Conquer Club

So sometimes, you start off dominating the game with much more troops than everyone else and all the other players decides to work together and target you. What is the best way to avoid that and what is the best way to overcome it? here's an example of an ongoing game that this happened.

http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=6662373

I basically held 3x the bonus of everyone else and they all decided to beat me down (and the fact a few decided to take this all personal). I got torn apart but is there any strategy to this for future games?

Try to be #2 rather than #1.

That's basic strategy. When one player gets far too powerful, the other players should work to take down the strongest player. It's all about balance and striking when the time is right.

macbone wrote:That's basic strategy. When one player gets far too powerful, the other players should work to take down the strongest player. It's all about balance and striking when the time is right.

The problem is figuring out "when the time is right" in flat rate and no spoils (obviously multiplayer) games, I for one am not very good at that

My tactic is to balance my troops if i'm going to take a bonus. make sure that they have plenty to go through to break me before i even take the bonus.

I AM SO FUCKING SICK OF THIS

I actually came here thinking about starting this exact same topic. In over half of my games I have the most troops out of 4-8 players, and I am constantly teamed up upon because of an "unspoken agreement" among the other players to not break each other's bonuses and suicide on me. I regard this as only a small step above illegal secret alliances. I'm seriously considering only playing fog games from now on because my actual skill at the game is being punished and I have to play the fucking diplomacy game with everyone else to stand a chance at winning. And it seems like when I "lay low" and let others gain a lead, nobody does anything about it and they end up winning. I realize the "diplomacy game" is part of actual Risk, but I'm sick of playing it with random people over the Internet. Now I know why most high-rankers only play other high-rankers.

DAMN I am pissed. You guys have no idea.

When playing large multiplayer flat and no cards games I aim to knock about in about 3rd until the moment when I can decisively take first and win. Effectively one should aim to be oh so quiet for the vast majority of the game until WHAM! you explode, take a vast number of territories, break all the opposition players and then win.

This is a bit of a generalisation of course. Sometimes I will lead from the front (as in have the largest bonus) but then it is a case of not getting too far ahead while still stacking up the troop advantage. In the end though, flat and no cards wins almost always come from the second or third placed player, not the first, so if you are in the best position it is often a good idea to have a few 'phoney wars' (or better strategically useful long-term wars if you can) slip gracefully back to second or third and then wait to swoop.

I'll give you a tip: If you ARE first consider which of the two or three leading contenders is the least likely to prosecute a win. Maybe base this on current position on the board, but in general it is best to get the old map rank out and see which one has the least ability to close out the game. Weaken yourself on the better players, let the weakest player get to the front, watch him overspread (which it seems is what the OP also does) wait for one of the better players to take on the new leader and THEN you are a ready to assume command.

Finally, in general don't attempt to become the strongest unless you are after the win, and when you do go for it, break the bonuses of all your main threats as you push. If you are not able to break all those bonuses, expand your own position AND defend your empire reasonably through the round then you shouldn't attempt the move.

john9blue wrote:I AM SO FUCKING SICK OF THIS

I actually came here thinking about starting this exact same topic. In over half of my games I have the most troops out of 4-8 players, and I am constantly teamed up upon because of an "unspoken agreement" among the other players to not break each other's bonuses and suicide on me. I regard this as only a small step above illegal secret alliances. I'm seriously considering only playing fog games from now on because my actual skill at the game is being punished and I have to play the fucking diplomacy game with everyone else to stand a chance at winning. And it seems like when I "lay low" and let others gain a lead, nobody does anything about it and they end up winning. I realize the "diplomacy game" is part of actual Risk, but I'm sick of playing it with random people over the Internet. Now I know why most high-rankers only play other high-rankers.

DAMN I am pissed. You guys have no idea.

You gave us the main idea of how pissed you are, so I think we understand
I realize that it can be frustrating, but its all part of the strategy.. Keep your troop count up while still not looking like a threat, being able to make deals with other players that still benefit you, being able to organize the other players into attacking the strongest player when they are letting him gain the lead, being able to make players fight amongst themselves while you slowly build and dominate...
You need to be able to do all those things in order to suceed at the game, not just one or two...

john9blue wrote:I AM SO FUCKING SICK OF THIS

I actually came here thinking about starting this exact same topic. In over half of my games I have the most troops out of 4-8 players, and I am constantly teamed up upon because of an "unspoken agreement" among the other players to not break each other's bonuses and suicide on me. I regard this as only a small step above illegal secret alliances. I'm seriously considering only playing fog games from now on because my actual skill at the game is being punished and I have to play the fucking diplomacy game with everyone else to stand a chance at winning. And it seems like when I "lay low" and let others gain a lead, nobody does anything about it and they end up winning. I realize the "diplomacy game" is part of actual Risk, but I'm sick of playing it with random people over the Internet. Now I know why most high-rankers only play other high-rankers.

DAMN I am pissed. You guys have no idea.

I ventured back into the public multiplayers recently (after a good year of really only playing officer games of various kinds) and got wiped. Why? Because I hadn't adjusted to the often irrational moves one can find at that level. Public games are often a case of everyone expanding when they can, even when it positionally makes no sense to do so, going for card-kills when they have zip chance of making them, moves being made with no thought etc etc

The good player can exist in this environment but he has to be in tune with their thought. I had a position recently (in a 2.1 game) where I was playing China/india and was much stronger than the oceana player. But there was a dominant NA/SA so left oceana alone. Basic play really. Ocena wipes himself and me attacking north. I again take back China/India and write effectively "Oceana do that again and NA will eat us both neither of us is in position for a war." Again, he attacks up, losing his own position as he does so.

I realised that I should have just wiped ocena when I had the chance. When I was beginning my CC career I would have done without question as I was attuned to that kind of game.

My point is that private games and public games play very differently and it is hard to switch mentality. I wouldn't make that mistake again (having remembered!!) but it really cost me in that one game.

john9blue wrote:I AM SO FUCKING SICK OF THIS

I actually came here thinking about starting this exact same topic. In over half of my games I have the most troops out of 4-8 players, and I am constantly teamed up upon because of an "unspoken agreement" among the other players to not break each other's bonuses and suicide on me. I regard this as only a small step above illegal secret alliances. I'm seriously considering only playing fog games from now on because my actual skill at the game is being punished and I have to play the fucking diplomacy game with everyone else to stand a chance at winning. And it seems like when I "lay low" and let others gain a lead, nobody does anything about it and they end up winning. I realize the "diplomacy game" is part of actual Risk, but I'm sick of playing it with random people over the Internet. Now I know why most high-rankers only play other high-rankers.
DAMN I am pissed. You guys have no idea.

If you only play against people that make "the most logical move", the game loses a LOT of it's enjoyment, quite frankly. As to what they're doing...they ARE doing the right thing by attacking you if you're out in front.

Donald Fung wrote:So sometimes, you start off dominating the game with much more troops than everyone else and all the other players decides to work together and target you. What is the best way to avoid that and what is the best way to overcome it? here's an example of an ongoing game that this happened.

http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=6662373

I basically held 3x the bonus of everyone else and they all decided to beat me down (and the fact a few decided to take this all personal). I got torn apart but is there any strategy to this for future games?

first of all you are playing the worst map especially without fog for this kind of problem so perhaps reconsider your game choice

in world 2.1 its easy for emotions to get flared up because people can go from top to bottom at the drop of a pin. As well as planning your moves you've got to guess what the opponent is going to do, know thy enemy as is always said in real life war, did you really expect your opponents to not attack you? put yourself in their shoes?

you are playing a game that only has one winner, nobodies going to sit back and watch you win

Mr Changsha wrote:When playing large multiplayer flat and no cards games I aim to knock about in about 3rd until the moment when I can decisively take first and win. Effectively one should aim to be oh so quiet for the vast majority of the game until WHAM! you explode, take a vast number of territories, break all the opposition players and then win.

This is a bit of a generalisation of course. Sometimes I will lead from the front (as in have the largest bonus) but then it is a case of not getting too far ahead while still stacking up the troop advantage. In the end though, flat and no cards wins almost always come from the second or third placed player, not the first, so if you are in the best position it is often a good idea to have a few 'phoney wars' (or better strategically useful long-term wars if you can) slip gracefully back to second or third and then wait to swoop.

I'll give you a tip: If you ARE first consider which of the two or three leading contenders is the least likely to prosecute a win. Maybe base this on current position on the board, but in general it is best to get the old map rank out and see which one has the least ability to close out the game. Weaken yourself on the better players, let the weakest player get to the front, watch him overspread (which it seems is what the OP also does) wait for one of the better players to take on the new leader and THEN you are a ready to assume command.

Finally, in general don't attempt to become the strongest unless you are after the win, and when you do go for it, break the bonuses of all your main threats as you push. If you are not able to break all those bonuses, expand your own position AND defend your empire reasonably through the round then you shouldn't attempt the move.

hmmm... thanks for all of this
I seem to fail at keeping quite because once you are ahead, ppl talk about you in chat
I know in that game, what I did wrong was threaten a player not to attack me and move out of the way which might've sparked the others to want to target me down
and for the overspreading, I did that because there was a player over there in SA that I wanted to kill (I started off having all of Africa and Arabian subcontinent).
However, about the 2nd and 3rd ranked thing, now that is hard. I either start off as the strongest or the weakest, can never make the middile lol

darrens99 wrote:

first of all you are playing the worst map especially without fog for this kind of problem so perhaps reconsider your game choice

in world 2.1 its easy for emotions to get flared up because people can go from top to bottom at the drop of a pin. As well as planning your moves you've got to guess what the opponent is going to do, know thy enemy as is always said in real life war, did you really expect your opponents to not attack you? put yourself in their shoes?

you are playing a game that only has one winner, nobodies going to sit back and watch you win

lol I actually expected them not to attack mainly because they were all focused about their own bonuses as well. I knew green might've wanted to break me but I was quite surprised to see every player targetting me, each on 1 or 2 borders. and the sad thing is, even after I surrendered Africa and dropped down to 2nd or 3rd to last place, they still refuse to stop targetting me lol I don't get the point but yeah... maybe World 2.1 multiplayer isn't the best choice

john9blue wrote:I AM SO FUCKING SICK OF THIS

I actually came here thinking about starting this exact same topic. In over half of my games I have the most troops out of 4-8 players, and I am constantly teamed up upon because of an "unspoken agreement" among the other players to not break each other's bonuses and suicide on me. I regard this as only a small step above illegal secret alliances. I'm seriously considering only playing fog games from now on because my actual skill at the game is being punished and I have to play the fucking diplomacy game with everyone else to stand a chance at winning. And it seems like when I "lay low" and let others gain a lead, nobody does anything about it and they end up winning. I realize the "diplomacy game" is part of actual Risk, but I'm sick of playing it with random people over the Internet. Now I know why most high-rankers only play other high-rankers.

DAMN I am pissed. You guys have no idea.

Are you saying that you are so good that you can't beat bad players?

Donald, you have to re-evaluate your strategy completely. You have just taken your turn but are already the weakest player on the board. You should find those regions (depending on your remaining regions by next turn) that you could effectively defend. Having 1s and 3s on your borders while the others have 10+ on theirs has made you a perfect target.

The moves others are making are not logical at all, they are basically suiciding most of their armies into me when I have a +3 bonus. Yes it cuts on my chances of winning, but it cuts on their chances as well. Some of you guys (woody, treph) clearly don't know what I'm talking about, probably because you rarely are able to take enough of a early lead for this to happen to you. Ignorance is bliss... and yes I'm being conceited in this thread. You would too if you were in my situation.

Trephining wrote:

john9blue wrote:I AM SO FUCKING SICK OF THIS

I actually came here thinking about starting this exact same topic. In over half of my games I have the most troops out of 4-8 players, and I am constantly teamed up upon because of an "unspoken agreement" among the other players to not break each other's bonuses and suicide on me. I regard this as only a small step above illegal secret alliances. I'm seriously considering only playing fog games from now on because my actual skill at the game is being punished and I have to play the fucking diplomacy game with everyone else to stand a chance at winning. And it seems like when I "lay low" and let others gain a lead, nobody does anything about it and they end up winning. I realize the "diplomacy game" is part of actual Risk, but I'm sick of playing it with random people over the Internet. Now I know why most high-rankers only play other high-rankers.

DAMN I am pissed. You guys have no idea.

Are you saying that you are so good that you can't beat bad players?

yes, in a way it is harder to beat bad players because you don't know what they are going to do
if you disagree you have obviously never played public multiplayer flat rate/no spoils sunny, or you are one of the bad players with those settings

Jatekos wrote:Donald, you have to re-evaluate your strategy completely. You have just taken your turn but are already the weakest player on the board. You should find those regions (depending on your remaining regions by next turn) that you could effectively defend. Having 1s and 3s on your borders while the others have 10+ on theirs has made you a perfect target.

how will I be able to defend anything if they keep hitting me? should I just sit there for 10 turns not attacking and hopefully get a stack of 50? no way I lost and I know it, now I'm just trying to save my ratings. The point of the thread is not what should I do after being targetted cause that is nothing. Unless all the other players get targetted, you have 0% chance of winning.

Donald Fung wrote:

Jatekos wrote:Donald, you have to re-evaluate your strategy completely. You have just taken your turn but are already the weakest player on the board. You should find those regions (depending on your remaining regions by next turn) that you could effectively defend. Having 1s and 3s on your borders while the others have 10+ on theirs has made you a perfect target.

how will I be able to defend anything if they keep hitting me? should I just sit there for 10 turns not attacking and hopefully get a stack of 50? no way I lost and I know it, now I'm just trying to save my ratings. The point of the thread is not what should I do after being targetted cause that is nothing. Unless all the other players get targetted, you have 0% chance of winning.

I did not say anything about attacking or not (depends on the regions remaining and the chance of being eliminated for your cards). So you're saying that you don't want to win, but only to save your ratings. I see.
From my experience, I can tell that it is possible - especially on large maps like World 2.1- to win the game after nearly being eliminated, but you probably know better.
Unfortunately I cannot advise on ratings, yours are already better than mine.

Dauntless07 wrote:Donald, being the aggressor in a game will not earn you any allies. If someone else is being attacked by a stronger player, others will symphasize with the one being attacked. Whining and begging for mercy in the chat-box will only cause players to "putting you on ignore so I can pretend you don't exist." You have to reevaluate your strategy completely, and play the psycological game.

If you are too weak, you will be targeted by the other players for some easy territories. If you are too strong, you will be targeted by other players until you become a weak player; and we know what happens to weak players. You can't be too strong or too weak, but simply intimidating enough to discourage other players suiciding your territory. Though RISK is a game of global domination, you can't fight the whole world alone.

I guess that explains why I'm a private first class still
I actually try truces and even "diplomacies" in most of my games and that is usually how you suddenly get the lead
but once those truces breaks or you get paranoid tha they might break, you start using threats and then the targetting happens rotfl

Let's take a look at my last 8 games shall we?

http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=6658549 - One player starts off with bonus, others don't team up on him, he wins in 12.

http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=6658546 - I lost 8v2 trying to get a bonus, finally do, start building, but yellow decides to slaughter me (I was losing) and give red the game.

http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=6658541 - I get bonus and eventually get over twice anyone else's troops, get teamed up upon, green now has huge bonus and nobody is doing anything.

http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=6658534 - You can't see but, I had a bonus, went for another, both got broken at the same time, can't get either back without being broken... both other players have bonuses and won't break them.

http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=6651925 - Clan battle team game (we're winning)... not relevant.

http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=6559604 - At one point had almost enough to go for the win, decided not to, others left their borders unguarded against each other and suicided against me, even when red was winning, red takes it easily because he suicided against me less. EDIT: oh apparently now it's tied up. I was dominating at one point though and got taken down by an unannounced alliance.

http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=6559602 - I have had almost statistically unbreakable borders, but twice in 6 turns blue has had amazing dice and broke my borders... red and blue have an unannounced alliance although I am winning by less than ten.

http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=6559592 - Green gets powerful, kills one person who tried to kill someone other than green, red does nothing about it, green has game handed to him on a platter.

Whenever I am winning it's me vs. the world. Whenever someone else is winning they get a free ride. WHAT. THE. f*ck. People are idiots.

I'm with Mr. C on this one and it only took me a year to figure it out (I'm dumb like that). Basically, if you jump ahead quickly in a flat or no card game, you get teamed up on by the other players (or else you should get teamed up on by the other players... I've been in games where no matter how much I type in chat, no one pays attention). Anyway, if you stay competitive, you can help the other players take out the top dog and then turn on them.

I'm not sure if this works in fog games; I think that depends on whether anyone is breaking the unspoken fog game rules or whether anyone actually looks at the game log.

john9blue wrote:Whenever I am winning it's me vs. the world. Whenever someone else is winning they get a free ride. WHAT. THE. f*ck. People are idiots.

Why don't you just try to enjoy your games instead of fighting against the world? Come on, you're a high-ranked player complaining about lower-ranked player's strategies in public games. Your win percentage and your rank shows that you are not doing bad at all strategy-wise, but you should be prepared for various strategies from the others (that's the challenge!). If you can win with your strategy, that's great. If not, then move on and try to learn from your mistakes (e.g. if you proposed a truce to someone who became too strong as a result of your agreement then you should not only blame the dice and the others).

That's no fun though... I came here to rant... what fun is it just sitting back and enjoying things? lol