Login

**Drogo** · (This post was last modified: 10-01-2014, 03:04 PM by Drogo.)

I guess I'm in the minority but if you are in a full diplomacy game and 2 or 3 players are attacking you it seems incumbent on you to rally some allies, its not really that hard to do especially because if there is a group of kingdoms acting together then they are also putting a target on themselves.

But again, I have not been playing that long. It seems whenever there are multiple kingdoms fighting it is two teams and not just a group against one kingdom. But maybe at the very start a kingdom can be more susceptible...

If this is a real problem that requires attention I wonder if a game with only 'in-game' messages via orders and no emailing might offer a solution. Would probably have to beef up the in-game communication options/orders but it might be a nice medium route between totally ANON or Full Diplomacy options. Kingdoms could still work together but not to the same extent regarding coordinated plans. Just thinking out-loud.

**DuPont** · 10-01-2014, 03:03 PM

I have been the subject of a couple of three-way attacks. I think only one of them was deliberate, though. I don't let it upset my breakfast - I enjoy playing the underdog/spoiler. I like for people to attack me and then move on to somewhere else, only to find me growing back behind them like mold. I don't think I've ever been part of a three on one, though I have been part of a few grand alliances where it was like a world war with everybody on one of two sides.
I don't do a ton of diplomacy - I prefer to play more games, actually. I think if I set out to win a game at all costs, I could probably do the necessary diplomacy by using guilt/friendship/whatever to get it - not in every game, obviously, but I could claim it was 'my turn' or something. But that's just not fun for me - I like to do my thing and then jump. Or get jumped as is happening in 146 where the DE smacked me before I could smack him!

**Jumpingfist** · 10-01-2014, 03:51 PM

I think would not hurt to change the 201 202 orders to make them a max of a 2 to 1 ratio. They have become basically a way to gift gold and food between allies. We have an order for that already 215 only you must be declared ally. This would also make it harder to be the extra party claiming neutrality because the food transfer would alert others. Not a solution but seems right anyway.

**Jumbie** · 10-01-2014, 04:52 PM

If I want to attack 5 towns of the GI because it'll give me the Amberland Region, but the GI is already fighting 2 people in Amberland, should I be denied the chance to take them because it would be 3-1?

**Hawk_** · (This post was last modified: 10-01-2014, 05:16 PM by Hawk_.)

(10-01-2014, 04:52 PM)Jumbie Wrote: If I want to attack 5 towns of the GI because it'll give me the Amberland Region, but the GI is already fighting 2 people in Amberland, should I be denied the chance to take them because it would be 3-1?

I would say that is somewhat different because then you will likely be fighting another team as well.

If you were trying to avoid the other team and focus on the giant I would say that doesn't promote fair play. This is assuming there are no extra factors like the GI controls 3 regions and I have none.

My question is suppose you are the WI RD DW in an anon team game. Is it acceptable to launch a 3:1 attack on the DA for instance?

If you were team EL AN GN should you combine forces and snuff out the TR?

Maybe anon games should just be free for all and if some players get mowed down that is just the luck of the draw. But if Other teams are going to adopt 3:1 tactics or avoid them I would like to know.

**Drogo** · 10-01-2014, 05:26 PM

I think the only players that need 'self-policing' or legislated protection are new players. Otherwise we're all big boys and we don't need to over-legislate a contrived 'fairness'. Does this really happen so often its a problem for the game? If you get beat up in a game you get beat up, there'll be another game and I don't think players are going into individual games as 'teams' looking to gangbang, are they?

Protecting a new player makes sense for a lot of reasons but once you're up to speed you take your chances and you take your lumps.

**Lord Diamond** · 10-01-2014, 06:17 PM

(10-01-2014, 02:40 PM)Hawk_ Wrote:
(10-01-2014, 02:24 PM)Lord Diamond Wrote: I think that was old Alamaze.

Seriously, does the 3-way coordinated beat down actually happen? I haven't seen it. Any time I have been fighting three kingdoms at once, other kingdoms were fighting them too. More of a Grand Melee than a beat down.

Yes, I have been both the giver and receiver of the 3 way. I have also watched it happen to other players. I have been trying to avoid being the giver in my more recent games.

This raises an interesting question: Does the anon team game setting make it acceptable for a team of 3 kingdoms to attack one other kingdom?

On first glance you would say that the single kingdom has 2 allies so it is really 3:3. However, the allies may be facing other teams so they can offer no assistance. Therefore it really is just a 3:1.

I am just wondering how other players view these scenarios and would like to conduct game play that leads to entertaining contests for all involved.

There are no rules in a team game. 3:1 to knock out 1/3rd of an opposing alliance would be smart game play, not a gang bang.

If a player has an alliance, then it cannot be a gang bang by definition. You attack him and the others are automatically against you. Whether they are GOOD allies or not is another question.

I need to say this. This is a war game. That means that for me to win, I have to ruin your chances of winning. If I don't coordinate with a bunch of other players to steal your stuff it is because the payout isn't enough for my trouble, not because of any particular ethics. If you have something I want, I will try to take it. If three of you want what I have, come and give it your best shot. I will do my best to get all the other players to stab you in the back while I punch you in the gut and make you wish you had chosen another victim.

That's what makes this game fun. Any programming that takes this away will take away from the game. Some players will leave if that happens. Will enough new players replace them?

Bash Grimtooth · 10-01-2014, 06:40 PM

If you are afraid of being teamed up by 3 other kingdoms, why don't you play a Warlords game. You have three kingdoms. And, if it is anonymous, nobody will be ganging up on another player's kingdoms unless it is by random occurrence.

**kevindusi** · 10-01-2014, 07:08 PM

(10-01-2014, 06:17 PM)Lord Diamond Wrote: There are no rules in a team game. 3:1 to knock out 1/3rd of an opposing alliance would be smart game play, not a gang bang.

If a player has an alliance, then it cannot be a gang bang by definition. You attack him and the others are automatically against you. Whether they are GOOD allies or not is another question.

I need to say this. This is a war game. That means that for me to win, I have to ruin your chances of winning. If I don't coordinate with a bunch of other players to steal your stuff it is because the payout isn't enough for my trouble, not because of any particular ethics. If you have something I want, I will try to take it. If three of you want what I have, come and give it your best shot. I will do my best to get all the other players to stab you in the back while I punch you in the gut and make you wish you had chosen another victim.

That's what makes this game fun. Any programming that takes this away will take away from the game. Some players will leave if that happens. Will enough new players replace them?

I don't think I could have said it much better. Maybe a tish better, but not much.

**Jumbie** · 10-01-2014, 07:23 PM

We have the beginner scenarios to give people a chance to get their bearings and avoid that baby seal innocence being too extreme early on. On top of that we have analyses of every completed game to peruse so they see how these things happen ahead of time.