Clarify Please...

Outcast · Post by **Outcast** » Sat Dec 23, 2006 11:42 am

I have a question on alliances, Im sure it's posted somewhere, but searching through thousands of posts is just not my cup of tea.

Having played the original RISK board game since I could read, I'm used to having at least one or two temporary alliances throughout a game...

So....My question is, are they not allowed period, or must they be declared in game, ie: in chat. ???? Have played several games w/o seeing anyone allied, at least not in the open. Hence my curiosity.

Thank you for all responses regarding my confoundment.

The Outcast.

Kokunai · Post by **Kokunai** » Sat Dec 23, 2006 11:54 am

Must be declared in game no secret alliances are allowed. Some players will say they are cheating others will say they are ok. Officially the rules say no secret alliances but game chat declared are ok. By the way, use the search funtion for your questions much better than waiting for a response. If, you do not find the answer then ask it here. Some of the other forum users are anal about it...

brucker_19 · Post by **brucker_19** » Sat Dec 23, 2006 11:57 am

Kokunai wrote: Some of the other forum users are anal about it...

yeah it seems as if they are just assholes and just look out for themselves because their ranks are so much higher. Also, they think they are better than the people just starting.

Kokunai · Post by **Kokunai** » Sat Dec 23, 2006 12:19 pm

can't argue with you there lol

sully800 · Post by **sully800** » Sat Dec 23, 2006 12:52 pm

brucker_19 wrote: yeah it seems as if they are just assholes and just look out for themselves because their ranks are so much higher. Also, they think they are better than the people just starting.

People ask users to use the search function because most topics are covered multiple times already- it makes it easier for the regular posters, so they don't have to repost the same answers all the time. Also, for the person asking the question its often better to find a thread that has a lot of discussion because it may answer their question better.

That being said, the search function does not work all that well I know. It is some times difficult to pick the appropriate keywords needed, and that is why I also try to answer questions such as these. I do like to see people make an attempt at using the search though

So yeah, secret alliances aren't allowed but you can make alliances if you discuss them in the game chat. Some players still don't like alliances at all but they are completely within the rules if they aren't secret.

Outcast · Post by **Outcast** » Sat Dec 23, 2006 1:51 pm

Ok, that's what I had assumed...I appreciate your answers and statements. As for the "anal members", that's what mods are for, and of course the "delete thread" button

The search function is about useless, no matter what forum you are on, I remember the BBS days where you actually had to search through hundreds of posts to find what you were looking for.

Anywho, thanks again for the answers, look forward to playing against you kindly folks.

joeyjordison · Post by **joeyjordison** » Sat Dec 23, 2006 3:26 pm

just a final point:
sometimes it may appear that players hav a secret alliance wen it is just an unspoken agreement. i was once accused of having an alliance as i kept attacking 1 player and leaving the other alone and he in turn did the same for me. therefore in essence it was 2v1 but the person on their own was just much stronger so both me and the other player had the same idea. it just didn't make sense to attack the weaker one wen u hav a big threat.

the main thing is that u don't organise a secret alliance via pms or a messenger

tals · Post by **tals** » Sat Dec 23, 2006 6:10 pm

joeyjordison wrote:just a final point:
sometimes it may appear that players hav a secret alliance wen it is just an unspoken agreement. i was once accused of having an alliance as i kept attacking 1 player and leaving the other alone and he in turn did the same for me. therefore in essence it was 2v1 but the person on their own was just much stronger so both me and the other player had the same idea. it just didn't make sense to attack the weaker one wen u hav a big threat.

the main thing is that u don't organise a secret alliance via pms or a messenger

It really depends whether in that game did you leave your borders unprotected. If you did then you had an alliance - or you're crazy

If not then I agree that it is perfectly cool.

Tals

p.s I should say I am one player who has a problem with alliances in this game format - I just don't think it works well. If all chat is truly shown then fine but its not like we are all sitting around a table where everyone can see and hear everyone else :)You may like to check peoples feedback - i'm guessing alliances are the no1 cause of neg. feedback

sully800 · Post by **sully800** » Sat Dec 23, 2006 7:44 pm

tals wrote:[It really depends whether in that game did you leave your borders unprotected. If you did then you had an alliance - or you're crazy If not then I agree that it is perfectly cool.

I disagree. In a flat rate or no cards game, if there are 3 people left and 1 person is significantly stronger than the other two, the two weaker people NEED to attack the strong one to have a chance. Their best shot would be to leave any common borders unprotected and attack the strong man until things even up. If both players understand this and play that way without communicating, there is no alliance- secret or otherwise. And they would not be crazy either. It would simply be a mutual understanding of playing how they need to.

Moonglum · Post by **Moonglum** » Sun Dec 24, 2006 2:59 am

I personally don't like alliances if I'm playing a standard game. I have a couple of times declared a truce with 1 person while we both had other pressing problems, but we certainly kept our borders about even, troop wise. I agree that when you get down to last few players and 1 has a clear advantage, there is nothing wrong with the others concentrating on that player.

Having said all that, I am involved now in a 6 player game where 4 players have multiple alliances, allowing them to attack in one direction while being protected by others, so they can pour ALL their new troops into attacking me and 1 other guy left out in the cold. I think that's a punk move. 1 alliance I don't mind, but when you have groups of intertwined alliances, I do mind. Join a doubles or triples game if that's what you want. Cowards!

tals · Post by **tals** » Sun Dec 24, 2006 3:32 am

sully800 wrote:
tals wrote:[It really depends whether in that game did you leave your borders unprotected. If you did then you had an alliance - or you're crazy If not then I agree that it is perfectly cool.
I disagree. In a flat rate or no cards game, if there are 3 people left and 1 person is significantly stronger than the other two, the two weaker people NEED to attack the strong one to have a chance. Their best shot would be to leave any common borders unprotected and attack the strong man until things even up. If both players understand this and play that way without communicating, there is no alliance- secret or otherwise. And they would not be crazy either. It would simply be a mutual understanding of playing how they need to.

Even in a flat rate game cards are important. If you do find yourself against me in the same position I could just use the opportunity to snipe you out of the game, collect the cards and put myself in a better position. Then that is the beauty of risk - more than one way to achieve the same objective

I prefer the unspoken style of 'alliance' - much more subtle and lots more to take into account

Tals