Three-Player Stalemates

[BigBallinStalin]

I dislike those kind of games, so I have a solution:

[In game chat:]

Whoever allies with me first, I will fight the enemy to the bitter end (thus winning the game for my ally).


*(note: I'd post a link to the game chat on both of their walls, with about a second in between each post.)

Would this actually constitute as "throwing the game" or "suiciding"?


I see it as honest diplomacy for ending the misery of pointless three-player stalemates.

[x-raider]

Intriguing Idea.
However, I am of the opinion that it's "Suiciding".
I suppose in such a situation, winning with round limits would be based on luck, which leaves you back at square one.
Until someone can successfully prove that it isn't suiciding, and it's all fair, another solution is required...

[jimboston]

Depends on the scenario...

for example in a Fog Game you could claim you were fighting the mutual enemy to the bitter end... but you could hold back end troops to win the game from your ally. If you do this it's not suiciding.

if you just crash into the opponent with no sense of strategy... then yes, it's suiciding.

[JOHNNYROCKET24]

no such thing as a stalemates. Just 3 players sitting there and not doing anything. A stalemate is when you have no available moves to play. There is something to do every turn and round. Players just prefer to sit there for countless rounds hoping somebody else makes a move. Even trying to slowly trim down a players wall over multiple rounds count. People just refuse to do anything in your "stalemate" games.

[Crazyirishman]

no such thing as a stalemates. Just 3 players sitting there and not doing anything. A stalemate is when you have no available moves to play. There is something to do every turn and round. Players just prefer to sit there for countless rounds hoping somebody else makes a move. Even trying to slowly trim down a players wall over multiple rounds count. People just refuse to do anything in your "stalemate" games.

I agree with this completely.

Another thing that I have incorporated when games stall out is after awhile declare in the game chat that at round 'X', that I'm going to attack anything and everything that I can (in an egalitarian fashion). I find this more satisfying and it doesn't necessarily mean I lose the game because once the troop counts get so high auto assault can work wonders.

[premio53]

With escalading cards there should never be a "stalemate."

[Army of GOD]

I was recently in a three player stalemate. I ended it by deadbeating, because honestly, who the f*ck cares?

[BigBallinStalin]

no such thing as a stalemates. Just 3 players sitting there and not doing anything. A stalemate is when you have no available moves to play. There is something to do every turn and round. Players just prefer to sit there for countless rounds hoping somebody else makes a move. Even trying to slowly trim down a players wall over multiple rounds count. People just refuse to do anything in your "stalemate" games.

Of course, and I agree, but I'm using a different meaning of the word. If a game goes on for many rounds and no one does anything differently, then I'd consider it a stalemate because their choices reflect that there are no [s]available[s] worthy moves to play--other than, drop here, do nothing end turn.

Seems pretty stale, mate.

[BigBallinStalin]

no such thing as a stalemates. Just 3 players sitting there and not doing anything. A stalemate is when you have no available moves to play. There is something to do every turn and round. Players just prefer to sit there for countless rounds hoping somebody else makes a move. Even trying to slowly trim down a players wall over multiple rounds count. People just refuse to do anything in your "stalemate" games.

I agree with this completely.

Another thing that I have incorporated when games stall out is after awhile declare in the game chat that at round 'X', that I'm going to attack anything and everything that I can (in an egalitarian fashion). I find this more satisfying and it doesn't necessarily mean I lose the game because once the troop counts get so high auto assault can work wonders.

That's a good suggestion, but for those of us who aren't Communists, what can we do but agree to voluntary exchanges through alliance proposals?

[BigBallinStalin]

With escalading cards there should never be a "stalemate."

There's probably one or two out there, but you're right. Let's just say this applies to No Spoils or Flat Rate.

Any suggestions on getting out of the stalemate?

[nietzsche]

With escalading cards there should never be a "stalemate."

There's probably one or two out there, but you're right. Let's just say this applies to No Spoils or Flat Rate.

Any suggestions on getting out of the stalemate?

1. equally suicide on both.

2. say you have to get out of the country for a few days and don't have a sitter

3. use diplomacy to get an ally and betray him, who cares about the ratings

[DannyUncanny]

With escalading cards there should never be a "stalemate."

I've had it happen. You just have to make it through the unstable 10-30 period without any major powers attacking each other or hoarding large amounts of cards. After that you quickly get into the hundreds of armies where an additional 60 or so is just a drop of sand in the bucket.

[JOHNNYROCKET24]

With escalading cards there should never be a "stalemate."

There's probably one or two out there, but you're right. Let's just say this applies to No Spoils or Flat Rate.

Any suggestions on getting out of the stalemate?

attack ?

[nicestash]

no such thing as a stalemates. Just 3 players sitting there and not doing anything. A stalemate is when you have no available moves to play. There is something to do every turn and round. Players just prefer to sit there for countless rounds hoping somebody else makes a move. Even trying to slowly trim down a players wall over multiple rounds count. People just refuse to do anything in your "stalemate" games.

A stalemate can also be "a situation in which no further action or progress by opposing or competing parties seems possible.

In a 3 person stalemate, that is true because any progress by any of the players would result in their imminent defeat.

So yes, there are such thins as stalemates

[Dukasaur]

With escalading cards there should never be a "stalemate."

That is the "accepted wisdom." However, it is mostly obsolete. Escalating cards were enough to prevent stalemates on older, wide-open maps that were more-or-less based on the Risk archetype.

Stalemates are occurring even with escalating spoils on the larger, more complex, bonus-heavy maps of today.

It's the main reason why I proposed: http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=164420