Conquer Club

Ok, i have this game 7002137, for the first 6 round i was a little lucky get most of Asia and Oceania, and my enemys was not attacking me, but now it have gone up for people that they have to attack in Asia and Oceania.

But the only way they find out of it, was to talk in the chat about, what they conquer from me and what is the next move they have to do against me ?

is it ok to do it or not ?

Regards

Epix

Even though it sucks, it's completely legal. Diplomacy and alliances can often become a large part of standard games, especially on World 2.1.

I could have sworn I saw a user group a few days ago for those that won't form alliances in games, which I thought you might like to join, but I can't seem to find it.

If anybody knows the group to whom I'm referring and has the link to their roster, can you please post it?

Thanks.

Lone Rangers is the group that you were referring to

Where's the element of un-fairness in giving the others players in the game a chance by attacking the leader? Sounds perfectly reasonable to me...

obliterationX wrote:Where's the element of un-fairness in giving the others players in the game a chance by attacking the leader? Sounds perfectly reasonable to me...

The think the logic (at least for me) works this way: it's okay when it isn't me who is the one in the lead. Otherwise? Fricken unfair.

E.

Master Fenrir wrote:Even though it sucks, it's completely legal. Diplomacy and alliances can often become a large part of standard games, especially on World 2.1.
I could have sworn I saw a user group a few days ago for those that won't form alliances in games, which I thought you might like to join, but I can't seem to find it.
If anybody knows the group to whom I'm referring and has the link to their roster, can you please post it?
Thanks.

So they won't even form an agreement to attack the leader in the game? That seems insurmountably dumb to me.

Woodruff wrote:

Master Fenrir wrote:Even though it sucks, it's completely legal. Diplomacy and alliances can often become a large part of standard games, especially on World 2.1.
I could have sworn I saw a user group a few days ago for those that won't form alliances in games, which I thought you might like to join, but I can't seem to find it.
If anybody knows the group to whom I'm referring and has the link to their roster, can you please post it?
Thanks.

So they won't even form an agreement to attack the leader in the game? That seems insurmountably dumb to me.

There is a difference between playing stupid and forming an agreement. If people know what they are doing there should be no need for an agreement. It is just understood that if someone is way ahead they need to be brought down a notch. You shouldn't have to make an alliance for that.

Woodruff wrote:So they won't even form an agreement to attack the leader in the game? That seems insurmountably dumb to me.

jrh_cardinal wrote:This is for players who HATE TRUCES. Whenever you see a proposed truce you just want to pull your eyes out of your sockets/join every game the trucers are in and suicide their sorry asses all day long. Okay, that's a bit of an overexxageration, but basically this is a group for people to play singles multiplayer games without truces

It would seem to maximize the effect of a lucky drop, like dropping Scandinavia. Maybe they just do it naturally without talking about it? As soon as one person has enough troops he runs the leader with a stack and the rest just follow his lead? I dunno. It could be cool for new standard players.

frood wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Master Fenrir wrote:Even though it sucks, it's completely legal. Diplomacy and alliances can often become a large part of standard games, especially on World 2.1.
I could have sworn I saw a user group a few days ago for those that won't form alliances in games, which I thought you might like to join, but I can't seem to find it.
If anybody knows the group to whom I'm referring and has the link to their roster, can you please post it?
Thanks.

So they won't even form an agreement to attack the leader in the game? That seems insurmountably dumb to me.

There is a difference between playing stupid and forming an agreement. If people know what they are doing there should be no need for an agreement. It is just understood that if someone is way ahead they need to be brought down a notch. You shouldn't have to make an alliance for that.

Spot on and well said Frood,if people are paying attention to the game log they will still see what is what...

obliterationX wrote:Where's the element of un-fairness in giving the others players in the game a chance by attacking the leader? Sounds perfectly reasonable to me...

Well before I joined CC and played hasbro.Nobody talked about what they should do in chat.
Everyone knew who the enermy was in the game and attacked accordingly.Of course the enermy changed from round to round.
What I found when I joined CC was that people make alliances in the chat area.Make decisions based on another players strength in a particular round and attack that player so hard(round after round) that he never gets in the game again.

I think the best way around this is to either get so strong in the game that it doesnt matter what they chat about and attack all of your enermies equally.This seems to only work in 4 player freestyle speed games tho.
If you are playing in any other settings.I guess you need to talk(pffft) to them lol
If this doesnt work.The feedback system can be a wonderful thing

Prankcall wrote:

frood wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Master Fenrir wrote:Even though it sucks, it's completely legal. Diplomacy and alliances can often become a large part of standard games, especially on World 2.1.
I could have sworn I saw a user group a few days ago for those that won't form alliances in games, which I thought you might like to join, but I can't seem to find it.
If anybody knows the group to whom I'm referring and has the link to their roster, can you please post it?
Thanks.

So they won't even form an agreement to attack the leader in the game? That seems insurmountably dumb to me.

There is a difference between playing stupid and forming an agreement. If people know what they are doing there should be no need for an agreement. It is just understood that if someone is way ahead they need to be brought down a notch. You shouldn't have to make an alliance for that.

Spot on and well said Frood,if people are paying attention to the game log they will still see what is what...

That simply isn't true. You have some folks who play to win the game, as you state...but there are a LOT of folks who, once they start falling behind, begin minimizing the number of points they're going to lose...attacking only those who pose a threat to their point drop in an effort to ensure the smallest drop possible.

ok the group cuts out the things like arms race where in multi player games most players play for a truce from the start. also if somone plays well and opposeing players are stupid enough to let you get that far ahead in the game then he deserves the win not to be ganged up on i am in a tourney just now where the top 2 players qualify for the final and the 2 losing players have formed a truce (unfair yes)

Woodruff wrote:

Prankcall wrote:

frood wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Master Fenrir wrote:Even though it sucks, it's completely legal. Diplomacy and alliances can often become a large part of standard games, especially on World 2.1.
I could have sworn I saw a user group a few days ago for those that won't form alliances in games, which I thought you might like to join, but I can't seem to find it.
If anybody knows the group to whom I'm referring and has the link to their roster, can you please post it?
Thanks.

So they won't even form an agreement to attack the leader in the game? That seems insurmountably dumb to me.

There is a difference between playing stupid and forming an agreement. If people know what they are doing there should be no need for an agreement. It is just understood that if someone is way ahead they need to be brought down a notch. You shouldn't have to make an alliance for that.

Spot on and well said Frood,if people are paying attention to the game log they will still see what is what...

That simply isn't true. You have some folks who play to win the game, as you state...but there are a LOT of folks who, once they start falling behind, begin minimizing the number of points they're going to lose...attacking only those who pose a threat to their point drop in an effort to ensure the smallest drop possible.

Well good Sir to you I say get your Rank/Score up so that you may benefit in such-a-case.

Prankcall wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Prankcall wrote:

frood wrote:

Woodruff wrote:So they won't even form an agreement to attack the leader in the game? That seems insurmountably dumb to me.

There is a difference between playing stupid and forming an agreement. If people know what they are doing there should be no need for an agreement. It is just understood that if someone is way ahead they need to be brought down a notch. You shouldn't have to make an alliance for that.

Spot on and well said Frood,if people are paying attention to the game log they will still see what is what...

That simply isn't true. You have some folks who play to win the game, as you state...but there are a LOT of folks who, once they start falling behind, begin minimizing the number of points they're going to lose...attacking only those who pose a threat to their point drop in an effort to ensure the smallest drop possible.

Well good Sir to you I say get your Rank/Score up so that you may benefit in such-a-case.

Naw...I have too much fun playing 8-man games. My rank suffers, but that's ok. But you are confirming my point, correct?