Conquer Club

I've always had a talent for strategy games but whenever it came to politics ive always been lost. i can play fabulously on almost any but people make truces left and right to crush me.im new to the site but a vet towards the game im looking for help on how to talk politics.

Any help is welcomed

-overlordcuddles

You will not see any alliance action in the training here. Join some games in your classroom and you will see what I mean.

Avoid the types of games that encourage truces/ganging up and all the other nonsense - escalating is your best bet preferably with at least 5 or 6 players.

ok then thank you

Have you been assigned a classroom?

no not at the moment

Moved to the regular Strategy forum.

overlordcuddles wrote:I've always had a talent for strategy games but whenever it came to politics ive always been lost. i can play fabulously on almost any but people make truces left and right to crush me.im new to the site but a vet towards the game im looking for help on how to talk politics.
Any help is welcomed
-overlordcuddles

Well...quite honestly, the way to get better at anything is to work on it. Try to figure out where your weaknesses are regarding not being able to make truces/alliances. Is it because you're too demanding? Is it because you're too...uh..."not nice"? Try to figure out the situation, and work on it.

I don't play settings where this could happen, to expand.. stick to 1vs1s, team games and large player escalating games.

Avoid, 3-6 player flat rate games as these are the ones where you are most likely to be stuck in a situation where alliances may form...

joecoolfrog wrote:Avoid the types of games that encourage truces/ganging up and all the other nonsense - escalating is your best bet preferably with at least 5 or 6 players.

And play escalating games. Flat rate and no cards will lead to diplomacy. In escalating games you don't need anyone's help or cooperation to win if you know how to play.

The problem is probably that other players perceive you as being uncharismatic. You should probably make a lot more noise in the gamechat while playing, people tend to make alliances with people whose voices are familiar / sound cool.

Good luck!

yeah and you also have to assert yourself. It's good to sound aggressive, and 5-10 lines of good banter when you take your turn usually makes people have more fun and be more willing to work with you.

The better you can chat the better you can play flat rate/no cards IMO. It is a subtle, but huge part of the game often ignored by the 'no cards are stupid build games crowd'.

However, some no cards games are stupid builds, in which case your chatting abilities simply you make you easier to bear over the long months of stagnating.

As in the "real world" the best defense against early game opponent truces ( especially when your gonna be on the receiving end of it) Is to quickly & immediately make a truce with all remaing players & crumble the original truce makers. Now if it's just peace on a border thats one thing... But too many truces are for coordinated elimination of all other players. (I hate singles that get turned into dubs early in the game) So when a truce is made (especially between players who don't even connect and are the biggest) I ALWAYS make a truce with most everyone else immediately.......... AND ALWAYS HONOR IT for the duration of it. (and usually longer)

The Art of Diplomacy

1.) Be quiet: A little chatter here and there is okay, but you want to be low key until you can't be anymore. You wait until the right time and then you whip out your diplomacy skills like "Whaaaataa!"

2.) Throw smoke: It is a good thing to compliment the other players. For example, "Wow, Red! That was a nice move! I could use a few rounds like that". Or "Slow down Blue!, Your winning too fast. Do you give advice?". This will turn everybodies attention to that player.

3.) Throw more smoke: If another player is breathing down your throat, act pitiful. For example, "Dang Green! You busted me good that time. I don't know If I'll be able to recover". This does 2 things. Maybe green we relax on you a bit, cause he thinks he can go beat up on somebody else and you won't come back to bother him. It also turns everyones attention to Green, and he looks like a bully. Nobody likes a bully!

4.) Throw even more smoke: Talk across the board. Help the little guys win a little (at the expense of the big guy, of course). Say, "Hey Yellow and Pink! If you hit Orange here and he hits Orange there at the same time, You can both get a little bonus" Now they are shown an alliance opportunity that they can use against your biggest rival. Orange won't like you, but who cares!

5.) Alliances: This is what the losing players resort to. If you play well enough, you won't need one. If you pull 10 per round and the 3 other players only pull 3+3+3 = 9. You beat their alliance. If you see that your opponent gets +8 and there are only 3 other of you left (3+3+3=9), you'd better get the other guys on board before it's too late.

andy_is_awesome wrote:The Art of Diplomacy

1.) Be quiet: A little chatter here and there is okay, but you want to be low key until you can't be anymore. You wait until the right time and then you whip out your diplomacy skills like "Whaaaataa!"

I disagree on this point. It's sort of like in poker (my favorite analogy)...if you can get the other players to like you a bit, then MAYBE, JUST MAYBE it might sway them enough to want to keep you around a bit longer, simply because they enjoy your company.

andy_is_awesome wrote:2.) Throw smoke: It is a good thing to compliment the other players. For example, "Wow, Red! That was a nice move! I could use a few rounds like that". Or "Slow down Blue!, Your winning too fast. Do you give advice?". This will turn everybodies attention to that player.

Absolutely correct!

andy_is_awesome wrote:3.) Throw more smoke: If another player is breathing down your throat, act pitiful. For example, "Dang Green! You busted me good that time. I don't know If I'll be able to recover". This does 2 things. Maybe green we relax on you a bit, cause he thinks he can go beat up on somebody else and you won't come back to bother him. It also turns everyones attention to Green, and he looks like a bully. Nobody likes a bully!

Almost...I don't agree with the "I don't know if I'll be able to recover" point, because you don't want to give the appearance of being easily eliminateable. Otherwise, I would lump this in with #2 above.

andy_is_awesome wrote:4.) Throw even more smoke: Talk across the board. Help the little guys win a little (at the expense of the big guy, of course). Say, "Hey Yellow and Pink! If you hit Orange here and he hits Orange there at the same time, You can both get a little bonus" Now they are shown an alliance opportunity that they can use against your biggest rival. Orange won't like you, but who cares!

Agreed. He's already the big dawg anyway.

I think that we're all broadly in agreement here.

So far as I can tell, our suggestions can be summed up in a simple moniker: "Talk Loud, Talk Often, And Talk Dirty".

Another thing to keep in mind -- let your play do some talking as well. Follow the principles of Sun Tsu with regard to using your environment to your advantage. This goes for physical, but political as well.

If you stick your neck out attacking heavily and making wild bonus grabs at the start of a game, your troop count may swell at first, but in a multi-player game, the one who jumps out to an early lead will almost unequivocally be beaten to a pulp by the other players as a reaction. Know that this will happen, and make sure that you are one of the reactors, not the one who gets beaten.

When two players are having a heated exchange, make sure not to step on any toes while this is going on -- make your moves quietly and slowly. With any luck, they will annihilate one-another and then even congratulate you on the win!

Finally, you should install BOB if you haven't already. It will allow you to use actual numbers to defend yourself, should any players start to conspire against you. And if their conspiracies are valid? Offer one of them an olive branch -- the one that will hurt you the least, e.g. "Blue, I hear what you're saying, I'll back off and let you get SA, but green's only getting 1-less deploy than me, and he has more regions..."

I haven't played games where politics was essential in a long time (flat and no cards), but what I remember is that you have to manipulate other players without them knowing it. I used to preach "balance." You want the board to be balanced as much as possible. If a player gets a slight lead you want somebody other than you wasting armies to check his power. You may want limited border truces when it suits you, ie. a 3 turn truce on the North America/South America border. This works especially well if it's a noob bordering you. The noobier someone is the easier it is to manipulate them should they actually read the game chat and try to engage in diplomacy. If someone mentions your lead or asks someone else to break you, you need to explain to that potential threat that such an attack is not in their best interest. You can put a spin on it in a number of ways. But really look at what your opponents best interest is and use that to your advantage. If you can minimize stupid attacks on you, you already have a better chance at winning.

prismsaber wrote:I haven't played games where politics was essential in a long time (flat and no cards), but what I remember is that you have to manipulate other players without them knowing it.

I'm in the same boat. I left those kinds of games long ago because while my manipulating is good, I got tired of losing the occasional game due to other player's stupid attacks or having to energetically defend myself from other manipulators in game chat. I had forgotten all about manipulation, playing standard escalating with skilled players or team games.

Recently I started a standard escalating tournie. I thought that since I was playing with other high ranked players that I'd have nothing to worry about. Then in the first round, one player started to talk about how everybody should watch out for me with my bonus, that other players should attack me. This was an escalating game so I thought I didn't have to worry about diplomacy, but he was actually able to convince another major or colonel to waste a lot of his armies in taking away my bonus in the early stages of an escalating game, thus pointlessly weakening us both. I was shocked that such a high ranked player would do such a thing - I think he just didn't have experience in escalating and so he thought I was gonna weaken him and became especially vulnerable to the other guy's manipulation.

FarangDemon wrote:

prismsaber wrote:I haven't played games where politics was essential in a long time (flat and no cards), but what I remember is that you have to manipulate other players without them knowing it.

I'm in the same boat. I left those kinds of games long ago because while my manipulating is good, I got tired of losing the occasional game due to other player's stupid attacks or having to energetically defend myself from other manipulators in game chat. I had forgotten all about manipulation, playing standard escalating with skilled players or team games.

Recently I started a standard escalating tournie. I thought that since I was playing with other high ranked players that I'd have nothing to worry about. Then in the first round, one player started to talk about how everybody should watch out for me with my bonus, that other players should attack me. This was an escalating game so I thought I didn't have to worry about diplomacy, but he was actually able to convince another major or colonel to waste a lot of his armies in taking away my bonus in the early stages of an escalating game, thus pointlessly weakening us both. I was shocked that such a high ranked player would do such a thing - I think he just didn't have experience in escalating and so he thought I was gonna weaken him and became especially vulnerable to the other guy's manipulation.

A great example of politics in action from FarangDemon here, even if he happened to be on the end of it and the incident occoured in the wrong game type.

But never mind that.

Escalating games have no politics at all? Then why do you play? Risk was all about making and breaking deals when I played the board game. I have taken that same attitude into CC (though with less of the breaking deals...sadly.) Risk to me is a combination of strategy and diplomacy and any form that excludes one of these is a flawed form of Risk.

Tough, but there it is.

So singles escalating apparently has no diplomacy in it...bollocks of course. What did you think that whole scandal with Scottland was all about... strategy? It was diplomacy of course, perfectly legal IMO but caused a fuss because of all you escalating chaps who want to get away from the politics.

Hence 1on1, 2on2, trips and quads are not really Risk as they lack diplomacy.

Only large singles + 3 team/4 team dubs sticks to the essentials of Risk which is strategy + diplomacy.

Those that ran away from flat rate/no cards singles 'to get away from the politics and bollocks build games' simply either couldn't handle the diplomacy element "Mummy, that nasty man made another man attack me and it wasn't in EITHER of our interests!!!" Who was this nasty man Farangdemon...I'd like to play him. Or they tired of the build games, which meant they didn't work hard enough at finding a no cards/flat rate form which wouldn't descend into pointlessness.

BTW...I think I've finally found it (after a year of experimentation).

Mr Changsha wrote:

FarangDemon wrote:

prismsaber wrote:I haven't played games where politics was essential in a long time (flat and no cards), but what I remember is that you have to manipulate other players without them knowing it.

I'm in the same boat. I left those kinds of games long ago because while my manipulating is good, I got tired of losing the occasional game due to other player's stupid attacks or having to energetically defend myself from other manipulators in game chat. I had forgotten all about manipulation, playing standard escalating with skilled players or team games.

Recently I started a standard escalating tournie. I thought that since I was playing with other high ranked players that I'd have nothing to worry about. Then in the first round, one player started to talk about how everybody should watch out for me with my bonus, that other players should attack me. This was an escalating game so I thought I didn't have to worry about diplomacy, but he was actually able to convince another major or colonel to waste a lot of his armies in taking away my bonus in the early stages of an escalating game, thus pointlessly weakening us both. I was shocked that such a high ranked player would do such a thing - I think he just didn't have experience in escalating and so he thought I was gonna weaken him and became especially vulnerable to the other guy's manipulation.

A great example of politics in action from FarangDemon here, even if he happened to be on the end of it and the incident occoured in the wrong game type.

But never mind that.

Escalating games have no politics at all? Then why do you play? Risk was all about making and breaking deals when I played the board game. I have taken that same attitude into CC (though with less of the breaking deals...sadly.) Risk to me is a combination of strategy and diplomacy and any form that excludes one of these is a flawed form of Risk.

Tough, but there it is.

So singles escalating apparently has no diplomacy in it...bollocks of course. What did you think that whole scandal with Scottland was all about... strategy? It was diplomacy of course, perfectly legal IMO but caused a fuss because of all you escalating chaps who want to get away from the politics.

Hence 1on1, 2on2, trips and quads are not really Risk as they lack diplomacy.

Only large singles + 3 team/4 team dubs sticks to the essentials of Risk which is strategy + diplomacy.

Those that ran away from flat rate/no cards singles 'to get away from the politics and bollocks build games' simply either couldn't handle the diplomacy element "Mummy, that nasty man made another man attack me and it wasn't in EITHER of our interests!!!" Who was this nasty man Farangdemon...I'd like to play him. Or they tired of the build games, which meant they didn't work hard enough at finding a no cards/flat rate form which wouldn't descend into pointlessness.

BTW...I think I've finally found it (after a year of experimentation).

You should stop pretending that you know why most non-noobs hate your preferred game style. No matter how skilled your diplomacy, you'll never be higher than a major playing such games. This tells me that no matter how good you think you are you still can't stop other players from making stupid moves. Additionally, no matter how good you think you are at avoiding build games, they still happen - a lot. Talk about boring. You can pump up your preferred style as "true" risk, but this is conquer club, and it's superior to risk. Whether you like the diplomacy of no cards games, the communication and coordination of team games, or the think-on-your-toes nature of freestyle (as shady as I personally think it is) it doesn't matter, who cares. It's obviously subjective.

prismsaber wrote:

Mr Changsha wrote:

FarangDemon wrote:

prismsaber wrote:I haven't played games where politics was essential in a long time (flat and no cards), but what I remember is that you have to manipulate other players without them knowing it.

I'm in the same boat. I left those kinds of games long ago because while my manipulating is good, I got tired of losing the occasional game due to other player's stupid attacks or having to energetically defend myself from other manipulators in game chat. I had forgotten all about manipulation, playing standard escalating with skilled players or team games.

Recently I started a standard escalating tournie. I thought that since I was playing with other high ranked players that I'd have nothing to worry about. Then in the first round, one player started to talk about how everybody should watch out for me with my bonus, that other players should attack me. This was an escalating game so I thought I didn't have to worry about diplomacy, but he was actually able to convince another major or colonel to waste a lot of his armies in taking away my bonus in the early stages of an escalating game, thus pointlessly weakening us both. I was shocked that such a high ranked player would do such a thing - I think he just didn't have experience in escalating and so he thought I was gonna weaken him and became especially vulnerable to the other guy's manipulation.

A great example of politics in action from FarangDemon here, even if he happened to be on the end of it and the incident occoured in the wrong game type.

But never mind that.

Escalating games have no politics at all? Then why do you play? Risk was all about making and breaking deals when I played the board game. I have taken that same attitude into CC (though with less of the breaking deals...sadly.) Risk to me is a combination of strategy and diplomacy and any form that excludes one of these is a flawed form of Risk.

Tough, but there it is.

So singles escalating apparently has no diplomacy in it...bollocks of course. What did you think that whole scandal with Scottland was all about... strategy? It was diplomacy of course, perfectly legal IMO but caused a fuss because of all you escalating chaps who want to get away from the politics.

Hence 1on1, 2on2, trips and quads are not really Risk as they lack diplomacy.

Only large singles + 3 team/4 team dubs sticks to the essentials of Risk which is strategy + diplomacy.

Those that ran away from flat rate/no cards singles 'to get away from the politics and bollocks build games' simply either couldn't handle the diplomacy element "Mummy, that nasty man made another man attack me and it wasn't in EITHER of our interests!!!" Who was this nasty man Farangdemon...I'd like to play him. Or they tired of the build games, which meant they didn't work hard enough at finding a no cards/flat rate form which wouldn't descend into pointlessness.

BTW...I think I've finally found it (after a year of experimentation).

You should stop pretending that you know why most non-noobs hate your preferred game style. No matter how skilled your diplomacy, you'll never be higher than a major playing such games. This tells me that no matter how good you think you are you still can't stop other players from making stupid moves. Additionally, no matter how good you think you are at avoiding build games, they still happen - a lot. Talk about boring. You can pump up your preferred style as "true" risk, but this is conquer club, and it's superior to risk. Whether you like the diplomacy of no cards games, the communication and coordination of team games, or the think-on-your-toes nature of freestyle (as shady as I personally think it is) it doesn't matter, who cares. It's obviously subjective.

What's rank got to do with it?

But beyond that...

I've discovered that 8 man 2.1 dubs (no cards chained) has all the benefits of a diplomatic game, with real empire building, without it turning into a stagnated mess (which I would suggest I hate as much as you do). 30 rounds seems to be the limit. I only invite good teams to play, the games are open, and all players seem to enjoy them...well my games fill v.quickly indeed.

So what's the point?

I am taking good no cards/flat rate singles players (those lieutenants, captains and majors who can't get any higher...and possibly don't care all that much) and inviting them to play 8 man dubs. It is similar to singles in many ways (create an empire, hold an empire, attack an empire...all the stuff that makes us play no cards rather than escalating) but with the freedom to make attacks, change the position and get a decisive victory. Shouldn't that be the ideal?

I quite agree one couldn't get a very high score this way (if I wanted a high score I'd play a lot more trips and quads) but the fact is that there are A LOT of good players who think the same way I do about these things. They want to build empires, not sweep a board on cards.

It is not good enough to say 'these games always turn into pointless builds so play escalating'. Any British player (maybe even European player) grew up on flat rate singles games. Therefore they often see the game as an empire building game, rather than a 'sweeping' game. "But 6 good players on CC end up pointlessly stacking". Often true, maybe even usually true. But that doesn't mean the style cannot be modified to create open games that suit a great number of the players on this site.

So for any new player that reads this and sees CC as a place to build empires...

1. Start with public flat rate/no cards singles (5 to 8 man). These games are open due to the often hilarious play you will encounter. Learn to dodge the missiles and attain a 30-40% win rate (or higher if you are super-good).

2. Switch to 8 man dubs once you want to play only good players. Best to play private games, sadly. The opportunity for game-wrecking deadbeating is just too high for this style.

BTW Prismsaber, I think you are confusing attaining rank and playing a good game. For the vast majority of players on this site (yes even some good ones) rank is a secondary issue...playing their ideal game is the key. CC is fantastic because it allows us to modify Risk to make an ideal game. I've seen "no cards singles are just pointless builds so now I play escalating" countless times within these forums. But I've yet to see anyone addressing how to fix the problem without turning to escalating (which is a completely different game) or no cards trips/quads..which loses the diplomacy element.

My new clan was designed with this purpose in mind.

iambligh wrote:Finally, you should install BOB if you haven't already. It will allow you to use actual numbers to defend yourself, should any players start to conspire against you. And if their conspiracies are valid? Offer one of them an olive branch -- the one that will hurt you the least, e.g. "Blue, I hear what you're saying, I'll back off and let you get SA, but green's only getting 1-less deploy than me, and he has more regions..."

Agreed, BoB is a great negotiating tool.

And, when you know that you are a target, I agree with backing off.
If you hold North america and the guy in Ausie convinces the guys in SA and Europe to attack you, I will surrender my bonus rather than lose massive troops.
1.) This develops good faith. Use Chat " I don't mean to get too far ahead, I like a balanced board too, so I will let you take my bonus". Then try to get the SA and Europe guys back on your side through Chat.
2.) When you go back to get your bonus later, you will have a better chance of holding it, because you still have all of your troops. And if you are diplomatic enough, you will have friends on your borders.

Hi guys, Im a newbie. Nice to join this forum.


pret personnel