Stalemate

[oss spy]

Game 10854355

I'm at loss for what to do...none of us can attack someone without the 3rd person winning.

[MichelSableheart]

Just be patient. try to expand slowly where possible without forcing a major battle. Eventually, either your opponents will make a mistake or you'll be in a position to fight them both at once. Prepare for a long game, though. In the worst case, getting to such a won position may take several hundreds of turns.

[SaviorShot]

That game type & settings tends to get long .... Next time use round limits.

[chapcrap]

Can you make a tiebreaker game for the 3 of you? Put round limits on it. Whoever wins the tiebreaker, also gets to win the original.

[oss spy]

I hate round limits. Diplomacy is a nightmare >.>

[chapcrap]

I hate round limits. Diplomacy is a nightmare >.>

Those sound like opposite views. Either use round limits or diplomacy...or both.

[redhawk92]

take 5 capitals and try to hold them and u win

[Jippd]

3 game tie breaker.

Playing no spoils game's sunny with no round limit when properly played will lead to a stalemate 95% of them time.

So if you don't want to stumble upon this situation again then I would avoid joining a game with these settings.

Your suggestion in game of only using diplomacy from here on out to attack the strongest player likely won't work either. Two gang up to attack the strongest bringing them down. Then there will be a new strongest and the other two will gang up. It will be a never ending cycle.

I would venture to bet this game will be won by whatever player stays out of the fray when one player attacks another and they get pissed and start a suicide fest.

[oss spy]

Okay...well...things have changed in the game now. Take a look at the chat log and you'll understand. I'm unsure of how to handle this now.

[JCR]

you could..
eliminate green. yes it will weaken you but with that many troops you will only be about 10% behind. things tend to start moving when it gets down to 3 player.

or you could.....
do the unthinkable and rapidly withdraw from a region. sometimes this causes the other two to get into a skirmish that will give you the upperhand if done properly.

the important thing is to get the overall troop count to start diminishing rather than growing

[Catarah]

the thing is, with so many troops, you can safely lose some 100 troops without becoming in a really bad position.

so take out some 100 troops from one of the others. after that, you and the player you attacked are both behind the 3rd player, so you'll both be motivated to kill some of him off.

then you'll be in a stalemate again, but with 100 troops less. repeat as necesary, and sooner or later you're back to a managable troop count, where you can maybe catch the advantage.

though killing off green first might be a smart idea too. or kill of half of his troops, and leave the rest to the other players.

[lexie3000]

if you can't agree on a play off winner take all, you have the option of sticking it out or deadbeating. That is, either spend endless days vying for a few measley points or opting out and moving on. if you want to avoid this sort of impass don't play unlimited rounds

[usernamer]

if you have 4 players, you can usually make a team situation if ppl are tired of the game - 2 of you team up against the other 2, when one 'team' is eliminated, it becomes a 1v1. That can be a decent way of doing it.

For your situation, if you attack someone, unless they're in a bad mood and want to throw the game away, it's not going to be game-over.
If you hit one of the other players (let's say teal) then blue will be in front, so when you two decide blue's too powerful, you guys can gang up on him for a bit, bring him down and keep going for the leader. Soon enough you're in a 4-player situation (or 3-player if someone knocks out green - which isn't a good idea btw, because you really do need to let him win) where you're all fairly low on troops, and you can actually get eliminations etc.

Dunno if that made much sense, but basically, to win you need to weaken other players or you'll just keep building, unless you're playing idiots who'll scuicide on you if you hit them, then hitting a player is definitely not game over, just helps it slowly bring the game to an end.

[MoB Deadly]

Same Story.. Game 8315560

[docchaos]

Since green is a lot weaker than the other 2, my usual approach to such situation probably won't work, but i like to share it with you anyway, let's say for future reference.
There are some preconditions:
- You need to be in a 3-way tie (at least 3-way, of course it also works with more players as well)
- Ideally all players involved have similar troop count, similar bonus, similar positions. Since that rarely happens, the most important thing is troop count. If one player is too far ahead or too far behind, it won't work.
- All players involved have to agree that you're in a stalemate and want to end the situation.
- All players are at least somewhat trustworthy

If those conditions are met, there's a solution, it still might be a long game, but you'll know that it will come to an end:
In a nutshell, everybody has to attack someone each round. Not necessarily to take a country, but to burn some troops. So, everybody has to attack until the attacker (!) lost at least one troop more than they deployed. That way everyone will slowly lower their troop count. Of course nobody is forbidden from attacking more than they need to, but nobody is allowed to attack less.

Of course there are a lot of variation or additions possible, here are just some:
- Monitoring the other players in case you don't trust each other enough to make sure noone doesn't break the agreement. The easiest way of doing this is that each player checks the troop count of all opponents on their own. A safer way is that after his/her turn player A posts the troop count of player B to the game chat and when it is player C's turn he/she checks B's troop count to see if it is really lower than before.
- Different minimum values of troops to lose. To speed things up, you can agree that everyone has to lose way more troops, e.g. twice the amount they deployed or whatever they deployed +20
- Ending-condition: Define precisely under which circumstances the agreement ends (e.g. when all players are down to an amount of x troops, or when someone gets too strong/weak). Be carefull though: Too loose ending conditions might get you a stalemate again, only with less troops
- Define who has to be attacked: Instead of just randomly attacking, you could agree on a plan who attacks who, e.g. everyone has to attack the player with the most troops at the time of their turn, or everyone has to attack the player after/before them.

This method has worked for me repeatedly, but again everyone has to be willing to go through with it, or it won't work.

[Ninja Champion]

Here's my tip for ending a stalemate, place the game in your will or outlive the guy Game 10920552

That or convince your opponents to DB, best way and it's still work in progress

[redhedge47]

Same Story.. Game 8315560

heh thats nothing Game 578682 this game started in 07