Diplomacy and Alliances

[jackal31]

I want some feedback from everyone. Do you consider diplomacy and making alliances in standard games unfair or unsportsmanlike? Please le me some feedback on this topic. Thanks.

[Master Bush]

no

[Anarkistsdream]

No. Not keeping your word after you give it unsportsmanlike... I've never played a table top game of Risk or Axis and Allies and not had some sort of alliance.

[Heimdall]

It's part of the game.

Risk is not all about numbers and miltary strategy, but psychology and diplomacy too... Just like real war.

[Bavarian Raven]

its war!!! Anything goes!

[khazalid]

alliances are for noobs. a good player will know when not to attack, it doesnt need to be argued over

[AAFitz]

it really is more fun not having them...ill accept them occasionally, and in dire straits keep the game alive with a last ditch effort treaty, but with high ranked players, id be embarrassed to offer one...

if the other guy is that strong...he wont attack me anyways..if he does he loses too...

but using the chat to your benefit is a fun part of the game too

[Robinette]

AAfitz.... wanna be allies?
oh my, I see what you mean...

Regardless, this can only last till midnight, when the clock strikes 12...
Now what did I do with that glass slipper?

[sPaMgLiSh]

lol. I haven't made any yet, but i can see how alliances can make life hard for the person left out. But i feel that if you have to ask some1 for an alliance it's only because they are making moves that play into the 3rd parties hands...

[cjoe]

alliances are for noobs. a good player will know when not to attack, it doesnt need to be argued over

couldn't agree more.

[wolfnfalcon]

I've never had an alliance other than a team game. All they ever do is complicate things if you take out any third parties and the last two players are you and you're ally.

[jackal31]

well.....last i understood this game, alliances were how to give yourself another chance when youre not in the lead. So what would the point be to play if youre losing to the leader and trying to peck at him without any help......that would be ridiculous!

I play to win.....this is war....which means anything goes....including women and children!

[AtomicSlug]

I'm against undeclared (secret) alliances, and frown upon open alliances unless it is just plain obvious that killing each other instead of attacking the leader will allow the leader to easily win (in which case, skilled players should not even have to declare a temporary alliance, just play smart!). I've never had an alliance either.

[jackal31]

just to clarify......no alliance I make is undeclared.....I do play by the rules of the game as they are written at this site.

[AtomicSlug]

just to clarify......no alliance I make is undeclared.....I do play by the rules of the game as they are written at this site.

I was pretty sure that was what you meant, but wanted to check.

Cool beans.

[Dr. Jim]

PErhaps there should be an alliance option. This would allow for alliances lasting, for example, 1, 3, or 5 turns and not allow the two to attack eachother. That way it's public, enforced, and there is no backstabbing.

[CrazyAnglican]

I typically do try to make short alliances. This gives you and the other guy time to consolidate and use forces wisely. It's all part of the game. If you are not doing everything you can to win then what is the point of playing. Yes, I am aware that my gift for BS-ing is to compensate for my lack of tactical skill


I do agree breaking your word is not good, but that's just common sense. If you show yourself to be dishonest then others will take you out because they can't trust you.

[Jamie]

Depends, if you attack the game leader til he has no chance of winning, then that is unfair, and very unsportsmanlike. If you attack him til his position is even with everyone else, that is ok. The point of a truce is to slow down somebody who will obviously win the game if you don't truce, not to eliminate someone.

[elcameron]

"Depends, if you attack the game leader til he has no chance of winning, then that is unfair, and very unsportsmanlike. If you attack him til his position is even with everyone else, that is ok. The point of a truce is to slow down somebody who will obviously win the game if you don't truce, not to eliminate someone."

I think that is a bit silly. The objective is to eliminate your opponents, not bring them to your level and live happily ever after.

As for alliances, I don't like them, and I've found they don't usually end well. However, they are a part of the game, and getting all bent out of shape when in a game with an alliance is just a waste.

[Jamie]

True, the point of the game is to eliminate your opponents. The point of the game is NOT to gang up on one person til he is gone though, or all but eliminated. A truce is to slow someone down. If you spend the whole game attacking the same person because he is the biggest threat everytime you have a turn, then that is ok. When your turn begins, you should focus on the game leader or somebody weak you can take out to get their cards. Anybody else, and it's a wasted turn

[mandalorian2298]

PErhaps there should be an alliance option. This would allow for alliances lasting, for example, 1, 3, or 5 turns and not allow the two to attack eachother. That way it's public, enforced, and there is no backstabbing.

I disagree. It would make alliances to powerfull a weapon. This way, as in real war, person making an alliance has to take into consideration a possibility that their ally is a traitor (of course, feedbacks give you a general idea about your ally o this isn't such a big problem).

[CrazyAnglican]

I think that backstabbing is part of the game. When you make an alliance there is always the likelihood that the other party is lying. I'm not really in favor of enforced honesty; that nullifies the benefits to those who actually are honest. You can't build a good reputation for honesty and sticking by your ally if the computer won't allow you to do otherwise.

[AAFitz]

alliances are part of the game

obviously there are degrees to the sportsmanship of them

a temporary treaty to kill a stronger player is at the top of the list

a total and unoquivocal treaty to kill everyone on the board with someone is clearly at the bottom

but on some sites, secret alliances are completely legal, and used all the time...ive made some people mad...not to mention lost some games...because i wouldnt accept them...but in there...no one questions them, unless its out of control...

[sfhbballnut]

alliances are for noobs. a good player will know when not to attack, it doesnt need to be argued over

where are these good players you're talking about?, I'd love to play with them some time.

[Jamie]

alliances are for noobs. a good player will know when not to attack, it doesnt need to be argued over

Are you saying that in a game with 3 high ranked players, that it isn't possible for one to take absolute control of the board forcing the other two to form an alliance in order to survive? If so then you are very naive. I absolutely crushed eddy mush and another colonel in a game. I owned half the board by round three, and was unstoppable. If they had truced, it wouldn't have been so bad, by like alot of high ranked players they didn't believe in it, and it cost them the game. If it is clear a person is going to win, then not trucing against them is stupid. The rest of the game means nothing.