Three-Player Stalemates

[BigBallinStalin]

I dislike those kind of games, so I have a solution:

[In game chat:]

• Whoever allies with me first, I will fight the enemy to the bitter end (thus winning the game for my ally).
  
  
  *(note: I'd post a link to the game chat on both of their walls, with about a second in between each post.)

Would this actually constitute as "throwing the game" or "suiciding"?


I see it as honest diplomacy for ending the misery of pointless three-player stalemates.

[x-raider]

Intriguing Idea.
However, I am of the opinion that it's "Suiciding".
I suppose in such a situation, winning with round limits would be based on luck, which leaves you back at square one.
Until someone can successfully prove that it isn't suiciding, and it's all fair, another solution is required...

[jimboston]

Depends on the scenario...

for example in a Fog Game you could claim you were fighting the mutual enemy to the bitter end... but you could hold back end troops to win the game from your ally. If you do this it's not suiciding.

if you just crash into the opponent with no sense of strategy... then yes, it's suiciding.

[JOHNNYROCKET24]

no such thing as a stalemates. Just 3 players sitting there and not doing anything. A stalemate is when you have no available moves to play. There is something to do every turn and round. Players just prefer to sit there for countless rounds hoping somebody else makes a move. Even trying to slowly trim down a players wall over multiple rounds count. People just refuse to do anything in your "stalemate" games.

[Crazyirishman]

no such thing as a stalemates. Just 3 players sitting there and not doing anything. A stalemate is when you have no available moves to play. There is something to do every turn and round. Players just prefer to sit there for countless rounds hoping somebody else makes a move. Even trying to slowly trim down a players wall over multiple rounds count. People just refuse to do anything in your "stalemate" games.

I agree with this completely.

Another thing that I have incorporated when games stall out is after awhile declare in the game chat that at round 'X', that I'm going to attack anything and everything that I can (in an egalitarian fashion). I find this more satisfying and it doesn't necessarily mean I lose the game because once the troop counts get so high auto assault can work wonders.

[premio53]

With escalading cards there should never be a "stalemate."

[Army of GOD]

I was recently in a three player stalemate. I ended it by deadbeating, because honestly, who the f*ck cares?

[BigBallinStalin]

no such thing as a stalemates. Just 3 players sitting there and not doing anything. A stalemate is when you have no available moves to play. There is something to do every turn and round. Players just prefer to sit there for countless rounds hoping somebody else makes a move. Even trying to slowly trim down a players wall over multiple rounds count. People just refuse to do anything in your "stalemate" games.

Of course, and I agree, but I'm using a different meaning of the word. If a game goes on for many rounds and no one does anything differently, then I'd consider it a stalemate because their choices reflect that there are no available worthy moves to play--other than, drop here, do nothing end turn.

Seems pretty stale, mate.

[BigBallinStalin]

no such thing as a stalemates. Just 3 players sitting there and not doing anything. A stalemate is when you have no available moves to play. There is something to do every turn and round. Players just prefer to sit there for countless rounds hoping somebody else makes a move. Even trying to slowly trim down a players wall over multiple rounds count. People just refuse to do anything in your "stalemate" games.

I agree with this completely.

Another thing that I have incorporated when games stall out is after awhile declare in the game chat that at round 'X', that I'm going to attack anything and everything that I can (in an egalitarian fashion). I find this more satisfying and it doesn't necessarily mean I lose the game because once the troop counts get so high auto assault can work wonders.

That's a good suggestion, but for those of us who aren't Communists, what can we do but agree to voluntary exchanges through alliance proposals?

[BigBallinStalin]

With escalading cards there should never be a "stalemate."

There's probably one or two out there, but you're right. Let's just say this applies to No Spoils or Flat Rate.

Any suggestions on getting out of the stalemate?

[nietzsche]

With escalading cards there should never be a "stalemate."

There's probably one or two out there, but you're right. Let's just say this applies to No Spoils or Flat Rate.

Any suggestions on getting out of the stalemate?

1. equally suicide on both.

2. say you have to get out of the country for a few days and don't have a sitter

3. use diplomacy to get an ally and betray him, who cares about the ratings

[DannyUncanny]

With escalading cards there should never be a "stalemate."

I've had it happen. You just have to make it through the unstable 10-30 period without any major powers attacking each other or hoarding large amounts of cards. After that you quickly get into the hundreds of armies where an additional 60 or so is just a drop of sand in the bucket.

[JOHNNYROCKET24]

With escalading cards there should never be a "stalemate."

There's probably one or two out there, but you're right. Let's just say this applies to No Spoils or Flat Rate.

Any suggestions on getting out of the stalemate?

attack ?

[nicestash]

no such thing as a stalemates. Just 3 players sitting there and not doing anything. A stalemate is when you have no available moves to play. There is something to do every turn and round. Players just prefer to sit there for countless rounds hoping somebody else makes a move. Even trying to slowly trim down a players wall over multiple rounds count. People just refuse to do anything in your "stalemate" games.

A stalemate can also be "a situation in which no further action or progress by opposing or competing parties seems possible.

In a 3 person stalemate, that is true because any progress by any of the players would result in their imminent defeat.

So yes, there are such thins as stalemates

[Dukasaur]

With escalading cards there should never be a "stalemate."

That is the "accepted wisdom." However, it is mostly obsolete. Escalating cards were enough to prevent stalemates on older, wide-open maps that were more-or-less based on the Risk archetype.

Stalemates are occurring even with escalating spoils on the larger, more complex, bonus-heavy maps of today.

It's the main reason why I proposed: http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 4&t=164420

[MoB Deadly]

more than 3 players, but if anyone can tell me what to do to end this game I would award them with 10 imaginary Interweb points

Game 8315560

ive tried to talk to them but not much progress is being made. And I dont just want to suicide/throw the game

Can anyone help me think of a beneficial alliance I could make?

[KoolBak]

I hate 3 player games....always feel picked on whether it's true or not As a bonus, I abhor alliance makers

*makes note never to play BigBalls in 3 player*

[AndyDufresne]

more than 3 players, but if anyone can tell me what to do to end this game I would award them with 10 imaginary Interweb points

Game 8315560

ive tried to talk to them but not much progress is being made. And I dont just want to suicide/throw the game

Can anyone help me think of a beneficial alliance I could make?

Hm, this is tough stuff, since it is flat rate and you are all well set in stone pretty much with thousands of troops. No offense to Hun1, but you all could pick on them since they are weakest, and you all do share a border with them as well.

I don't know if that would end the stalemate, but it would shake things up some if you turned Bosnia, Serbia, Romania, for instance into an active front (or Dardanelles, Aboukir and either B or S or R).

Best of luck.


--Andy

[jj3044]

Something I propose in these situations is this:

Everyone agrees to a troop deficit every round. Meaning, if you deploy 10 troops in a given round, you have to attack so that you lose at least 11 troops.

What usually happens is that once the troop count per person gets to around ~100 troops, the juices start flowing again and the game becomes interesting.

[Funkyterrance]

I've got an alternative solution:

All three players agree that each person will me matched with another person, attack-wise, for a certain number of rounds such that everyone is attacking and being attacked by a different person. These must be auto-attacks so that one of the terts is reduced to 1 or 0 armies. This will most likely mix the game up enough to get things going. Of course, if anyone doesn't follow the agreed attacking order/method, you can all gang up on them and problem solved!
This would only work in some scenarios obviously since you need to see the proof that the attacking is actually taking place but its a way to break the stalemate by luck of the dice as opposed to anyone feeling picked on/suicided on for no logical reason.

[BigBallinStalin]

more than 3 players, but if anyone can tell me what to do to end this game I would award them with 10 imaginary Interweb points

Game 8315560

ive tried to talk to them but not much progress is being made. And I dont just want to suicide/throw the game

Can anyone help me think of a beneficial alliance I could make?

I hope my message helped. Feel free to use the game chat as to provide feedback!

[BigBallinStalin]

I hate 3 player games....always feel picked on whether it's true or not As a bonus, I abhor alliance makers

*makes note never to play BigBalls in 3 player*

I'll never invite you to my birthday party.

[BigBallinStalin]

I've got an alternative solution:

All three players agree that each person will me matched with another person, attack-wise, for a certain number of rounds such that everyone is attacking and being attacked by a different person. These must be auto-attacks so that one of the terts is reduced to 1 or 0 armies. This will most likely mix the game up enough to get things going. Of course, if anyone doesn't follow the agreed attacking order/method, you can all gang up on them and problem solved!
This would only work in some scenarios obviously since you need to see the proof that the attacking is actually taking place but its a way to break the stalemate by luck of the dice as opposed to anyone feeling picked on/suicided on for no logical reason.

The problem is one of trust. It's hard to come by in a 3-player stalemate, and there's no real way to enforce the rule.


Unless of course, people agree to attack the first rule-breaker, but then comes the issue of trust again...

[AndyDufresne]

Right, the issue with all of the above examples is essentially trust, which is why I proposed going after the weakest. I think one's opponents may be more inclined to all go after the weakest opponent since it would shake things up if they were eliminated, and going after the weakest generally means you are putting less of your troops into the Great Dice Grinder, perhaps minimizing the potential for it all to backfire and weaken you and make you worse off than you started.

But still, issues I am sure with all of that!


--Andy

[Crazyirishman]

The best thing to do is the communist way of attacking anything and everything you can when troop counts get so high, worst case scenario you can blame the dice for your loss, while the satisfaction of winning the holy war is immense.