Forum

by **MoB Deadly** on Wed Aug 15, 2012 1:30 pm

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?

by **KoolBak** on Wed Aug 15, 2012 1:31 pm

I hate 3 player games....always feel picked on whether it's true or not :lol:

As a bonus, I abhor alliance makers :evil:

*makes note never to play BigBalls in 3 player*

by **AndyDufresne** on Wed Aug 15, 2012 3:00 pm

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

by **jj3044** on Sun Aug 19, 2012 2:03 pm

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.

by **Funkyterrance** on Sun Aug 19, 2012 7:48 pm

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.

by **BigBallinStalin** on Mon Aug 20, 2012 5:47 am

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!

by **BigBallinStalin** on Mon Aug 20, 2012 5:48 am

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.

by **BigBallinStalin** on Mon Aug 20, 2012 5:49 am

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...

by **AndyDufresne** on Mon Aug 20, 2012 2:29 pm

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

by **Crazyirishman** on Mon Aug 20, 2012 4:09 pm

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.

by **MoB Deadly** on Thu Aug 23, 2012 1:29 pm

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

by **KoolBak** on Thu Aug 23, 2012 4:45 pm

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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

by **BigBallinStalin** on Thu Aug 23, 2012 5:07 pm

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.

by **Funkyterrance** on Thu Sep 13, 2012 2:53 pm

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

by **Dukasaur** on Tue Sep 25, 2012 7:07 am

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.