Posts: 190
Threads: 17
Joined: Mar 2015
Reputation:
0
I've seen a few threads in which it seems there are some different schools of thought on allying with multiple players to gang up others, including in the 195 thread. I wanted to carry on a discussion about it, but not in the game thread.
Allying with others so as to marshal forces and bring about a faster end to an opponent is a perfectly sound strategy. At some point you'll need to turn your attention to others that are growing in strength while you're embroiled in war. It might not be fun for the target, but that raises the urgency and importance of effective diplomacy.
Refraining from allying with other parties to take down a single enemy because of a... what would you call it, chivalry? Fairness?
This is a war game (one might not know it observing game 195) and the holistic objective may be to have fun and contribute to the fun had by others, but the real game objective is to rule Alamaze. Engaging in one-on-one battles is just plain idiocy from a strategic perspective. It might be fun, but at the end of the day your people will be subjugated and enslaved!
Posts: 2,257
Threads: 228
Joined: Feb 2012
Reputation:
8
You and I are on the same page, Vulkar. There has to be a balance that prevents players from becomg miserable and from quitting Alamaze, but a generic 1:1 between equally skilled players is a recipe for keeping both players off the podium.
I have a feeling that 195 is going to be unicorns and rainbows to a certain point and them it is going to quickly descend into Hell when a few players decise they hace built up enough to make major moves.
Lord Diamond
Please do not take any of my comments as a personal insult or as a criticism of the game 'Alamaze', which I very much enjoy. Rather, I hope that my personal insight and unique perspective may, in some way, help make 'Alamaze' more fun, a more successful financial venture, or simply more sustainable as a long-term project. Anyone who reads this post should feel completely free to ignore, disregard, scorn, implement, improve, dispute, or otherwise comment upon its content.
Posts: 1,968
Threads: 71
Joined: Jun 2013
Reputation:
6
Probably a good prediction, LD.
Vulkar, the topic has been discussed quite a while ago, here are some links. To summarize, there are strong feelings in two general camps, one similar to the view you appear to take, and another similar to VBM's.
I will cautiously say that there might be a consensus emerging that more than 2-on-1 runs the risk of being unsportsmanlike. And I say that as someone who has historically been more of the view that you have described.
http://kingdomsofarcania.net/forum/showt...p?tid=8990
http://kingdomsofarcania.net/forum/showt...p?tid=8999
http://kingdomsofarcania.net/forum/showt...?tid=10067
Posts: 2,585
Threads: 42
Joined: Jan 2014
Reputation:
7
11-14-2015, 07:25 AM
(This post was last modified: 11-14-2015, 07:26 AM by Jumpingfist.)
There is nothing wrong with gathering allies but you do not need to have all allies attack the same target. I often times have more than one ally in a game but do try to avoid greater than 2vs1. Ultimately the game should dictate what is fair but players are always quick to jump on the gang bang posts in the forums. If someone shows there hand that they could win in a turn or to it seems almost wrong not to stop that from happening and most likely if they are strong enough to win it may require more than 2 on 1 I do nit have a problem personally with this but I know any time anything like this happens the forum lights up about it. Even if separate players attack not communicating they attacked player almost always jumps and quickly posts on the forum seemingly to slander the would be attackers
Posts: 2,776
Threads: 70
Joined: Feb 2013
Reputation:
3
I mostly avoid diplomacy games these days because there is too much gang-banging - some players are infamous for it - and I don't even much care for 2 on 1.
Posts: 2,257
Threads: 228
Joined: Feb 2012
Reputation:
8
I also prefer anonymous; I don't have to feel guilty when I attack someone. I won't intentionally gang up on someone, but I don't mind attacking someone already engaged in war. Hell, I prefer it.
Lord Diamond
Please do not take any of my comments as a personal insult or as a criticism of the game 'Alamaze', which I very much enjoy. Rather, I hope that my personal insight and unique perspective may, in some way, help make 'Alamaze' more fun, a more successful financial venture, or simply more sustainable as a long-term project. Anyone who reads this post should feel completely free to ignore, disregard, scorn, implement, improve, dispute, or otherwise comment upon its content.
Posts: 286
Threads: 5
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation:
0
This is a war game with up to 15 players on the board at any one time. The odds of fighting one on one is almost ludicrous and that goes with the idea of fighting fair as well. If you do not like it then I say go to the online chess site and find a friend.
The great military leaders throughout the ages dealt with 'gang bangs' and so should the typical alamaze ruler.
Mad
I am the greatest swordsman that ever lived. Say, um, can I have some of that water?
Posts: 5,613
Threads: 619
Joined: Feb 2012
Reputation:
6
Alamaze was summarized by Sid Meier (Civilization, Pirates, etc) as an electronic board game. So anyone that has played Risk, Diplomacy, Axis and Allies, essentially any conflict-oriented multi-player board game knows some player always feels ganged up on. Almost all those games, including Alamaze, allow diplomacy, deal making, to attempt to sway the balance. Its a component of the game. Again, The Gray Mouser is not a renowned diplomat, and is likewise, not a renowned Alamaze persona. But he still prefers diplomacy games to anonymous games.
Posts: 1,968
Threads: 71
Joined: Jun 2013
Reputation:
6
(11-14-2015, 05:00 PM)Madmardigan Wrote: This is a war game with up to 15 players on the board at any one time. The odds of fighting one on one is almost ludicrous and that goes with the idea of fighting fair as well. If you do not like it then I say go to the online chess site and find a friend.
The great military leaders throughout the ages dealt with 'gang bangs' and so should the typical alamaze ruler.
I once felt pretty much the same as you, but as a practical matter, the backlash to this attitude has been so significant and common that I've adapted a bit, and now consider it a point of higher skill to be able to take people out 1-on-1 or 2-on-1 at most (and also partly because of the phenomenon JF mentioned, about complaints made), and to defend against 2-on-1 attacks. (Not much to be done when a third player jumps in as well, which is part of the underlying nature of the complaints.)
When the 3-on-1 (or more) attacks come, people fight to the bitter end or drop, as it suits them, and as long as it isn't taken personally, it's all good. That's the nature of the game and payment structure, and each person plays the way they like.
Posts: 2,272
Threads: 78
Joined: Sep 2013
Reputation:
18
I am done with soapboxes, so I will keep the point simple.
It is a war game. 1 vs 1 is rare and not the best strategy. So, kingdoms will team up and do diplomacy.
But, for those of us who don't have the time or energy for such, Alamaze offers an anonymous alternative.
Think about the same 4 players playing each other in Risk. Every single time they play, players 2-4 gang up and eliminate player 1.
Player 1 will go play a different game after a couple of such games.
Diplomacy does not help if 4-5 players come in with a group mentality. The only defense is to form a group first.
Just not how I want to play. I have no issues with others who wish to do all of the diplomacy to avoid being last man in.
|
Buddy/Ignore List
