I have a quick question for you guys, first let me set up the scenario:
Lets say your in a game with three people. You, player one is even with player two strength wise. Player three however, is clearly dominating the game, he has more way more armies, continents etc.
So you are attacking player three pretty much with everything you have because it is obvious that he is within a few turns of winning.
Player two however is not helping, just fagging around, "feathering his nest" if you will.
Since it is obvious that you (player one) cannot keep player three in check by yourself then I don't see any point in continuing to attack him.
Usually what I do is tell player two he has a turn to contribute to "the cause" or I am going to suicide on him. Usually player two keeps goofing around and so I end up suiciding on him just to get the game over with.
What do you guys do? I wonder if I am coming off a little heavy handed with the suicide talk and I am ticking people off. Maybe I should be a little more subtle?
Edit: I have played with people who get this fundamental game concept. Those games usually last 30-50 rounds and I enjoy them. But some of these idiots are a few turns away from losing and it's like they don't realize it.
the best bet is to do what will give you the win, even if its impossible...that way if there is any chance you are taking it
the only time i dont do this is in multiple player games when i have very little hope of winning and a weaker player is hitting me... i will counter attack that person...it isnt as much suicide as it is survival...you cant let other players its alright for them to attack you and not fear any reprisal...
counter attacks and retribution are part of the game...senseless suicides are ridiculous, but you cant expect to attack one person more than another, and then have that person not attack you...it just isnt going to happen
the key to keeping any kind of biased attacking fair is to limit it to one game...in other words...if youre in a game and someone just wont leave you alone and has taken away any shot you have, i think you have no choice but to nail them...but dont take it to the next game and hit him...
i think this is the most effective way to deal with such issues
also...if you are in your situation and you are the weakest player...it isnt your job to kill the strongest...you almost have to hold up to let the other guy know you arent going to hold him by yourself...
I think the "contribute to the cause or I suicide on you" gambit probably isn't as successful as an alternative.
I try to analyze why the non-contributing player is behaving the way he is. Is he just not paying attention? Is he very inexperienced? Does he really not see who the dominant player is in the game? Is there something he wants but hasn't been able to get (control of a continent perhaps, hopefully one of the smaller ones)? Has he given up on the game but doesn't want to deadbeat.
When I think I understand why he's doing what he's doing, then I try to craft a pitch to get him to do something that will benefit him. Of course, if he accepts the pitch then you can be sure it's in my interest as well.
If he's not paying attention, I call his attention to the dominant player.
If he's inexperienced I point out to him how bad our positions really are (how many turns before we get eliminated).
If he doesn't really see who the dominant player is then I identify that player for him. This works best when the dominant player protests that he's not dominant. A very bad move, by the way, because then I respond with the facts and figures (e.g., more than twice the number of armies we have combined, he's getting 10 armies a turn, he's one card set turn in away from capturing another continent, etc). This gives me instant credibility because everything I say can be verified from the game board. I'm now in a strong position to advocate a strategy to deal with the dominant player.
If there's something he wants (say control of South America) I try to accommodate him (how about a North-South America NAP?).
If he's given up on the game, I try to show him how he can make a comeback (one more round and he'll have a card set, etc.).
Why should I do all this work? Because I want to win the game and I'm saddled with a not very good player as my only ally in accomplishing that goal. If he were a good player almost none of this would be necessary would it?
I'm all about carrots because I don't find the stick a very useful tool in this game. Piss off a player and he can always suicide on you. Of course, there's the really big stick that I'm in favor of. If the player continues to play badly, I try to isolate him from the dominant player (if possible). I want to be the one to finish him off after all. It's like they say: keep your friends close, but you enemies closer, and keep your idiot brother Fredo closest of all.
One other possibility to consider. Your non-contributing player is not an idiot but is intentionally following a strategy of feigning not to understand what you're doing (tryng to reduce the dominant player's advantage), meanwhile reinforcing his position instead. He lets you do the dirty work for him and then when the dominant player is subdued he's in a stronger position than you and he becomes the new dominant player. Or you exhaust yourself against the dominant player and then he (the non-contributing player) finishes you off. Sometimes appearing not to understand doesn't indicate that the player in fact doesn't understand.
Of course, non of these ideas work if the non-contributing player doesn't read game chat. If I suspect that's the problem, then I PM him to ask him to look at the game chat. If none of these efforts works, then I plot how I could possibly eliminate this player before the dominant player does.
Sometimes, none of these options pans out, but I'm loathe to even consider suicide. I would certainly never threaten another player with suiciding on him. It's just counter-productive, and not how I want to be remembered by the player who eventually wins the game.
Kugelblitz22 wrote:
What do you guys do? I wonder if I am coming off a little heavy handed with the suicide talk and I am ticking people off. Maybe I should be a little more subtle?
i'll play straight by attacking the big player, but not so much that he'll take me down and be equal up with the other player (since this would validate the weaker players position). i'll start to pull armies from my border with the weaker player. hopefully he'll get the hint that i'm no longer interested in attacking him.
if the weaker player still does nothing and inevitably the big player wins, then so be it. hopefully the other player will learn from the game.
stick to playing with higher ranked players if poor play bugs you.
I will admit I have sat back and watched another player hammer away at a lead player, while I fortified my position. It is a great stratagy that works fairly well. I am a strong believer in the idea that I shouldn't do something if I can get you to.
The converse is true. If there is a strong player that I can hit, and will need help with to take down; I attack! But just a little. Take away a small con. Bonus. Something like that. I force the other player (not the strong) to action by both word and deed.
I post on how he will lose his (insert players strong point here) if he doesn't attack (strong player's name). Sometimes, depending on my weak position partner I will also point out certain attack points that would be a good launch point for an assult.
So far So good. I never suicide! Why? Because those guys never when. That has only been my resort once, but that player was dumb, annoying, and weak minded. I digress!
You should really be able to do whatever the hell you want.
I don't mind people proposing alliances at all if one player is dominant, as long as they don't flame me when I don't accept. Some times it will be in my interest to attack the dominant player, but other times it will be in my interest to sit back, wait till the weaker player has been weakened a bit more and then nab hisn cards to become more powerful myself. Have won many games where a player has whined at me and told me I've sealed my fate by not allying or attacking the big guy.
qwert wrote:Can i ask you something?What is porpose for you to open these Political topic in ConquerClub? Why you mix politic with Risk? Why you not open topic like HOT AND SEXY,or something like that.
I like being the "gatekeeper" - if someone has a large army sitting on one side and they cannot attack the other because they are blocking themselves in, I go and open the gate to let them through ... works real well usually because the player who thought they was safe automatically goes into defensive mode. n00bs tend to block themselves in and can't get out, so I give them a hand.
...and if you understood this, you're drunker than I thought I am.
Fireside Poet wrote:I like being the "gatekeeper" - if someone has a large army sitting on one side and they cannot attack the other because they are blocking themselves in, I go and open the gate to let them through ... works real well usually because the player who thought they was safe automatically goes into defensive mode. n00bs tend to block themselves in and can't get out, so I give them a hand.
...and if you understood this, you're drunker than I thought I am.
i.e. If they have huge army in Brazil and one in North Africa - then you kill North Africa and they can waltz through and maim Europe?
Fireside Poet wrote:I like being the "gatekeeper" - if someone has a large army sitting on one side and they cannot attack the other because they are blocking themselves in, I go and open the gate to let them through ... works real well usually because the player who thought they was safe automatically goes into defensive mode. n00bs tend to block themselves in and can't get out, so I give them a hand.
...and if you understood this, you're drunker than I thought I am.
i.e. If they have huge army in Brazil and one in North Africa - then you kill North Africa and they can waltz through and maim Europe?
(sadly sober!)
C.
Precisely! I was suspicious of my inept way of penning, but evidently it worked because you got it.
Fireside Poet wrote:
Precisely! I was suspicious of my inept way of penning, but evidently it worked because you got it.
I have used the tactic on the real board but not had reason to at this site yet... Tis a beauty - also the "released" army tends to attack the others and thanks you for letting them out - little do they realise it's in your best interest!! Bwahahahahahaaaa!!
