more than three rounds)

A game with an Alliance:

Oh, look, someone has over half the map... "Hey Green, maybe we should stop fighting"
"Yeah, been thinking the same thing."
oh look, he is still really strong...
"How about we take those stacks off our borders? I don't think that either of us were planning to go all out on each other anyways."
"Yeah, but let's leave 5 troops there, in case he kills off one of us,"
"Alright"
The extra troops and alliance allowed a balance of power to be established. The game goes on for many more rounds, until someone finally managed to pull themselves ahead through a combination of diplomacy, tactics and troop manuevering.

To have an alliance when one player or team is taking complete charge is one thing; BUT, keeping that alliance long after they're no longer leading is pure BS.
Its happened to me and my partner many times. -We take control of a game and the other teams continue to ally until they've eliminated us.
Recently, in a 3 team game this happened and, IMO, if you've got to have an alliance to assure that you or the other losing team will win, it goes against the integrity of the game.

So, my reply to the OP is, Don't whine when a team is kicking your ass. Suck it up and don't try passing off an unfair advantage on 'being a better diplomat,' etc.

It's better to lose honorably than win because you gang up on someone who's clearly outplaying and outmaneuvering you.

I'd say there's a pretty fine line between alliances and out-and-out collusion, which is what it seems like ^^ is describing. I'm not quite sure I get why setting down an alliance in chat is that much worse than the implicit, unspoken agreement you guys are talking about. As long as yeah, it doesn't turn into collusion at the end, which it does sometimes.

real players can stand on their own as far as i feel but thats why i joined XI so i don't have to put up with it if i don't want to.

Elijah S wrote:It's better to lose honorably than win because you gang up on someone who's clearly outplaying and outmaneuvering you.

If you are outplaying me on the board, but I am able to rally people against a leader much better than you (I have done this countless times, and for some reason won most of the time), aren't those both measures of skill?

I personally think that the ability to position yourself in an area that is out of the way, so no one attacks you, be able to keep players calm about the fact that you have taken over half the board, or be able to rouse up a resistance against one of your opponents is a very good skill. I think it is equally important as being able to win my attacking, and maneuvering troops.

I am sure there are many who think otherwise, but that is my personal look at things.

Elijah S wrote:To have an alliance when one player or team is taking complete charge is one thing; BUT, keeping that alliance long after they're no longer leading is pure BS.
Its happened to me and my partner many times. -We take control of a game and the other teams continue to ally until they've eliminated us.
Recently, in a 3 team game this happened and, IMO, if you've got to have an alliance to assure that you or the other losing team will win, it goes against the integrity of the game.

So, my reply to the OP is, Don't whine when a team is kicking your ass. Suck it up and don't try passing off an unfair advantage on 'being a better diplomat,' etc.

It's better to lose honorably than win because you gang up on someone who's clearly outplaying and outmaneuvering you.

Can't agree with your sentiments here, I am afraid. If you put yourself into a position where both the other teams have to attack, and fort, towards you, then you are in great danger of being eliminated. All the troops are coming your way and once you are broken, they may as well finish you off. You probably made the mistake of going for the 'big push' without having enough men to deal with the other two teams attacking collectively.

Look at it this way: you make a big, game threatening move and (I don't doubt) expect to be attacked...at least a bit. But to the other teams, they have had to send all their troops towards you and may have even had to send forces that were facing the other team at you as well. These forces are now all out of position, unless they are to be used in killing you. They could stop after you have been dusted a bit and fort them back. But the position has now changed, maybe forting away from you is not a good option anymore. So they kill you for territory and go at it 2 on 2. There is nothing wrong with that at all and I would think decent players could work all that out 'in game' without the need for any diplomacy.

Mr Changsha wrote:

Elijah S wrote:To have an alliance when one player or team is taking complete charge is one thing; BUT, keeping that alliance long after they're no longer leading is pure BS.
Its happened to me and my partner many times. -We take control of a game and the other teams continue to ally until they've eliminated us.
Recently, in a 3 team game this happened and, IMO, if you've got to have an alliance to assure that you or the other losing team will win, it goes against the integrity of the game.

So, my reply to the OP is, Don't whine when a team is kicking your ass. Suck it up and don't try passing off an unfair advantage on 'being a better diplomat,' etc.

It's better to lose honorably than win because you gang up on someone who's clearly outplaying and outmaneuvering you.

Can't agree with your sentiments here, I am afraid. If you put yourself into a position where both the other teams have to attack, and fort, towards you, then you are in great danger of being eliminated. All the troops are coming your way and once you are broken, they may as well finish you off. You probably made the mistake of going for the 'big push' without having enough men to deal with the other two teams attacking collectively.

Look at it this way: you make a big, game threatening move and (I don't doubt) expect to be attacked...at least a bit. But to the other teams, they have had to send all their troops towards you and may have even had to send forces that were facing the other team at you as well. These forces are now all out of position, unless they are to be used in killing you. They could stop after you have been dusted a bit and fort them back. But the position has now changed, maybe forting away from you is not a good option anymore. So they kill you for territory and go at it 2 on 2. There is nothing wrong with that at all and I would think decent players could work all that out 'in game' without the need for any diplomacy.

I can but agree with Mr C. His strategic thinking here is logical and impeccable.

However, I also have to say (and have said before)...

Treaties are for pussies.

TurinTurambar wrote:Anybody else hate when this happens in a standard format game? Maybe I'm just venting cuz I've been in a couple games (i.e. Game 3782594 )in a row where one person jumps to a strong lead, then get allied against, then they complain about the alliance. Sorry, but Risk is all about allying. It's also important not to expand so quickly that the rest of the players see you as a threat.

Quite on the contrary, Risk isn't about alliances at all. Only subpar players form alliances. Smart, better players do not follow such limiting tactics and often unfair. Otherwise - why don't you form an alliance with 3 other players at the start of the game? Will that not increase your chances on winning..?

TurinTurambar wrote:Anybody else hate when this happens in a standard format game? Maybe I'm just venting cuz I've been in a couple games (i.e. Game 3782594 )in a row where one person jumps to a strong lead, then get allied against, then they complain about the alliance. Sorry, but Risk is all about allying. It's also important not to expand so quickly that the rest of the players see you as a threat.

I think alliances are fine, but most people are complete douches about it. I, personally, try to keep the playing field as even as possible (in no esc) while getting slowly ahead myself. When players ally against me I don't mind, except in two circumstances... a) I'm not actually the most powerful, and stand no chance against the alliance and, b) The alliance continues even when each partner of the alliance is singlehandedly stronger than me. Both of those cases yield considertaion of 'foe' from me, which I think is fair enough. If you want to gang up, play teams, if you're no good at teams, get better. Currently only 6 people have made thf oe list for this reason though.

Fruitcake said it so eloquently....Alliances are for pussies.

FabledIntegral wrote:

TurinTurambar wrote:Anybody else hate when this happens in a standard format game? Maybe I'm just venting cuz I've been in a couple games (i.e. Game 3782594 )in a row where one person jumps to a strong lead, then get allied against, then they complain about the alliance. Sorry, but Risk is all about allying. It's also important not to expand so quickly that the rest of the players see you as a threat.

Quite on the contrary, Risk isn't about alliances at all. Only subpar players form alliances. Smart, better players do not follow such limiting tactics and often unfair. Otherwise - why don't you form an alliance with 3 other players at the start of the game? Will that not increase your chances on winning..?

Seeing as you will slaughter me, I see where you are coming from. Although, I think you are more likely to get suicided into if you call for an alliance that is not necessary. Personally, I would start leaning towards attacking that person myself, although I am for alliances.

Alliances are a tool, and give the game another facet and and inject an interesting element of diplomacy. Those who feel it's unfair, or for pussies just lack the social skills to form them. Alliances in a three way though are stupid unless one player has a huge advantage and needs to be throttled out.

There are those who forget to put limits on alliances and then get buggered by them.
Put round or border stipulations on them and they are even more a strategic tool.

If you end up on the shit end of the stick, well.....theres always checkers.

Johnny Rockets

(Much better that V1.24)

Johnny Rockets wrote:Alliances are a tool, and give the game another facet and and inject an interesting element of diplomacy. Those who feel it's unfair, or for pussies just lack the social skills to form them. Alliances in a three way though are stupid unless one player has a huge advantage and needs to be throttled out.

There are those who forget to put limits on alliances and then get buggered by them.
Put round or border stipulations on them and they are even more a strategic tool.

If you end up on the shit end of the stick, well.....theres always checkers.

Johnny Rockets

(Much better that V1.24)

Well said, Johnny. I also agree with Neon Peon and Mr. Cheng earlier in the thread. Alliances are not for "pussies" as someone said earlier. If one player has pushed himself too far, that is their fault. Two players who are at medium strength cuz they've been fighting each other could and should set up a temporary alliance with specific end points (so they don't get screwed by them later and so it doesn't become an unfair 2v1v1, etc. game) so that they can bring down the strongest player. I don't consider it being outmaneuvered if someone has spread themself too far and posed themself as a threat to the rest of the board. You are a loser if you just say all of a sudden, "oh well, that person is stronger than the rest of us. Guess I'll just keep on with my original strategy even though he'll win doubtless." No, that's ridiculous. You better adjust your strategy as that's the only way you'll win at that point.

And whoever said why don't you just team up 3 v 1 at the beginning cuz it would increase your chances of winning is incorrect. It actually increases your chances of being backstabbed by your two partners. Yes, you hope that people will honor the terms of the agreement, but that doesn't always happen unfortunately.

Mr Changsha wrote:

Elijah S wrote:To have an alliance when one player or team is taking complete charge is one thing; BUT, keeping that alliance long after they're no longer leading is pure BS.
Its happened to me and my partner many times. -We take control of a game and the other teams continue to ally until they've eliminated us.
Recently, in a 3 team game this happened and, IMO, if you've got to have an alliance to assure that you or the other losing team will win, it goes against the integrity of the game.

So, my reply to the OP is, Don't whine when a team is kicking your ass. Suck it up and don't try passing off an unfair advantage on 'being a better diplomat,' etc.

It's better to lose honorably than win because you gang up on someone who's clearly outplaying and outmaneuvering you.

Can't agree with your sentiments here, I am afraid. If you put yourself into a position where both the other teams have to attack, and fort, towards you, then you are in great danger of being eliminated. All the troops are coming your way and once you are broken, they may as well finish you off. You probably made the mistake of going for the 'big push' without having enough men to deal with the other two teams attacking collectively.

Look at it this way: you make a big, game threatening move and (I don't doubt) expect to be attacked...at least a bit. But to the other teams, they have had to send all their troops towards you and may have even had to send forces that were facing the other team at you as well. These forces are now all out of position, unless they are to be used in killing you. They could stop after you have been dusted a bit and fort them back. But the position has now changed, maybe forting away from you is not a good option anymore. So they kill you for territory and go at it 2 on 2. There is nothing wrong with that at all and I would think decent players could work all that out 'in game' without the need for any diplomacy.

As someone who has never kept an alliance to the point of eliminating the player/team who was running the board, I'm still not surprised that many players seem to think it's ok. -I've had it done against me numerous times.
But to keep the alliance, focusing your attacks on the player/team who was winning, but is clearly no longer the biggest threat, is a pussy move.
Regardless of how you might try to condone it, what it boils down to is, you were getting beat and couldn't win without obtaining an unfair advantage.
Again, making an alliance to create balance is one thing, continuing it when the reason has gone, (i.e.- the player who was kicking everyone's ass is barely hanging on) shows a serious lack of integrity.
This attitude I keep seeing in this thread about "being a better diplomat" if you're able to form an alliance, is merely an attempt to cloak the truth that you'd prefer to win at any cost, including your personal honor and sense of fair play -(Clearly not something that all members have.)

Elijah S wrote:

Mr Changsha wrote:

Elijah S wrote:To have an alliance when one player or team is taking complete charge is one thing; BUT, keeping that alliance long after they're no longer leading is pure BS.
Its happened to me and my partner many times. -We take control of a game and the other teams continue to ally until they've eliminated us.
Recently, in a 3 team game this happened and, IMO, if you've got to have an alliance to assure that you or the other losing team will win, it goes against the integrity of the game.

So, my reply to the OP is, Don't whine when a team is kicking your ass. Suck it up and don't try passing off an unfair advantage on 'being a better diplomat,' etc.

It's better to lose honorably than win because you gang up on someone who's clearly outplaying and outmaneuvering you.

Can't agree with your sentiments here, I am afraid. If you put yourself into a position where both the other teams have to attack, and fort, towards you, then you are in great danger of being eliminated. All the troops are coming your way and once you are broken, they may as well finish you off. You probably made the mistake of going for the 'big push' without having enough men to deal with the other two teams attacking collectively.

Look at it this way: you make a big, game threatening move and (I don't doubt) expect to be attacked...at least a bit. But to the other teams, they have had to send all their troops towards you and may have even had to send forces that were facing the other team at you as well. These forces are now all out of position, unless they are to be used in killing you. They could stop after you have been dusted a bit and fort them back. But the position has now changed, maybe forting away from you is not a good option anymore. So they kill you for territory and go at it 2 on 2. There is nothing wrong with that at all and I would think decent players could work all that out 'in game' without the need for any diplomacy.

As someone who has never kept an alliance to the point of eliminating the player/team who was running the board, I'm still not surprised that many players seem to think it's ok. -I've had it done against me numerous times.
But to keep the alliance, focusing your attacks on the player/team who was winning, but is clearly no longer the biggest threat, is a pussy move.
Regardless of how you might try to condone it, what it boils down to is, you were getting beat and couldn't win without obtaining an unfair advantage.
Again, making an alliance to create balance is one thing, continuing it when the reason has gone, (i.e.- the player who was kicking everyone's ass is barely hanging on) shows a serious lack of integrity.
This attitude I keep seeing in this thread about "being a better diplomat" if you're able to form an alliance, is merely an attempt to cloak the truth that you'd prefer to win at any cost, including your personal honor and sense of fair play -(Clearly not something that all members have.)

I find it funny that someone who clearly admits to breaking a truce (you said above that you do not keep the alliance all the way through the other player's elimination and unless you specify your term of cancellation of the truce while setting it up, then you are a backstabber) is calling those who do ally and keep the truce til the set guidelines have been met are somehow cowards.

Elijah S wrote:

Mr Changsha wrote:

Elijah S wrote:To have an alliance when one player or team is taking complete charge is one thing; BUT, keeping that alliance long after they're no longer leading is pure BS.
Its happened to me and my partner many times. -We take control of a game and the other teams continue to ally until they've eliminated us.
Recently, in a 3 team game this happened and, IMO, if you've got to have an alliance to assure that you or the other losing team will win, it goes against the integrity of the game.

So, my reply to the OP is, Don't whine when a team is kicking your ass. Suck it up and don't try passing off an unfair advantage on 'being a better diplomat,' etc.

It's better to lose honorably than win because you gang up on someone who's clearly outplaying and outmaneuvering you.

Can't agree with your sentiments here, I am afraid. If you put yourself into a position where both the other teams have to attack, and fort, towards you, then you are in great danger of being eliminated. All the troops are coming your way and once you are broken, they may as well finish you off. You probably made the mistake of going for the 'big push' without having enough men to deal with the other two teams attacking collectively.

Look at it this way: you make a big, game threatening move and (I don't doubt) expect to be attacked...at least a bit. But to the other teams, they have had to send all their troops towards you and may have even had to send forces that were facing the other team at you as well. These forces are now all out of position, unless they are to be used in killing you. They could stop after you have been dusted a bit and fort them back. But the position has now changed, maybe forting away from you is not a good option anymore. So they kill you for territory and go at it 2 on 2. There is nothing wrong with that at all and I would think decent players could work all that out 'in game' without the need for any diplomacy.

As someone who has never kept an alliance to the point of eliminating the player/team who was running the board, I'm still not surprised that many players seem to think it's ok. -I've had it done against me numerous times.
But to keep the alliance, focusing your attacks on the player/team who was winning, but is clearly no longer the biggest threat, is a pussy move.
Regardless of how you might try to condone it, what it boils down to is, you were getting beat and couldn't win without obtaining an unfair advantage.
Again, making an alliance to create balance is one thing, continuing it when the reason has gone, (i.e.- the player who was kicking everyone's ass is barely hanging on) shows a serious lack of integrity.
This attitude I keep seeing in this thread about "being a better diplomat" if you're able to form an alliance, is merely an attempt to cloak the truth that you'd prefer to win at any cost, including your personal honor and sense of fair play -(Clearly not something that all members have.)

While there is a place for integrity on CC, I don't think that extends to the topic we are talking about. When I play this game I will try my hardest to kill every other player as quickly (and as stylishly) as I can. I will do anything to achieve that and I would certainly include 'ganging up' on another player if it was in my interest to do so.

Now don't misunderstand me; I also have a lot of sympathy with the 'alliances are for pussies' concept as well. If Player A says to Player B "Let's have a truce (for x number of rounds) and then go 1 on 1" and I am Player C I would naturally write back to one of them "Fine Player B, make a move in that direction and Player A will get an easier win than he expected." The point is that Player A may be a 'pussy' and he may lack 'integrity', but damn it if he can get a win by duping Player B into killing Mr C then I'll do my best to avoid it, but I'll still congratulate the chap on his win. Pussy he may be, but a clever pussy he most certainly is!

The great flaw in your argument is this belief that there is somehow a 'right way' to win a game of Risk beyond breaking the actual rules of the game. There isn't. Players should use every weapon at their disposal in their effort to win this game, as long as it is in the rules.

I write this as a player who has yet to use an alliance (or even anything approaching an alliance to the best of my memory) to win a game. I've discussed border positions to be sure and lightly suggested we better keep an eye on 'Red' on more than a few occasions, but that is a far cry from an alliance. But if I was beaten by the kind of play highlighted above I would accept it with a smile and move on. Therefore, the idea of in an end-game situation dancing around to try and make sure that someone wins in a fair way and that ganging up hasn't gone on is just, to me at least, entirely ridiculous.

TurinTurambar wrote:

Elijah S wrote:

Mr Changsha wrote:

Elijah S wrote:To have an alliance when one player or team is taking complete charge is one thing; BUT, keeping that alliance long after they're no longer leading is pure BS.
Its happened to me and my partner many times. -We take control of a game and the other teams continue to ally until they've eliminated us.
Recently, in a 3 team game this happened and, IMO, if you've got to have an alliance to assure that you or the other losing team will win, it goes against the integrity of the game.

So, my reply to the OP is, Don't whine when a team is kicking your ass. Suck it up and don't try passing off an unfair advantage on 'being a better diplomat,' etc.

It's better to lose honorably than win because you gang up on someone who's clearly outplaying and outmaneuvering you.

Can't agree with your sentiments here, I am afraid. If you put yourself into a position where both the other teams have to attack, and fort, towards you, then you are in great danger of being eliminated. All the troops are coming your way and once you are broken, they may as well finish you off. You probably made the mistake of going for the 'big push' without having enough men to deal with the other two teams attacking collectively.

Look at it this way: you make a big, game threatening move and (I don't doubt) expect to be attacked...at least a bit. But to the other teams, they have had to send all their troops towards you and may have even had to send forces that were facing the other team at you as well. These forces are now all out of position, unless they are to be used in killing you. They could stop after you have been dusted a bit and fort them back. But the position has now changed, maybe forting away from you is not a good option anymore. So they kill you for territory and go at it 2 on 2. There is nothing wrong with that at all and I would think decent players could work all that out 'in game' without the need for any diplomacy.

As someone who has never kept an alliance to the point of eliminating the player/team who was running the board, I'm still not surprised that many players seem to think it's ok. -I've had it done against me numerous times.
But to keep the alliance, focusing your attacks on the player/team who was winning, but is clearly no longer the biggest threat, is a pussy move.
Regardless of how you might try to condone it, what it boils down to is, you were getting beat and couldn't win without obtaining an unfair advantage.
Again, making an alliance to create balance is one thing, continuing it when the reason has gone, (i.e.- the player who was kicking everyone's ass is barely hanging on) shows a serious lack of integrity.
This attitude I keep seeing in this thread about "being a better diplomat" if you're able to form an alliance, is merely an attempt to cloak the truth that you'd prefer to win at any cost, including your personal honor and sense of fair play -(Clearly not something that all members have.)

I find it funny that someone who clearly admits to breaking a truce (you said above that you do not keep the alliance all the way through the other player's elimination and unless you specify your term of cancellation of the truce while setting it up, then you are a backstabber) is calling those who do ally and keep the truce til the set guidelines have been met are somehow cowards.

To try to read more into my comment is a real stretch.
#1) - I RARELY enter into an alliance.
#2) - When I do enter into one, it's specified how long it will last.
This in no way says I break my treaties, which is what you're trying to say.

Mr Changsha wrote:

Elijah S wrote:

Mr Changsha wrote:

Elijah S wrote:To have an alliance when one player or team is taking complete charge is one thing; BUT, keeping that alliance long after they're no longer leading is pure BS.
Its happened to me and my partner many times. -We take control of a game and the other teams continue to ally until they've eliminated us.
Recently, in a 3 team game this happened and, IMO, if you've got to have an alliance to assure that you or the other losing team will win, it goes against the integrity of the game.

So, my reply to the OP is, Don't whine when a team is kicking your ass. Suck it up and don't try passing off an unfair advantage on 'being a better diplomat,' etc.

It's better to lose honorably than win because you gang up on someone who's clearly outplaying and outmaneuvering you.

Can't agree with your sentiments here, I am afraid. If you put yourself into a position where both the other teams have to attack, and fort, towards you, then you are in great danger of being eliminated. All the troops are coming your way and once you are broken, they may as well finish you off. You probably made the mistake of going for the 'big push' without having enough men to deal with the other two teams attacking collectively.

Look at it this way: you make a big, game threatening move and (I don't doubt) expect to be attacked...at least a bit. But to the other teams, they have had to send all their troops towards you and may have even had to send forces that were facing the other team at you as well. These forces are now all out of position, unless they are to be used in killing you. They could stop after you have been dusted a bit and fort them back. But the position has now changed, maybe forting away from you is not a good option anymore. So they kill you for territory and go at it 2 on 2. There is nothing wrong with that at all and I would think decent players could work all that out 'in game' without the need for any diplomacy.

As someone who has never kept an alliance to the point of eliminating the player/team who was running the board, I'm still not surprised that many players seem to think it's ok. -I've had it done against me numerous times.
But to keep the alliance, focusing your attacks on the player/team who was winning, but is clearly no longer the biggest threat, is a pussy move.
Regardless of how you might try to condone it, what it boils down to is, you were getting beat and couldn't win without obtaining an unfair advantage.
Again, making an alliance to create balance is one thing, continuing it when the reason has gone, (i.e.- the player who was kicking everyone's ass is barely hanging on) shows a serious lack of integrity.
This attitude I keep seeing in this thread about "being a better diplomat" if you're able to form an alliance, is merely an attempt to cloak the truth that you'd prefer to win at any cost, including your personal honor and sense of fair play -(Clearly not something that all members have.)

While there is a place for integrity on CC, I don't think that extends to the topic we are talking about. When I play this game I will try my hardest to kill every other player as quickly (and as stylishly) as I can. I will do anything to achieve that and I would certainly include 'ganging up' on another player if it was in my interest to do so.

Now don't misunderstand me; I also have a lot of sympathy with the 'alliances are for pussies' concept as well. If Player A says to Player B "Let's have a truce (for x number of rounds) and then go 1 on 1" and I am Player C I would naturally write back to one of them "Fine Player B, make a move in that direction and Player A will get an easier win than he expected." The point is that Player A may be a 'pussy' and he may lack 'integrity', but damn it if he can get a win by duping Player B into killing Mr C then I'll do my best to avoid it, but I'll still congratulate the chap on his win. Pussy he may be, but a clever pussy he most certainly is!

The great flaw in your argument is this belief that there is somehow a 'right way' to win a game of Risk beyond breaking the actual rules of the game. There isn't. Players should use every weapon at their disposal in their effort to win this game, as long as it is in the rules.

I write this as a player who has yet to use an alliance (or even anything approaching an alliance to the best of my memory) to win a game. I've discussed border positions to be sure and lightly suggested we better keep an eye on 'Red' on more than a few occasions, but that is a far cry from an alliance. But if I was beaten by the kind of play highlighted above I would accept it with a smile and move on. Therefore, the idea of in an end-game situation dancing around to try and make sure that someone wins in a fair way and that ganging up hasn't gone on is just, to me at least, entirely ridiculous.

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.

For me, I have no problem entering into an alliance when another player is running the board. -That's just common sense. But when a degree of balance is reached, I feel no honor in kicking them when they're down.

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.
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.

Honor and integrity are words that seem to hold no true meaning to the majority of players in CC.

making an agreement like "ill break north america if you break south" is fine but stuff like "lets kill green so that we both have a bigger chance of winning" is BS

Bones2484 wrote:Alliances are silly and unneeded. The better players generally know what needs to happen and can adjust on the whim to attack who is in the lead without having to set cease fire agreements. I haven't seen an alliance in over a year in my games.

I agree with you Bones2484. However, how is it you now don't get allied against?

It happens all the time. Players who are playing for points often do it to ally against the higher ranked player or against the lower ranked player----soley because they are worried about their rank/score versus being concerned about trying to win that particular game.

An example of where it is "silly and unneeded" (as you say) and just plain WRONG (as I say) is any alliance in ANY game. Alliances screw those left out.

It is NOT a part of the game...it IS a strategy used by 1 or BOTH of two kinds of players. 1) Those who know what they are doing when asking for or joining in a proposed alliance and who know that the proposal works to their benefit and NOT to the other allies and 2) IDIOTS, who propose or join in any alliance who don't know enough to understand that the alliance surely will kill them too.

Alliances are for weak players (and for the predatory playing for ranks/points players.

Alliances have no legitimate purpose in any game where you are playing to win that particular game.