Alliances

tals · Post by **tals** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 7:50 am

Whats the protocol on this in single person matches, do you announce your intention to ally and then you can ally or do you need a turns grace etc.

I am playing with a friend and others and was chatting in MSN the option to ally came up but we decided against it because it just didn't seem sporting. But with a game where we were getting annhilated would it have been ok to ally?

Tals

netzmonschda · Post by **netzmonschda** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 8:55 am

As far as I know, it suffices to announce an alliance so that all other players can see it. You can talk about it for hours on MSN, for example, but you have to make sure that your oppenents are informed about it as soon as the alliance starts.

netzmonschda

Beastly · Post by **Beastly** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 9:54 pm

your allowed to alliance in any singles game you want... It just has to be posted in the chat..... But watch who you play with.. Like a 3 person game, and the other two are friends, because they will beat the crap outta you.

sfhbballnut · Post by **sfhbballnut** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 10:13 pm

not necessarily, I play with my friends all the time and treat them the same as I would anyone else

tals · Post by **tals** » Tue Sep 19, 2006 12:48 am

sfhbballnut wrote:not necessarily, I play with my friends all the time and treat them the same as I would anyone else

Agreed - if anything i'm slightly more agressive on friends because I don't want any wrong doing inferred. Its also no fun if you play friends and are not going to be competitive

If people enter a game as an alliance that is also not playing to the game - although at this point not against the rules if they announce it straight away.

Really they should play team games if they want to play that way

Tals

MeDeFe · Post by **MeDeFe** » Tue Sep 19, 2006 2:52 pm

IMO it's also a good idea to ask for an alliance or negotiations in the chat, too, and not just announce it when you have it.
I just think it's bad sportsmanship not to give the other player(s) an early warning.
And if two people announce "we have an alliance" out of the blue and proceed to take out a few players or grab some continents it always looks really fishy.

tals · Post by **tals** » Tue Sep 19, 2006 3:31 pm

MeDeFe wrote:IMO it's also a good idea to ask for an alliance or negotiations in the chat, too, and not just announce it when you have it.
I just think it's bad sportsmanship not to give the other player(s) an early warning.
And if two people announce "we have an alliance" out of the blue and proceed to take out a few players or grab some continents it always looks really fishy.

With the way the game is setup at the moment i'd almost be tempted to say any alliance is bad sportsmanship. Team games are for that - if they place mechanics in the game to andle it then maybe it would be better but at the moment any alliance announed could have been for a variety of reasons including a preordained alliance before the game started.

Tals

Post by **Evil Semp** » Tue Sep 19, 2006 3:45 pm

Why do people think team games are for people who like to make alliance's? Team games are completely different in that respect. You start out with the same goal as your team mate, to kill the other team. In a singles game you eventually have to kill the person you made the alliance with to win the game.

A Mans Part · Post by **A Mans Part** » Tue Sep 19, 2006 4:48 pm

Evil Semp wrote:Why do people think team games are for people who like to make alliance's? Team games are completely different in that respect. You start out with the same goal as your team mate, to kill the other team. In a singles game you eventually have to kill the person you made the alliance with to win the game.

Rumor has it your wife made an alliance with D.IsleRealBrown

D.IsleRealBrown · Post by **D.IsleRealBrown** » Tue Sep 19, 2006 4:52 pm

SHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! You'll ruin my thing with wicked!

Post by **Evil Semp** » Tue Sep 19, 2006 6:08 pm

Yeah I heard that rumor too. I figured she was trying to have me knocked off.

superkarn · Post by **superkarn** » Tue Sep 19, 2006 10:30 pm

if you're interested, there's another older topic related to alliances here:

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5777

Good read about what the majority of the people here feel.

w3a2 · Post by **w3a2** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 2:47 am

alliances is one thing which i dont like, but i dont mind truces per se.

for instance i might say "you stay out of XXXX and i wont touch you in YYYY, ok?"

also, what if one breaks an alliance (or truce)? is bad feedback the worst he can get?

stevegriffiths23 · Post by **stevegriffiths23** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 8:49 am

*climbs on high horse*

Can someone explain to me why you would want to join an alliance in a game where only the winner gets any points?

There is no value in coming second, so for two or more players to join forces for part of the game before battling for the win between themselves just spoils it for the others involved. Good players should be able to read the other players actions and intentions without constantly saying "ooh - look out! x is getting a continent...."

and don't give me that rubbish about 'part of war' - alliances in war wouldn't hold if all the competitors have the ultimate goal of taking over the world.

If you want to team, join a doubles or triples game - that is also more akin to a real war situation involving allies.

*apologises for turning response into essay, climbs off high horse and sidles away*

MeDeFe · Post by **MeDeFe** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 9:43 am

stevegriffiths23 wrote:Can someone explain to me why you would want to join an alliance in a game where only the winner gets any points?

The primary goal of the game isn't to win, it's not to lose. Sometimes you need to cooperate with another player who's got the same goal as you.

stevegriffiths23 wrote:There is no value in coming second, so for two or more players to join forces for part of the game before battling for the win between themselves just spoils it for the others involved. Good players should be able to read the other players actions and intentions without constantly saying "ooh - look out! x is getting a continent...."

And the best players should be able to win even against an alliance or truce or whatever you want to call it.

stevegriffiths23 wrote:and don't give me that rubbish about 'part of war' - alliances in war wouldn't hold if all the competitors have the ultimate goal of taking over the world.

How about 'part of the game' then? Besides, you seem to forget the alliances don't have to hold forever, only for as long as they are necessary.

Stargazer · Post by **Stargazer** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 5:28 am

Without WAR there are no alliance's needed and without peace, WAR would not exist

Finally we build a map with > 1000 army's on, this is my biggest war ever i experienced and it is so

On this moment 2006 11-06 there is a treaty in effect status Green that is like three full rounds changing to status red and than the treaty is gone, and one full turn cease fire remains.
There is actually a COLD WAR happening

with a run to who has the most army on one country, i had 73, but skinless overpowered me with two countries with 100 army's on it, but that must now be old information.
In fact our peace could be ended whit-in 6 rounds, but it could also go on until status is changed.
So you will be amazed what a treaty can accomplish

skinless: Its now active ===>>>@ http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=100121, click this, it could be fun!

And i would like it if Anny want to vote on the "LUCK" v/s strategy poll.
Also you can talk about different view's and give your own insight.[/quote]
Cu