Rule #2: No Secret Alliance

[superkarn]

The rule states (link):
"No secret alliances. You must announce any alliance in the game chat."

My friends and I have been playing for a while. We interpret it as having to announce the alliance, and that's it. As long as the alliance is known to everybody (via the game chat), then it's fair game. We do not feel the need to disclose any information or deals the parties have agreed upon.

The latest "debate" has been in the game Battle Royale 2 (search for it in another forum ), as seen here 56724.

What are your thoughts?

[mightyal]

Play team games together and stop cheating.

[isodice]

If there's a rule about posting alliances, it's because they are allowed in non-team games. Stop crying and find yourself an ally.

[ptreey]

risk is not a team game, alliances in non team games suck, if u do have them, should disclose all terms so everyone knows what they are up against.

[x]

This opens up a can of worms where two players secretly agree to an alliance beforehand, start a game, announce the alliance in the game effectively ambushing the third party because the alliance was formed BEFORE the game began. But since you "announce" it in chat, you think it's OK to do this.

Going in to a game, all parties should be on the same page, and during the game, all communication should be above board. You shouldn't be allowed to "freeze out" a third player like this, especially not in a premeditated way, which can neither be proven nor disproven.

If what you proposed were the case, there would be a way to 'whisper' to other players in game chat.

[moz976]

I feel that if you are going to play a game with friends and intend on working together then you should play a team game. Not enter into a singles game with an alliance already formed.

But if you are playing in a game and then decide to form an alliance because of your game situation you should announce the alliance/ the boarders it covers/and how many rounds it will last.

But thats just my opinion take it however you like.

[sully800]

All terms should be discussed in the game chat, and you should never enter a game with a planned alliance. That is just a team game and ruins the entire risk concept.

[karumai]

I have never entered an alliance and never will.

Allying, for whatever reason, strikes me not only as irredeemably underhand but it geniunely detracts from the enjoyment of the game for all concerned.

I would hesitate to leave negative feedback if a player did ally in any game I played but I would actively avoid playing that player in any game ever again and I would certainly badmouth them if asked.

There are team games if you want to team up.

Alliances are for bitches; no if's, not but's!

[KoolBak]

I was avoiding posting here, but DITTO Karumai (sp?)...well said; you are welcome in any of my games K...pm me for password if you are interested.....

[OwlLawyer]

The discussion of the alliance, and all of the terms must be discussed in chat... the reason, I believe, is because, if you were playing this game live in person you would know when an alliance was being formed, and you would be able to make counter proposals and alliances. Same thing here, the other players should have a chance to get in on an alliance, or make a proposal for a different alliance. What you did was against the spirit of the rules.

[HighBorn]

How bout you pull your pantys up stop allieing and play the damn game Join Xi we Do NOT ALLY!!!!

[Haydena]

Alliances are for bitches; no if's, not but's!

Amen!

Not that I never enter alliances, I only do if it helps me out, then I yearn to break them, thats the best part .

[Evil Semp]

First I want to say I do not ally in singles game and I don't like allinaces.

The rule state "No secret alliances. You must announce any alliance in the game chat." It does not state that talks can't be done in private to form an alliance. Saying you have to state who, how long, what borders and how many turns in public chat is crazy. maybe the rule should be written to include that all communications should be in public chat including length of alliance, borders and number of turns.

Some have said if you want to ally play team games. If you play team games by the way you are stating alliances then all moves in team games should be in public chat.

It is funny how we usually interpret the rules so that the rule reads to our advantage. If you form alliances you say you don't have to post all in chat, and if you are against alliances you say all has to be posted in chat.

[superkarn]

Wow, such negative vibe...

All I did was put up a poll and voiced my opinion with respect to other players. If you check, I have mostly been playing with my friends, and when I play against "random" people, I usually play team games. So we don't have to deal with alliance issue.

My friends and I agreed on the alliance formation/announcement based on the rules. And we never make alliances before the game starts. I only make one (during the game) when it benefits me, either short term or long term.

Anyway I haven't had any problem or know of other view on this matter until recently, when I joined the Battle Royale 2. To defend myself (which I don't feel like I should have to if we all can respect each other's opinion), I only decided to form an alliance in that game because it's already round 17 and nobody's really attacking. (Roughly) half the players are still alive and building up armies.

I will make sure to ask the other players how they want to deal with the issue on a per game basis. And I will respect their choice.

And thanks, Evil Semp for seeing my point of view.

[stevegriffiths23]

I have never entered an alliance and never will.

Well said that man. If I could give you positive feedback for that one sentence I would, but I don't think we've played yet?

I'm starting to think I need a little speech I can copy and paste from Word every time someone asks me for an alliance.

*jumps on soapbox*

There is no justification for any alliance in a game where ONLY THE WINNER gets any points. It can only detract from the whole point of the game which is to anticipate and outmanouevre all of your opponents on the basis that they are all independant thinkers with varying styles and tactics.

karumai - you are invited to as many of my games as you like.

[stevegriffiths23]

this vote needs an option which says "no alliances whatsoever", and my high-horse speech still needs work...

[KoolBak]

LOL!!! Well said steve

[Fireside Poet]

If people want alliances, then they should be joining doubles and triples games as that is what they were created for. Singles games should NEVER becomes doubles and triples. If people are too stupid to know when a player is getting strong and not to take a shot at taking him/her down, then perhaps they need to stop sucking on their momma's nipple and open their frickin eyes.

<=- gets off of steve's soapbox

[Rik Meleet]

I don't agree with the "if you want an alliance - go play doubles" reasoning. Alliances in a standard Risk-game are temporary; in a doubles game you are basically 1 player of 2 (or 3) colours.

That said; I don't like "true alliances" in a standard riskgame - but I can accept and understand alliances like "green is twice as strong as us combined - if we don't cooperate till green is back to our size we will both lose". Those alliances either are futile since the "big green" will win nonetheless or they add that little extra to a game so that it goes back into balance where strategy and tactics gain importance. Those type of alliances counter the luck-effect of cards a bit.

The "we cooperate till the rest is dead" alliance are completely unacceptable in non-team games though.

[cramill]

I think people whine way too much about this. I think its okay for people to form temporary alliances as long as it is fair ... and of course as long as it is announced.

[wicked]

Alliances in standard games are allowed. It's stated in the opening paragraph on the home page. This isn't about whether or not you agree with allowing alliances, but how much detail should have to be announced in game chats.

[qeee1]

Alliances in standard games are allowed. It's stated in the opening paragraph on the home page. This isn't about whether or not you agree with allowing alliances, but how much detail should have to be announced in game chats.

What wicked said. I support the use of alliances, you want to challenge that start another topic.

Any alliances I have made have been made in game chat. The most private thing I've done would be send someone a pm saying "Read game chat before you move". I'd prefer if all alliances were made this way, but I don't think this is what is required by the way the rules currently stand. Maybe we should change them?

I do feel with the rules as they currently stand, that the nature of the alliance must be announced, who, how many rounds etc.

[x]

I'm not sure why you all have your panties in a bunch about "alliances being against the spirit of the game."

This is war, and in war, if two teams have a common goal, it just makes sense to ally until that goal is met. Of course, the only thing keeping the alliance together is

1. The belief that the third enemy is enough of a threat to warrant allying.

2. Honor & trust. Knowing that next time around, you can be trusted to keep your word.

Think Frodo & Gollum from The Lord of the Rings. Think... uh, I'm sure there's dozens of precidents, come on, you guys should know more about this than I do.

[sully800]

As I said in an earlier thread- You can't just read the rule word for word and try to "cleverly" follow it while not following the spirit of the rule.

Since the rule says all alliances must be announced in the game chat, you could technically announce it once the alliance is over or even when the game is over, correct?

Wrong in my opinion. Just like saying "we have an alliance" and then PMing each other the details. I think that all alliance discussion must occur in the game chat because thats how it would happen during a real game of risk (everyone knows the details) and I think that is the spirit of the rule.

[Bad Speler]

Sully has a very good point there. If i could, I'd change my vote now.