[These cases have been closed. If you would like to appeal the decision of the hunter please open a ticket on the help page and the case will be looked into by a second hunter.]
Comments:
After realizing that I was winning the game, the above mentioned players ganged up against me without declaring truces and attacked me for two rounds with everything they could throw at me. Their borders were undefended, yet there were no attacks amongst them during the two rounds they spent destroying my armies. Obviously, the deal was made elsewhere, not in the chat window of the game.
I have to agree with them.You had a tactical advantage with a big bonus.Any experienced player in a Flat Rate game would try and break you.
I do not agree with alliances .I played on MSN ( The Zone ) for years without annoucing a single word in chat.It was not called for...unwritten rules say don't get to big for you boots in Risk.If you do .People get scared and attack.
Maybe they took it to far,but it happens.One day it will work to your advantage.
Bones2484 wrote:"AlNik: unless you call ganging up on someone without truces a strategy.. I call it cheating"
I call it playing smart and reading the board. But if you want to think the sky is falling, so be it.
Fact remains - they attacked me for exactly two rounds during which time there were no attacks between them. So, they arranged to do it, they had an alliance and truces, but it wasn't announced in chat. That is secret diplomacy, so say what you wish - facts are there.
In this game they attacked me for 13 rounds.No breaks from the attacks.Turn in turn out.3406960
This has grounds for a complaint..WoW they attacked you for 2 whole rounds.One good play would overcome that.
Bones2484 wrote:"AlNik: unless you call ganging up on someone without truces a strategy.. I call it cheating"
I call it playing smart and reading the board. But if you want to think the sky is falling, so be it.
Fact remains - they attacked me for exactly two rounds during which time there were no attacks between them. So, they arranged to do it, they had an alliance and truces, but it wasn't announced in chat. That is secret diplomacy, so say what you wish - facts are there.
I think you need to play more games. Sometimes a verbal alliance isn't needed to realize that you need to attack the person in the lead.
Bones2484 wrote:"AlNik: unless you call ganging up on someone without truces a strategy.. I call it cheating"
I call it playing smart and reading the board. But if you want to think the sky is falling, so be it.
Fact remains - they attacked me for exactly two rounds during which time there were no attacks between them. So, they arranged to do it, they had an alliance and truces, but it wasn't announced in chat. That is secret diplomacy, so say what you wish - facts are there.
Because they see you as a threat and attack you the same two turns doesn't mean secret diplomacy. Then you whine about it and deadbeat out, then to top it all off, you report it after you said you wouldn't. Kudos to you.
The big trouble with dumb bastards is that they are too dumb to believe there is such a thing as being smart.
Bones2484 wrote:"AlNik: unless you call ganging up on someone without truces a strategy.. I call it cheating"
I call it playing smart and reading the board. But if you want to think the sky is falling, so be it.
Fact remains - they attacked me for exactly two rounds during which time there were no attacks between them. So, they arranged to do it, they had an alliance and truces, but it wasn't announced in chat. That is secret diplomacy, so say what you wish - facts are there.
Because they see you as a threat and attack you the same two turns doesn't mean secret diplomacy. Then you whine about it and deadbeat out, then to top it all off, you report it after you said you wouldn't. Kudos to you.
Every man for himself is the only way to play this game fairly. Those who beg over the chat line are whiny girls. Oh, and btw, gfy.
Bones2484 wrote:"AlNik: unless you call ganging up on someone without truces a strategy.. I call it cheating"
I call it playing smart and reading the board. But if you want to think the sky is falling, so be it.
Fact remains - they attacked me for exactly two rounds during which time there were no attacks between them. So, they arranged to do it, they had an alliance and truces, but it wasn't announced in chat. That is secret diplomacy, so say what you wish - facts are there.
Because they see you as a threat and attack you the same two turns doesn't mean secret diplomacy. Then you whine about it and deadbeat out, then to top it all off, you report it after you said you wouldn't. Kudos to you.
Every man for himself is the only way to play this game fairly. Those who beg over the chat line are whiny girls. Oh, and btw, gfy.
Look, if you're going to complain about unfair play, don't deadbeat out. It's hypocritical.
The big trouble with dumb bastards is that they are too dumb to believe there is such a thing as being smart.
I can't see a connection among the three. Checking the game history, Rainman23 and redwards had only played one game with mynis1, who eventually won the game. If these three ganged up on you for 2 rounds because you were the most dominant at that time, what KoE_Sirius and the rest said here is logical.
Nevertheless, since you are the one of the players in this game, feel free to leave the appropriate ratings for your opponents if you feel they had a secret diplomacy to overcome you in your game.
