Conquer Club

sm8900 wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:oVo game ID:11963-12018 will not let me submit my turn. It also doesn't post in chat and I'm assuming my messages aren't being received. So, in about 12 hours I'm going to miss a turn that I can't submit!!!

wow, sorry bud. did you try going to a web cafe? or even a Kinko's?

All my other games are fine. Just that one is messed up.

It was definitely buggered last night but is much better today,
so maybe it will let you in now?

Have you noticed the "random attack cubes" can be as squirrely
there as it often is here? "Dicey" comes to mind as it drives me
nuts sometimes.

oVo wrote:It was definitely buggered last night but is much better today,
so maybe it will let you in now?

Have you noticed the "random attack cubes" can be as squirrely
there as it often is here? "Dicey" comes to mind as it drives me
nuts sometimes.

Nope. "Communicating with server..." But it never gets to View Replay. Now I have under 6 hours and then I get booted right?

jay_a2j wrote:

oVo wrote:It was definitely buggered last night but is much better today,
so maybe it will let you in now?

Have you noticed the "random attack cubes" can be as squirrely
there as it often is here? "Dicey" comes to mind as it drives me
nuts sometimes.

Nope. "Communicating with server..." But it never gets to View Replay. Now I have under 6 hours and then I get booted right?

i think you guys might want to try a web cafe. this Flash stuff can be a bit unreliable possibly if you don't have the latest version. I have never had any connection issues with this, and i don't have any special device drivers, cards, etc etc.

jay_a2j wrote:

sm8900 wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:oVo game ID:11963-12018 will not let me submit my turn. It also doesn't post in chat and I'm assuming my messages aren't being received. So, in about 12 hours I'm going to miss a turn that I can't submit!!!

wow, sorry bud. did you try going to a web cafe? or even a Kinko's?

All my other games are fine. Just that one is messed up.

oh. hmm, that's weird.

I was getting the lingering Communicating with server thing last night too
along with some lag and pages not loading all the players names.

It's been fine today though.

Woodruff wrote:I've had to cut back on my games because the wife wants to take a trip and won't let me take the laptop. SHE JUST DOESN'T UNDERSTAND ME!!!!!

So I'm down to...<just checked>...12 active games (with 24 completed). But once that trips done, back up to 30, baby!!!!

hmmm, ok. just one tiny suggestion I would to offer to everyone; don't get too excessively involved in too many games there. I find them to be much more strenuous than Conquer Club games. Just my own opinion; keeping it down to a few lets you focus more thoroughly on each game which you are in, in my opinion.

sm8900 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:I've had to cut back on my games because the wife wants to take a trip and won't let me take the laptop. SHE JUST DOESN'T UNDERSTAND ME!!!!!

So I'm down to...<just checked>...12 active games (with 24 completed). But once that trips done, back up to 30, baby!!!!

hmmm, ok. just one tiny suggestion I would to offer to everyone; don't get too excessively involved in too many games there. I find them to be much more strenuous than Conquer Club games. Just my own opinion; keeping it down to a few lets you focus more thoroughly on each game which you are in, in my opinion.

Unless, of course, you are a DOMINATOR like myself. <looks down his nose at the plebes>

Take your damn turn Woodruff, I offered you an alliance like 24 hours ago!



EDIT: Lol you denied it. You're gonna die then, bye bye...

john9blue wrote:Take your damn turn Woodruff, I offered you an alliance like 24 hours ago!

Offered me an alliance...while IN THE SAME VERY TURN ATTACKED A FACTORY of mine. Friends like that, I don't need.

john9blue wrote:EDIT: Lol you denied it. You're gonna die then, bye bye...

Actions speak louder than words, so of course I denied it. But hey, there's good news...you won't have to worry about playing in another game with me.

Wood, I was in a position to capture a good chunk of your land, but the other guy was a big threat, so I said that I would only take your factory and then stop if you agreed to a truce (like, I actually said that in my message). I would have taken my turn yesterday but I WAITED for quite a long time for you to take your turn (I think I checked that game 3 times) to make sure that you had seen my message. You didn't agree for some reason, so I invaded you and now you won't play me anymore? I never broke my word once. You made a bad decision that cost you... no need to blame me for it...

john9blue wrote:Wood, I was in a position to capture a good chunk of your land, but the other guy was a big threat, so I said that I would only take your factory and then stop if you agreed to a truce (like, I actually said that in my message). I would have taken my turn yesterday but I WAITED for quite a long time for you to take your turn (I think I checked that game 3 times) to make sure that you had seen my message. You didn't agree for some reason, so I invaded you and now you won't play me anymore? I never broke my word once. You made a bad decision that cost you... no need to blame me for it...

An interesting perspective, but rather than the BS I see here, allow me to trot out the real situation.

I hadn't moved against you in a large number of turns, nor had you moved against me. I had been battling gray EXCLUSIVELY for quite some time, as you very well know. We already HAD a de-facto truce.

Rather than continue in that vein, you moved against me for a factory that FACTUALLY would not aid you in fighting gray (player#3) in any way at all, outside of the income level that happens to go with it.

However, regardless of whatever gains you make against me, gray will now win the game because you moved against me (having nothing to do with the offer of truce, as that's separate from attacking someone who is assisting against your common enemy). You've left me no choice, really.

So no...the bad decision wasn't mine, though it did cost me. As it will cost you.

It will cost me if you suicide against me...

The turn before I attacked, you, the three of us had nearly identical income levels. I don't know what you mean by "de-facto truce"... apparently whatever you think in your mind is the rule, and anyone who doesn't read your mind is a dirty cheat. Besides, if we had a de-facto truce, why didn't you accept my offer for a real truce? This makes me think you're just bitter because you lost.

JAPS game ID:11963-12018 will not let me submit my turn. It also doesn't post in chat and I'm assuming my messages aren't being received. So, in about 12 hours I'm going to miss a turn that I can't submit!!!




* sorry I posted this for oVo originally, but he is not in this game with me. Just don't want ANYONE in that game to think I deadbeated. It won't let me submit my turns. I have tried many times.

THE END IS NIGH IF JAY CAN'T TAKE HIS TURN!

Skittles! wrote:THE END IS NIGH IF JAY CAN'T TAKE HIS TURN!

The dingo ate your baby!

Woodruff wrote:

john9blue wrote:Wood, I was in a position to capture a good chunk of your land, but the other guy was a big threat, so I said that I would only take your factory and then stop if you agreed to a truce (like, I actually said that in my message). I would have taken my turn yesterday but I WAITED for quite a long time for you to take your turn (I think I checked that game 3 times) to make sure that you had seen my message. You didn't agree for some reason, so I invaded you and now you won't play me anymore? I never broke my word once. You made a bad decision that cost you... no need to blame me for it...

An interesting perspective, but rather than the BS I see here, allow me to trot out the real situation.

I hadn't moved against you in a large number of turns, nor had you moved against me. I had been battling gray EXCLUSIVELY for quite some time, as you very well know. We already HAD a de-facto truce.

Rather than continue in that vein, you moved against me for a factory that FACTUALLY would not aid you in fighting gray (player#3) in any way at all, outside of the income level that happens to go with it.

However, regardless of whatever gains you make against me, gray will now win the game because you moved against me (having nothing to do with the offer of truce, as that's separate from attacking someone who is assisting against your common enemy). You've left me no choice, really.

So no...the bad decision wasn't mine, though it did cost me. As it will cost you.

Is it ok if I add my two cents? to me, the question hinges on whether John did in fact try to contact Woodruff openly. If so, that doesn't remove all blame from him, but it does give some credence.

john9blue wrote:It will cost me if you suicide against me...

"If I suicide against you"...dude, your army is running through my territory like shit through a goose. I HAVE to attack you...it would be suicidal NOT to attack you.

john9blue wrote:The turn before I attacked, you, the three of us had nearly identical income levels. I don't know what you mean by "de-facto truce"...

Do you know what "de facto" means? Do you know what "truce" means? Put them together and there you have it.

john9blue wrote:apparently whatever you think in your mind is the rule, and anyone who doesn't read your mind is a dirty cheat.

I don't think you're a dirty cheat, I think you're a clueless newbie who wouldn't understand strategy if it were sitting on your face (in that particular game).

john9blue wrote:Besides, if we had a de-facto truce, why didn't you accept my offer for a real truce? This makes me think you're just bitter because you lost.

Listen real close...this isn't hard to grasp...are you listening? Close? "BECAUSE YOU ATTACKED ME ON THE VERY SAME TURN THAT YOU OFFERED ME THE TRUCE". Ok, let that gel in your brain a moment...think on it...think...think! See? That wasn't so difficult to understand now, was it?

sm8900 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

john9blue wrote:Wood, I was in a position to capture a good chunk of your land, but the other guy was a big threat, so I said that I would only take your factory and then stop if you agreed to a truce (like, I actually said that in my message). I would have taken my turn yesterday but I WAITED for quite a long time for you to take your turn (I think I checked that game 3 times) to make sure that you had seen my message. You didn't agree for some reason, so I invaded you and now you won't play me anymore? I never broke my word once. You made a bad decision that cost you... no need to blame me for it...

An interesting perspective, but rather than the BS I see here, allow me to trot out the real situation.

I hadn't moved against you in a large number of turns, nor had you moved against me. I had been battling gray EXCLUSIVELY for quite some time, as you very well know. We already HAD a de-facto truce.

Rather than continue in that vein, you moved against me for a factory that FACTUALLY would not aid you in fighting gray (player#3) in any way at all, outside of the income level that happens to go with it.

However, regardless of whatever gains you make against me, gray will now win the game because you moved against me (having nothing to do with the offer of truce, as that's separate from attacking someone who is assisting against your common enemy). You've left me no choice, really.

So no...the bad decision wasn't mine, though it did cost me. As it will cost you.

Is it ok if I add my two cents? to me, the question hinges on whether John did in fact try to contact Woodruff openly. If so, that doesn't remove all blame from him, but it does give some credence.

John did contact me directly with an in-game email. He ATTACKED ME on the same turn when he sent me the in-game email offering me a truce. So let me ask you, a disinterested third party...would you be much interested in a truce offered by someone who was attacking you at the same time they offered it (when we had not been fighting previous to that)?

Woodruff wrote:

sm8900 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:
I hadn't moved against you in a large number of turns, nor had you moved against me. I had been battling gray EXCLUSIVELY for quite some time, as you very well know. We already HAD a de-facto truce.

Rather than continue in that vein, you moved against me for a factory that FACTUALLY would not aid you in fighting gray (player#3) in any way at all, outside of the income level that happens to go with it.

However, regardless of whatever gains you make against me, gray will now win the game because you moved against me (having nothing to do with the offer of truce, as that's separate from attacking someone who is assisting against your common enemy). You've left me no choice, really.

So no...the bad decision wasn't mine, though it did cost me. As it will cost you.

Is it ok if I add my two cents? to me, the question hinges on whether John did in fact try to contact Woodruff openly. If so, that doesn't remove all blame from him, but it does give some credence.

John did contact me directly with an in-game email. He ATTACKED ME on the same turn when he sent me the in-game email offering me a truce. So let me ask you, a disinterested third party...would you be much interested in a truce offered by someone who was attacking you at the same time they offered it (when we had not been fighting previous to that)?

Woodruff; hmmm, I tried to actually give your question some thought, since it is an issue which comes up with a number of players from time to time, including me sometimes. it's hard to answer thoroughly without seeing the game itself. it's too bad that battleforces.com doesn't allow anyone to view someone else's game. a lot depends on the units deployed there. ironically, if you had some defense, that might help john's case. was your space defended at all? if you had no units at all, that should have told him that you were observing a truce of sorts. if you had a few units, perhaps there was some room for doubt or ambiguity.

Howver, many points favor your viewpoint. Forces is not Risk; gameplay is much more complex. if one dominant player has several transports full of units on the move, and two or more somewhat weaker players are working together to stop him, it's really not the right time for one of those weaker players to send a few troops or tanks through a single gap in the other guy's defenses, when clearly they've been working together to stop some threat.

since there are more factors here than simply the number of units, then clearly players have less right to disrupt an existing arrangement, especially if their partial ally has done or little nothing to defend himself in the territories bordering the spaces held by his ally.

It sounds though like John had an honest misunderstanding (or honest understanding, depending on your point-of-view). so I'd be inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt on this one.

sm8900 wrote:Woodruff; hmmm, I tried to actually give your question some thought, since it is an issue which comes up with a number of players from time to time, including me sometimes. it's hard to answer thoroughly without seeing the game itself. it's too bad that battleforces.com doesn't allow anyone to view someone else's game.

I agree, that is annoying.

sm8900 wrote:a lot depends on the units deployed there. ironically, if you had some defense, that might help john's case. was your space defended at all? if you had no units at all, that should have told him that you were observing a truce of sorts. if you had a few units, perhaps there was some room for doubt or ambiguity.

The territories were not vacant...if I remember correctly, I had one tank sitting on every single border territory between us with EVERYTHING ELSE I OWNED attacking the third player in the game (the leader).

sm8900 wrote:It sounds though like John had an honest misunderstanding (or honest understanding, depending on your point-of-view). so I'd be inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt on this one.

There was no misunderstanding. I honestly cannot fathom HOW there possibly COULD be a misunderstanding (I'm a fairly reasonable guy who is good at putting himself in another person's shoes). I was throwing everything I had at the big dog with only just a miniscule border defense.

Could the argument be made that I was inviting an attack by keeping my border so thinly defended? Sure, I can buy that to a degree...if the other person (attacker) has decided to throw the game to the big dog so they can finish 2nd. Which is precisely how I see what happened. Which is why he won't be in any future games with me, because I don't respect an intention not to finish 1st.

You know, I could have just killed you without asking, and then I probably would have a higher bonus and might be winning against the other guy. Think from my perspective: you leave a lot of territories undefended, the three of us are getting similar bonuses, I can take a lot of your territories. I was going for the win, and here's how: by having an alliance, we would reduce the third guy, I wouldn't have to waste troops defending against your tanks, then I would have a large number of troops and a good chance of winning the game. Since I knew you were going for the win too, I offered to not steamroll you in exchange for an alliance, which a reasonable player would accept in the face of getting eliminated. One reason I took that territory was to show that I was serious about attacking you if you declined (and tbh I was surprised that you did, because you seem like a reasonable guy). There's really no bad strategy or foul play in any of my moves. You, however, put down your defenses and expected a free pass out of being attacked (which many players wouldn't have even offered), because the other player was slightly stronger (less than 10 income away from either of us). Not a smart move.

I think if you look at things from my shoes, you'll understand why I did what I did. It was fairly straightforward.

Also, thanks sm for "arbitrating".

john9blue wrote:You know, I could have just killed you without asking, and then I probably would have a higher bonus and might be winning against the other guy. Think from my perspective: you leave a lot of territories undefended, the three of us are getting similar bonuses, I can take a lot of your territories. I was going for the win, and here's how: by having an alliance, we would reduce the third guy, I wouldn't have to waste troops defending against your tanks, then I would have a large number of troops and a good chance of winning the game. Since I knew you were going for the win too, I offered to not steamroll you in exchange for an alliance, which a reasonable player would accept in the face of getting eliminated. One reason I took that territory was to show that I was serious about attacking you if you declined (and tbh I was surprised that you did, because you seem like a reasonable guy). There's really no bad strategy or foul play in any of my moves. You, however, put down your defenses and expected a free pass out of being attacked (which many players wouldn't have even offered), because the other player was slightly stronger (less than 10 income away from either of us). Not a smart move.
I think if you look at things from my shoes, you'll understand why I did what I did. It was fairly straightforward.

I do understand why you did what you did. I explained it in an earlier post. Someday, you'll recognize how not to finish in second place.

So you're done arguing?

Lol, why are you guys taking this so seriously?

Skittles! wrote:Lol, why are you guys taking this so seriously?

It's an intense game and the forum there isn't that great, so they gotta get the bad energy out over here.