Conquer Club

Rule #2: No Secret Alliance

Talk about all things related to Conquer Club

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the community guidelines before posting.

How do you interpret this rule?

 
Total votes : 0

Postby superkarn on Wed Aug 30, 2006 9:44 pm

Just as a side note, not all alliances are about not attacking each other, or teaming up on somebody.

For example, sometimes early in the game, if i see that i start off with a lot of armies in one area and green (arbitrary color) has 1 terr near mine; and if green starts off in another area and i have one terr near him; then i might offer the service of my men there for the service of his men here. After we come to an agreement, we announce it in the chat.


As a background, i usually play with a group of friends (same clan), and we all get into an aim chat together (more "real time" than the game chat). And we all know that each other are available on aim for treaty talks. So we all know what we are up against. Of course when we play against other random players, we don't do this. Meaning, personally i don't play a lot of games against random people, but when i do, i tend to play team games, so making an alliance isn't an issue.

Once the two parties (talking on aim) have come to an agreement, we post our alliance in the game chat so other know. But we don't post our game plans, who we're gonna hit, when we're gonna hit, or where we're gonna hit. Some of my friends don't like alliances, other don't mind. So when we play each other, we play with different settings to accomodate everybody.
User avatar
Major superkarn
 
Posts: 134
Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2006 10:11 am

Postby x on Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:29 pm

In any game of Risk that's organized amongst friends, you could decide on "house rules" that differ from the standard rules.

So on the one hand, a game organized amongst friends here should have the leeway to have alternate rules. On the other hand, this is someone else's house, and the possibility for abuse is too great.

Therefore, the best solution to me seems to be alternate rules. A special icon, perhaps, that indicates "house rules" which allows secret alliances. Just a simple toggle "secret alliances allowed" like any other checkbox.

This would appease both parties (don't like that variant, don't play that game), and clear up any ambiguity.
User avatar
Private 1st Class x
 
Posts: 116
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 3:50 am

Postby wicked on Thu Aug 31, 2006 1:54 am

No one is asking you to post your game plans!!! the "details of the alliance" that people want/need to know are, for example, "Wicked and qeee are not attacking each other until Round 10, or will give one round's notice." That's it guys. Really, how hard is that?
User avatar
Major wicked
 
Posts: 15787
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2006 1:23 pm

Postby Paulus on Thu Aug 31, 2006 2:27 am

I personally have no problem with alliances as long as they are announced publicly in the game chat. I do not believe that all details of an alliance should be required to be made known as well. Whether or not hte etails should be disclosed is up to the parties involved. It would probably happen anyway simply for their own knowledge.
Diplomacy goes hand-in-hand with warfare and alliances, truces, agreements, etc. are all aspects of diplomacy. I am tired of all the whining by those who do not like alliances. I was in a game recently where two others allied against me, but I did not complain. I simply gathered my thoughts and continued the game and ended up winning despite the alliance. I am not opposed to creating or entering into an alliance with someone if I can use it as a way to possibly create a more beneficial position or situation for myself in the game. Forming an alliance can be considered a strategic tool and Risk is all about strategy except when rolling the dice, which is luck.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Paulus
 
Posts: 131
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2006 8:52 pm
Location: New Orleans

Postby MeDeFe on Thu Aug 31, 2006 2:52 am

I'll second what Paulus said, alliances are allowed because they cannot be prevented. If one player is getting stronger than the others they will (almost) inevitably team up on him.
IMO it should be enough to ask for an alliance (or NAP, or CF or anything) in game chat and for the other partner to announce whether he accepts it or not, there's no reason for anything else to be made public.
User avatar
Major MeDeFe
 
Posts: 7831
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 2:48 am
Location: Follow the trail of holes in other people's arguments.

Postby isodice on Thu Aug 31, 2006 7:38 am

Paulus wrote: Diplomacy goes hand-in-hand with warfare...Forming an alliance can be considered a strategic tool and Risk is all about strategy except when rolling the dice, which is luck.


Wicked has also said it best. The rule is stated in a simple way because its a simple issue. Just let other players know if you and another player have come to a mutual agreement in a game. Alliances are part of war. And this is a game of war. You can't try to make it "fair" for everyone. If you're playing with strangers, and for some random reason everyone decides to wipe you out first...too bad! Find a new strategy when that happens. Broaden your horizon. Pretend you are playing with a handicap and make the best of it. Learn and go on. Don't hate on people who make alliances. They are doing what they think is best to eventually win the game. And they are playing by the rules.

That's it.

Stop crying.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class isodice
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2006 9:30 pm

Postby Evil Semp on Thu Aug 31, 2006 1:41 pm

It is not hard Wicked but you are interperting the rule one way and other people don't see it that way. Saying how long in the game chat is part of an alliance that should not have to be made public. Just stating you have an allicance should be enough.
User avatar
Sergeant Evil Semp
Multi Hunter
Multi Hunter
 
Posts: 8444
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 8:50 pm

Postby reverend_kyle on Thu Aug 31, 2006 6:33 pm

I'm against alliances for border agreements.
DANCING MUSTARD FOR POOP IN '08!
User avatar
Sergeant reverend_kyle
 
Posts: 9250
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2006 4:08 pm
Location: 1000 post club

Postby qeee1 on Thu Aug 31, 2006 6:42 pm

Evil Semp wrote:Saying how long in the game chat is part of an alliance that should not have to be made public. Just stating you have an allicance should be enough.


I disagree. I think details should be made public. It should be an open game in terms of info available.

wicked wrote:"Wicked and qeee are not attacking each other until Round 10, or will give one round's notice."


I never agreed to that!
Frigidus wrote:but now that it's become relatively popular it's suffered the usual downturn in coolness.
User avatar
Colonel qeee1
 
Posts: 2904
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 12:43 pm
Location: Ireland

Postby x on Thu Aug 31, 2006 6:49 pm

In real risk, especially multi-day games, secret alliances are entirely possible. But secret alliances are against the site rules. I still think the only way to appease both parties is to designate some games as "secret alliance friendly."

It's not a matter of winning the people who disagree over to your side, it's a matter of acknowledging that there is no one single resolution that will please everybody except to do it both ways.

FWIW, the vote is currently split 22/22 right now.
User avatar
Private 1st Class x
 
Posts: 116
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 3:50 am

Postby x on Thu Aug 31, 2006 6:52 pm

I remember the one real risk game I played as a kid bringing along a tape recorder with the purpose of capturing conversation to play for my ally - being a double agent. Of course I double crossed my so-called ally by telling them I had the tape recorder and recording bogus attack plans.

Though real life games can't have the same level of detail-by-detail secret coordination online games can have, we have to acknowledge that it'll exist, and I think the best thing to do is give people the option. People who hate all alliances can play one game, people who insist behind the scenes alliances should be allowed can play the other.
User avatar
Private 1st Class x
 
Posts: 116
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 3:50 am

Postby superkarn on Fri Sep 01, 2006 10:01 am

This was supposed to be a friendly poll. Some how, some where it got outta hand. I guess the moral of this topic is to make sure everybody in the game agrees on something before starting. Whether it's no alliances at all, alliances with full disclosure, or otherwise.

Have fun :)
User avatar
Major superkarn
 
Posts: 134
Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2006 10:11 am

SECRET ALIANCE

Postby rockets red glar on Thu Sep 07, 2006 9:55 am

I am a new player to Conquer Cub, but ,I have been playing this game since 1974 or or 75! I am in a game as I type #64061 and am trying to win a game that I started while 2 possably 3 players have a secret aliance! I really like CC but, what the point if this happens! WATCH OUT FOR Dub0r and GloriousL !! THEY CHEAT!!
[/i][/b]
Private 1st Class rockets red glar
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2006 7:45 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: SECRET ALIANCE

Postby stevegriffiths23 on Fri Sep 08, 2006 1:05 am

rockets red glar wrote:I am a new player to Conquer Cub, but ,I have been playing this game since 1974 or or 75! I am in a game as I type #64061 and am trying to win a game that I started while 2 possably 3 players have a secret aliance! I really like CC but, what the point if this happens! WATCH OUT FOR Dub0r and GloriousL !! THEY CHEAT!!
[/i][/b]


you might want to post this fact in the cheats forum for the benefit of others...
User avatar
Major stevegriffiths23
 
Posts: 96
Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2006 7:59 am
Location: Plymouth, England

Postby reverend_kyle on Fri Sep 08, 2006 1:54 am

I'm the master of secret alliances in real life.. I form one with everyone without them knowing.. just take the card let them beat the crap out of eachother.. end the alliacne with someone and take em out.. then end all other alliances.
DANCING MUSTARD FOR POOP IN '08!
User avatar
Sergeant reverend_kyle
 
Posts: 9250
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2006 4:08 pm
Location: 1000 post club

All part of WAR

Postby Stargazer on Tue Oct 24, 2006 2:27 pm

isodice wrote:
Paulus wrote: Diplomacy goes hand-in-hand with warfare...Forming an alliance can be considered a strategic tool and Risk is all about strategy except when rolling the dice, which is luck.


Wicked has also said it best. The rule is stated in a simple way because its a simple issue. Just let other players know if you and another player have come to a mutual agreement in a game. Alliances are part of war. And this is a game of war. You can't try to make it "fair" for everyone. If you're playing with strangers, and for some random reason everyone decides to wipe you out first...too bad! Find a new strategy when that happens. Broaden your horizon. Pretend you are playing with a handicap and make the best of it. Learn and go on. Don't hate on people who make alliances. They are doing what they think is best to eventually win the game. And they are playing by the rules.

That's it.

Stop crying.
Well i seccond that. :!:
Sorry i'll dropped in, and didnt read anny thing accept this, must be lucky, that it exactley say what i was thinking abbout.
So my interpretation is that the rule should be respected and therefore all alliance must be announced :!:
But details abbout negotiations happen in secret, ill think Europe wouldnt be now, as it is today.
Secrets are part of the war as well, and it would be rediculous to de-classify classifyed top secrets.
so that's why i stick with my opinion, and i hope the people thet playing WAR games could understand
8)

maby its intresting to take a look on: De veroveraarsclub & vote also in the poll: LUCK in the genaral discussion's
The various religions are like different roads converging on the same point. What difference does it make if we follow different routes, provided we arrive at the same destination.
- Mahatma Gandhi
Greetings from the Stargazer.
User avatar
Private 1st Class Stargazer
 
Posts: 59
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 4:57 pm
Location: Overijssel

Re: SECRET ALIANCE

Postby Bogusbet on Wed Oct 25, 2006 7:10 am

stevegriffiths23 wrote:
rockets red glar wrote:I am a new player to Conquer Cub, but ,I have been playing this game since 1974 or or 75! I am in a game as I type #64061 and am trying to win a game that I started while 2 possably 3 players have a secret aliance! I really like CC but, what the point if this happens! WATCH OUT FOR Dub0r and GloriousL !! THEY CHEAT!!
[/i][/b]


you might want to post this fact in the cheats forum for the benefit of others...



LOL
Image
User avatar
Lieutenant Bogusbet
 
Posts: 491
Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2006 8:21 am
Location: Incoming PWNage.

Postby Pedronicus on Wed Oct 25, 2006 10:16 am

With such a possible huge points win on the cards - Battle Royale II is going to be subject to the largest amount of cheating possible.

Greedy people are ruthless. I've just added the author of this thread to my ignore list and made a mental note - never to get involved with the next Battle Royale that's sure to be started in the future.

It would seem to a causual observer that the whole things going to be rigged even more, now that this information is public knowledge.
Image
Highest position 7th. Highest points 3311 All of my graffiti can be found here
Major Pedronicus
 
Posts: 2080
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 2:42 pm
Location: Busy not shitting you....

Postby Freetymes on Wed Oct 25, 2006 11:53 am

One of the first games I played here I used an aliance when, in the middle of the game it became obvious that it would give me a great leg up, and indeed I did win. My cohort and I kept our word and it was all on the up and up and disclosed. I still cought holy h*ll for it.

I agree that when sitting at a board in person, without an acumulating point system, with people you know and are not trying to fuk you from the outset; it is an ok part of the game as it is impossible to do in secret.

However...

I will never do it here again!!!


For most all of the reasons stated previously and others...



I am healed!
User avatar
Lieutenant Freetymes
 
Posts: 364
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 9:48 am
Location: Tracking down that 10 point I saw last Saturday.

Postby wicked on Wed Oct 25, 2006 11:57 am

alliances can be fun if they piss the non-allied party off... like Zaw, the hypocrite who makes alliances, then gets pissed when they're made against him. sometimes it's fun just to push someone's buttons, ya know? :lol:
User avatar
Major wicked
 
Posts: 15787
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2006 1:23 pm

Postby berwatchey on Thu Oct 26, 2006 1:37 pm

meh, i'm new, but NAP's are just fine as long as you go into the game not planning a group alliance with preset people. thats what team games are for. but theres no reason you can't make a temporary NAP to help consolidate borders. making fortifications adjacent only really help keep it more fair. but you definately should announce it in game.
Private 1st Class berwatchey
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 12:59 pm

Postby Megatron on Thu Oct 26, 2006 1:48 pm

must disclose everything, that's why there is no 'team' chat in standard games. If you are going to continually join games with the same people and form alliances, you should play team games. If you were playing a normal standard game on a board in a circle with other people, the opportunity to talk to each other with ABSOLUTELY NO WAY of the other players hearing you would be very slim. Just play the games normal or play private games with your friends.
User avatar
Lieutenant Megatron
 
Posts: 90
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 10:21 am

Previous

Return to Conquer Club Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users