Page 2 of 2
Posted: Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:44 pm
by superkarn
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.
Posted: Wed Aug 30, 2006 11:29 pm
by x
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.
Posted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 2:54 am
by wicked
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?
Posted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 3:27 am
by Paulus
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.
Posted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 3:52 am
by MeDeFe
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.
Posted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 8:38 am
by isodice
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.
Posted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 2:41 pm
by Evil Semp
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.
Posted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 7:33 pm
by reverend_kyle
I'm against alliances for border agreements.
Posted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 7:42 pm
by qeee1
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!
Posted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 7:49 pm
by x
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.
Posted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 7:52 pm
by x
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.
Posted: Fri Sep 01, 2006 11:01 am
by superkarn
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
SECRET ALIANCE
Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:55 am
by rockets red glar
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]
Re: SECRET ALIANCE
Posted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 2:05 am
by stevegriffiths23
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...
Posted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 2:54 am
by reverend_kyle
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.
All part of WAR
Posted: Tue Oct 24, 2006 3:27 pm
by Stargazer
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
maby its intresting to take a look on: De veroveraarsclub & vote also in the poll: LUCK in the genaral discussion's
Re: SECRET ALIANCE
Posted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 8:10 am
by Bogusbet
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
Posted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 11:16 am
by Pedronicus
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.
Posted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 12:53 pm
by Freetymes
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!
Posted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 12:57 pm
by wicked
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?
Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 2:37 pm
by berwatchey
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.
Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 2:48 pm
by Megatron
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.