Conquer Club

more than 3 players, but if anyone can tell me what to do to end this game I would award them with 10 imaginary Interweb points

Game 8315560

ive tried to talk to them but not much progress is being made. And I dont just want to suicide/throw the game

Can anyone help me think of a beneficial alliance I could make?

I hate 3 player games....always feel picked on whether it's true or not As a bonus, I abhor alliance makers

*makes note never to play BigBalls in 3 player*

MoB Deadly wrote:more than 3 players, but if anyone can tell me what to do to end this game I would award them with 10 imaginary Interweb points

Game 8315560

ive tried to talk to them but not much progress is being made. And I dont just want to suicide/throw the game

Can anyone help me think of a beneficial alliance I could make?

Hm, this is tough stuff, since it is flat rate and you are all well set in stone pretty much with thousands of troops. No offense to Hun1, but you all could pick on them since they are weakest, and you all do share a border with them as well.

I don't know if that would end the stalemate, but it would shake things up some if you turned Bosnia, Serbia, Romania, for instance into an active front (or Dardanelles, Aboukir and either B or S or R).

Best of luck.


--Andy

Something I propose in these situations is this:

Everyone agrees to a troop deficit every round. Meaning, if you deploy 10 troops in a given round, you have to attack so that you lose at least 11 troops.

What usually happens is that once the troop count per person gets to around ~100 troops, the juices start flowing again and the game becomes interesting.

I've got an alternative solution:

All three players agree that each person will me matched with another person, attack-wise, for a certain number of rounds such that everyone is attacking and being attacked by a different person. These must be auto-attacks so that one of the terts is reduced to 1 or 0 armies. This will most likely mix the game up enough to get things going. Of course, if anyone doesn't follow the agreed attacking order/method, you can all gang up on them and problem solved!
This would only work in some scenarios obviously since you need to see the proof that the attacking is actually taking place but its a way to break the stalemate by luck of the dice as opposed to anyone feeling picked on/suicided on for no logical reason.

MoB Deadly wrote:more than 3 players, but if anyone can tell me what to do to end this game I would award them with 10 imaginary Interweb points

Game 8315560

ive tried to talk to them but not much progress is being made. And I dont just want to suicide/throw the game

Can anyone help me think of a beneficial alliance I could make?

I hope my message helped. Feel free to use the game chat as to provide feedback!

KoolBak wrote:I hate 3 player games....always feel picked on whether it's true or not As a bonus, I abhor alliance makers

*makes note never to play BigBalls in 3 player*

I'll never invite you to my birthday party.

Funkyterrance wrote:I've got an alternative solution:

All three players agree that each person will me matched with another person, attack-wise, for a certain number of rounds such that everyone is attacking and being attacked by a different person. These must be auto-attacks so that one of the terts is reduced to 1 or 0 armies. This will most likely mix the game up enough to get things going. Of course, if anyone doesn't follow the agreed attacking order/method, you can all gang up on them and problem solved!
This would only work in some scenarios obviously since you need to see the proof that the attacking is actually taking place but its a way to break the stalemate by luck of the dice as opposed to anyone feeling picked on/suicided on for no logical reason.

The problem is one of trust. It's hard to come by in a 3-player stalemate, and there's no real way to enforce the rule.


Unless of course, people agree to attack the first rule-breaker, but then comes the issue of trust again...

Right, the issue with all of the above examples is essentially trust, which is why I proposed going after the weakest. I think one's opponents may be more inclined to all go after the weakest opponent since it would shake things up if they were eliminated, and going after the weakest generally means you are putting less of your troops into the Great Dice Grinder, perhaps minimizing the potential for it all to backfire and weaken you and make you worse off than you started.

But still, issues I am sure with all of that!


--Andy

The best thing to do is the communist way of attacking anything and everything you can when troop counts get so high, worst case scenario you can blame the dice for your loss, while the satisfaction of winning the holy war is immense.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

MoB Deadly wrote:more than 3 players, but if anyone can tell me what to do to end this game I would award them with 10 imaginary Interweb points

Game 8315560

ive tried to talk to them but not much progress is being made. And I dont just want to suicide/throw the game

Can anyone help me think of a beneficial alliance I could make?

I hope my message helped. Feel free to use the game chat as to provide feedback!

Thanks BBS, I hope it solves things

BigBallinStalin wrote:

KoolBak wrote:I hate 3 player games....always feel picked on whether it's true or not As a bonus, I abhor alliance makers

*makes note never to play BigBalls in 3 player*

I'll never invite you to my birthday party.

Dude! Just because we differ in playing risk doesn't mean we can't have fun at a par-tay! Assuming you're old enough to drink, I'll bring the booze! And bikes and guns if we're a-partying in the woods!! YEEEEEEEEEEHAAAAAAAAAAWW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

MoB Deadly wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

MoB Deadly wrote:more than 3 players, but if anyone can tell me what to do to end this game I would award them with 10 imaginary Interweb points

Game 8315560

ive tried to talk to them but not much progress is being made. And I dont just want to suicide/throw the game

Can anyone help me think of a beneficial alliance I could make?

I hope my message helped. Feel free to use the game chat as to provide feedback!

Thanks BBS, I hope it solves things

I was semi-joking but mostly serious because that post could be very useful.

If the rule is upheld, then the means of communication come with a heavy price. This creates the incentive for the players not to communicate, thus rendering them incapable of smoothing out misunderstandings or reckless moves. Because of this, the situation could break from the stalemate as the tension escalates and the troop numbers drop. Be ready to take advantage of this-----if the rule is upheld.

Besides, it offers a good and humorous (perhaps convincing) reason for killing the first player for speaking.

In real life when this happens I just fake a seizure on the table and problem solv-ed.

Funkyterrance wrote:In real life when this happens I just fake a seizure on the table and problem solv-ed.

In real life this doesn't happen. I don't know anyone who's willing to count out 354 wooden blocks. And I'm not sure how many are included in the game, but usually when they start getting low people say, "we have to do more killing" and everyone agrees.

KoolBak wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

KoolBak wrote:I hate 3 player games....always feel picked on whether it's true or not As a bonus, I abhor alliance makers

*makes note never to play BigBalls in 3 player*

I'll never invite you to my birthday party.

Dude! Just because we differ in playing risk doesn't mean we can't have fun at a par-tay! Assuming you're old enough to drink, I'll bring the booze! And bikes and guns if we're a-partying in the woods!! YEEEEEEEEEEHAAAAAAAAAAWW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

last wedding I went to one of the groomsmen brought a 50cal and the bride's father set up a cinderblock and had me shoot at it after the party... so much fun

BBS, your thread has inspired me to make a move in my three player stalemate. I call it "the appeal to fun with negative reinforcement."

Game 10441866

I recently won a four-way stalemate after the fourth deadbeated, it was foggy enough for me to let the other two fight until I could decisively strike for the win. It worked well, but the game above has much more consistent players.

Neoteny wrote:BBS, your thread has inspired me to make a move in my three player stalemate. I call it "the appeal to fun with negative reinforcement."

Game 10441866

I recently won a four-way stalemate after the fourth deadbeated, it was foggy enough for me to let the other two fight until I could decisively strike for the win. It worked well, but the game above has much more consistent players.

Nice, taking the game into your own hands. Best of luck!


--Andy

Dukasaur wrote:

Funkyterrance wrote:In real life when this happens I just fake a seizure on the table and problem solv-ed.

In real life this doesn't happen. I don't know anyone who's willing to count out 354 wooden blocks. And I'm not sure how many are included in the game, but usually when they start getting low people say, "we have to do more killing" and everyone agrees.

Wow, you must have a really old version, mines got little plastic Napoleonic war looking guys.

Neoteny wrote:BBS, your thread has inspired me to make a move in my three player stalemate. I call it "the appeal to fun with negative reinforcement."

Game 10441866

I recently won a four-way stalemate after the fourth deadbeated, it was foggy enough for me to let the other two fight until I could decisively strike for the win. It worked well, but the game above has much more consistent players.

YES!

FINALLY.

A REVOLUTION IS ABOUT TO OCCUR FOR ALL THREE-PLAYER STALEMATES!

BigBallinStalin wrote:YES!

FINALLY.

A REVOLUTION IS ABOUT TO OCCUR FOR ALL THREE-PLAYER STALEMATES!

Winds of change a'coming, winds of change.


--Andy

No one has responded yet. They probably won't read it unless I post on their walls. I'll give them a few turns and then hit them up. Otherwise, come T-turn, I'll probably have a pissed off player on my hands.

If they can't be bothered to read chat they deserve whatever they get.

Well, it's a game, so they'll take what I give them and like it, but my goal is for this to be FUN FOR EVERYONE!

BigBallinStalin wrote: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.

throwing games was really never meant to mean you cant throw a game.

It was more about point dumping or repeat offenders. Certainly throwing lots of games would come under gross abuse, but it would be impossible to regulate the throwing of one game, because technically, that is just strategy, and taking away the right to throw a game, or suicide would ruin the game defacto.

The threat that a player might at some point get mad and suicide is real in every game, and one could say is the game itself in many cases.

Throwing an individual game would only really be wrong if it was done for reasons outside of the game, or retribution for another game. But proving that is pretty tough, not to say impossible.