Honor

[JTKALLTHEWAY]

I am playing in game 126922 right now. It was a five person game that I was a little weak in and biding my time. Before I know it tho, the other four of them decide to make it a 2vs2 game, leave me out. I was pissed to say the least. For one it's stupid, it's not like any two of them can split the points, and for two I am left totally shafted.

Well, I was able to come back and kill on of them and this is the conversation that ensued. I would like some help on this because I figure I'm fighting for a just cause. I apologize for my language, but that's just me when I get mad. If someone were ever truly offended by it, I would stop. Anyways, here is the conversation:


[/quote]2006-12-07 13:12:26 - jcl: sorry JTKALLTHEWAY, you are going to have to sit this one out
2006-12-07 13:13:03 - jcl: you know, play the middle man
2006-12-07 22:09:16 - ritz627: ok, diablo, u attck jcl from south in Bicol, when u get the chance,ill attck icolos, hopefull, i can hold Luzon, and u attcking him from at bicol will weaken him so i can atttck him in icolos
2006-12-07 22:10:18 - ritz627: take back ur continent first though and maybe stop belisarius in tagalog
2006-12-07 22:12:30 - ritz627: nvm, i got him in Tagalog, just take back ur continent and attck him in Bicol from south
2006-12-08 01:16:03 - Diablo05: sorry, no luck in Bicol
2006-12-08 01:38:05 - ritz627: alright, if u hold ur continenent, i gues try again
2006-12-09 02:58:27 - JTKALLTHEWAY: allright jerks, can we play a normal game now?
2006-12-09 03:19:37 - ritz627: ???....alright....
2006-12-09 12:46:33 - jcl: ok
2006-12-09 17:02:46 - JTKALLTHEWAY: you're jerks b/c you tried to exclude me and make this a team game +1
2006-12-09 17:05:37 - jcl: i never said i wasnt a jerk, and you ar egoing to win anyway, so sit down and shut up
2006-12-09 17:16:14 - JTKALLTHEWAY: no not nec. I'm not that strong
2006-12-09 17:16:28 - JTKALLTHEWAY: and I was talking to ritz
2006-12-09 21:47:53 - ritz627: Belisarius, alliance vs jtk?
2006-12-09 21:49:37 - ritz627: sry jtk, but i wanna win too, i dont think that making an alliance is being a jerk, its part of the game, and we didnt intentionally leave u out of the alliances, u just werent in good position to attck anyone who we wanted to attck
2006-12-11 21:18:21 - JTKALLTHEWAY: sure, that's bs. in a 5 person game you play singles, otherwise it's dishonorable. simple
2006-12-11 23:45:47 - ritz627: ...right...dishonorable...its a game dude...and plus, what the heck does that even mean.... its a game of risk, not real life... and alliances are part of a game of risk no matter how many people are playing, apparently someone needs to grow up
2006-12-11 23:46:07 - ritz627: i appoligized, the least you couldve done is accept it
2006-12-11 23:46:35 - ritz627: talk about 'honor'
2006-12-12 00:07:30 - jcl: lets talk about birds
2006-12-12 03:20:45 - ritz627: haha
2006-12-12 03:31:34 - JTKALLTHEWAY: bullshit, this whole game is based on the military, a thing of honor. So fine if you don't want to play like that, but I know I personally spend way too much time on this to have you write this game, the potential it holds and me off with your pathetic
2006-12-12 03:31:50 - JTKALLTHEWAY: for what you did. I'm over it, now let it go
2006-12-12 03:32:16 - JTKALLTHEWAY: ^excuses
2006-12-12 03:36:06 - Belisarius: oh wow E-HONOR, if this game actually was based on the military then the saying "all's fair in love and war" would apply, guess what it isn't YO DUDE THE ALLIES CHEATED FOR WW2 LETS GIVE UP
2006-12-12 03:36:54 - Belisarius: when we allied vs those two who were teaming we were just evening the odds
2006-12-12 03:37:05 - Belisarius: one died and we're no longer working together
2006-12-12 03:37:33 - Belisarius: i don't have to put up with that sort of patronizing bullshit about how the military is a thing of honor and this is an online board game so it should be too, so just stuff it and play
2006-12-12 03:39:51 - JTKALLTHEWAY: i wasn't even talking to you[quote][/quote]

[garionoldwolf]

I think your right in that it's not a team game so why play teams?

[Star_BuRiT]

there shouldnt be rules in war... this a game which is a replica of WAR.... nothing is wrong when it comes to winning.. but since the site has set rules such as no secret alliance, well that is fair enuf.. the rest is all up to the players.. well thats my personal opinion.. anyways enjoy it.. cause it is only a game.. or is it not???

[N0g]

People can make alliances with whomever they want. Just because it was an odd quantity in the game doesn't make any difference. It may be frustrating, but it's still on the up and up.

I didn't look at that situation, so I don't know the card setup, but if I were to fall into a game with two on two and I'm #5, I'm going to sit back and amass troops (and cards) and wait for them to kill each other off.

[KoolBak]

Well I'll bite...alliances are reprehensible...said it a hundred times and I'll say it a hundred more. Sure its on the "up and up" but so are frivilous lawsuits. Personally, I can do just fine without either.

If you want a group of folks to play with that war on their own merits my friend, feel free to pm me and you can fight with us. No pussy alliances, no cheating. You win or lose like you should-

Over and out-

[tals]

Well I'll bite...alliances are reprehensible...said it a hundred times and I'll say it a hundred more. Sure its on the "up and up" but so are frivilous lawsuits. Personally, I can do just fine without either.

If you want a group of folks to play with that war on their own merits my friend, feel free to pm me and you can fight with us. No pussy alliances, no cheating. You win or lose like you should-

Over and out-

Agreed.

[supercram]

i like koolbak. i like the doberman. especially quand il parle francais.

[Fireside Poet]

i like koolbak. i like the doberman. especially quand il parle francais.

You'll get over it.

[qeee1]

Well I'll bite...alliances are reprehensible...said it a hundred times and I'll say it a hundred more. Sure its on the "up and up" but so are frivilous lawsuits. Personally, I can do just fine without either.

I don't use the up and up defence, I just don't think alliances are reprehensible. They're part of the game and should be taken into consideration when placing your troops attacking etc. Just because some people have trouble dealing with the extra variable that is alliances doesn't mean they're reprehensible.

[tals]

Well I'll bite...alliances are reprehensible...said it a hundred times and I'll say it a hundred more. Sure its on the "up and up" but so are frivilous lawsuits. Personally, I can do just fine without either.

I don't use the up and up defence, I just don't think alliances are reprehensible. They're part of the game and should be taken into consideration when placing your troops attacking etc. Just because some people have trouble dealing with the extra variable that is alliances doesn't mean they're reprehensible.

My issue with alliances is they make no sense. There is only 1 winner in the game - making an alliance is usually because a player has decided he doesn't want to loose against 1 player and fancies his odds against the other. I almost wonder why I don't join more games - ally immediately - its a stupid thing todo but would then increase my odds of winning. I don't because it would be poor gamesmanship.

Any game you play against me I guarantee whatever my position I will not ally. Luckily so far I think i've only gone against one alliance but have been offered a number. I have Emily to thank for my very strong line against alliances.

If I want to enjoy alliances I do team games, far more fun with all the mechanics in place to allow it.

Tals

[MeDeFe]

Alliances can make sense if you play not to lose, as opposed to playing in order to win.

Of course, not losing will turn into winning sooner or later.

[qeee1]

My issue with alliances is they make no sense. There is only 1 winner in the game - making an alliance is usually because a player has decided he doesn't want to loose against 1 player and fancies his odds against the other.
Tals

What you seem to forget in your calculations is that alliances are not permanent. Two players enter into an agreement of mutual benefit for a period of time. The fact that there is only one winner doesn't mean they can't both benefit from the alliance for the duration of its existance. To enter into an alliance that will hand the other player the game would be stupid, but to enter into an alliance wherby you both get stronger and the other player(s) get weaker would not.

I almost wonder why I don't join more games - ally immediately - its a stupid thing todo but would then increase my odds of winning. I don't because it would be poor gamesmanship.

The reason you don't ally immediatly in joining games is because it isn't usually of benefit. To ally at the start of the game when everything is still up in the air is to commit yourself to something in a very volatile situation. Apart from that, at the start of the game when everyone is on equal footing there should be no need for alliances, and other players will view the alliance makers as a threat. Calling attention to yourself at that early stage is generally a bad idea, and will promote bad sentiment towards you for most of the rest of the game.

If I want to enjoy alliances I do team games, far more fun with all the mechanics in place to allow it.

The mechanics in team games are different. The alliances are pre-enforced and non-negotiable which disallows any diplomatic wrangling. It's an entirely different concept.

[Pedronicus]

after reading this thread. I might just try making an alliance at the start of a game - just to see what sort of response i get!

I'll get my arse kicked good and proper for doing so - But I'm all up for a bit of experimentation!

[Bishop]

I have to side with qeee1 here. He's made some pretty in-depth analysis here; he's obviously thought a lot about this.

I want to touch on a few things though. There is a difference between an alliance and a treaty. We need to stop using the word alliance to describe border treaties and non-aggression pacts. An alliance is what happens in a doubles/triples game. An alliance is an agreement to never attack each other and to help each other out. A treaty, on the other hand, is much smaller agreement, often between two bordering territories and for a short period of time.

Alliances are a bit ridiculous, but there is nothing wrong with a treaty. Two people can agree not to fight each other for a while because it would be stupid to fight each other. By making a treaty, this frees up armies from their mutual front and they can use them where they are threatened. If I'm in South America and plan on going into North America, with absolutely no intentions of going into Africa, why waste troops on a build up with the African player? I won't offer an alliance; but I would offer a treaty. We'd keep Brazil and North Africa at a limited amount of armies. Most treaties have a way out -- such as an end after a certain amount of turns (with the option of renewal) or a condition where you have to warn the other person a turn before you attack. This means you can attack if conditions make the treaty no longer favorable. So in most cases it's not like two people are banding together and ganging up on everyone else. This is why most treaties are not actually alliances.

The treaty that I just described comes out of specific game conditions. The types of treaties that come out of standard games are completely different than the alliances that are enforced by doubles or triples games. I think saying that people dislike 'alliances' in standard games because that's what doubles/triples games are for actually shows that the person has very little understanding of how treaties work.

Likewise, it's stupid to make an alliance at the start of the game. It's almost impossible to predict who's going to get what continent. What if you make an alliance with someone and then that person ends up being right where you need to attack? Suppose you end up in South America, and want to go after North America next. But your ally had some bad luck and is now also looking to go into North America. That's why, generally, you can't make alliances/treaties until the continents start to develop.

That's also why full-blown, all out alliances can be stupid. After making a few alliances, you soon learn there has to be a way out. As you get near the end of the mid-game, the game has rarely turned out how you predicted. Ten turns down the road, you may very well want to attack your ally. What if your ally becomes the strongest player on the board and you have to attack him to prevent him from winning, even though there are other people left on the board? There has to be a way out of treaties honourbly. Most people who make deals recognize this. Anyone who doesn't soon learns this lesson. Therefore, most treaties are short-term and not actually alliances.

Treaties also add a further element of realism to the game. All military campaigning involves diplomatic considerations. I was actually surprised how many people are against treaties on Conquer Club. My roommates and some friends of mine have probably played over a dozen games this semester (we have a table that pretty much constantly has a risk game set up on it), it seemed to me that treaties just developed naturally and were a normal part of the game. I’ve been in lots of situations where treaties are the only way not to get killed. They’re certainly part of real war, and they add another exciting element to think about.

Can someone explain what they have against treaties? I’m probably not seeing something. The only thing that has actually been argued is that alliances are for team games and that they don’t make sense because only one person can win. I think I’ve touched on those issues, but maybe people disagree with my reasoning?

Either way, I suppose it’s a good thing we can play with the people we want. I’m sure there’s not a definite right or wrong answer on alliances/treaties; it’s merely a preference. But I’m still interested in understanding the other side of the argument.

I’m also curious as to what types of games people like to play. I’m definitely on the side of negotiations and treaties, and my favorite type of game is no cards. Do you think the type of game you like to play affects your views on treaties/alliances?

[Pedronicus]

If you play no cards - then a treaty makes sense.
I tend to play esc in the main - and I don't tend to bother with treaties - because your ally might not be there next go!

[Mysty]

i agree with bishop... treaties make sense!
in this particular thread it's not a treaty anymore which we're dealing with... it's more like all ganging up on 1 person... with this i disagree

[KoolBak]

Well qeeeester...now you have a following (due in no small part to your in-depth thimpking)....congrats!!!

Analyze all you want; this is a gut feeling that is MY opinion so no amount of analyzing or debating will sway it - whether you call it an alliance, a border treaty, a gentlemans agreemant or an octode rectifier, aliiances, to me, are R E P R E H E N S I B L E. Period.

I play to win but I am proud that I do it on my own (when it happens). I am illogical, I am volitile, I am not a fantastic player, I have fun and I have a spine and balls....POW!

I'll shut up now-

Super - merci mon ami pour les mots; c'est chouette!! Bon chance a tu!!

[RobinJ]

I agree with treaties and I think that Bishop has made a very interesting point about treaties/alliances although his post was so long that i almost forgot what this thread was about. The 2v2 thing is just another way of playing. They weren't out to kill you and, as they said, you just weren't in a position to help them. As long as they didn't turn exclusively on me I would just ride it out and pick up the pieces when they destroy eachother. It certainly worked for you.

[qeee1]

I play to win but I am proud that I do it on my own (when it happens).

Nobody wins on their own, they win as a result of the moves of every player in the game. To form an alliance is just another way of effecting other players moves.

[KoolBak]

Gods you remind me of my bride.....

"No no you're wrong - you didnt say that right! I am right, you are wrong! I MUST have the final word! Blah blah blah!!!"

LMAO!!

Just let me play pilgrim

[qeee1]

Come on, most of the time I lie down and pay no heed on this issue, now I'm in trouble for arguing the point? Oh well.

[KoolBak]

aaahhh, qeester...I didnt mean to hurt yer feelers....after all, I have been with my bride for 19 years so it's not really that much of a dig, eh? Be happy Irish Dood.....

[Hugh.G.Rection]

how in the bloody hell has she stayed with you for that long....lol

as for alliances i have made a few in my 400 or so games but mostly when I first started playing.If anyone proposes an alliance against me he is usually the first one I try to eliminate.

In a game I'm in right now,I went to take my opening turn in a 3 player game and there was an alliance proposed against me that i find is cheap...if it were not a tournament game I would have attacked him constantly till we were both dead.....he was also a colonel but I guess that's one of the reasons he has 20 or so negative feedbacks

[qeee1]

It was duggie wasn't it?

[zarvinny]

you see, if you play with a knowledgable group of people that koolbak puts together, there is no need for an alliance cause the folks know what is going on.

If someone has half the board, it will go without say that someone needs to slice up some continents. However, when you play with people who aren't experienced, alliances are necessary to win. The rest of the players won't pay heed to the guy who has all of asia and oceania, they just want Europe or somethin. You have to ally, or at least suggest that maybe you should work together to stop somebody, otherwise the game's over faster than it started.

So point is, alliances aren't neccessary and shouldn't be allowed if you are playing with intelligent, shrewd folk, but if you are playing with a bunch of new recruits, then you need alliances to keep the balance or maybe tilt it in your favor a bit