Poll on 3 v 1 and 4 v 1

[The Gray Mouser]

What are the opinions about 3 v 1 attacks by experienced players (or anyone for that matter) on a player that is not leading or in a powerful position, and is not in retaliation for a first strike attack.

Is there not honor involved here, or am I not seeing this like most players? Is this a modes-operandi of a few experienced players repeated game to game?

Shouldn't there be some concern for the development of the player community, rather than a group of lions attacking a wounded antelope?

Since I am not aware of how within the game this can be prevented, what are the thoughts on outing players who join a 3 v 1 attack or 4 v 1 attack here on the forum as a way to discourage that behavior and so grow the player base and make the game more fun for all?

[HeadHoncho]

My view is that it totally depends on the circumstances. Sometimes 3 or 4 on 1 is the only way to take someone out of a region, especially if the defender is AN or DE. Other times, the "1" has either been silent (best case) or obnoxious (worst case) in negotiations, or has taken other hostile actions against one or more of the attackers so as to create ill will, and in such cases, the "1" has no one else to blame for the situation.

Most of the time, I don't like going more than 2 on 1 since it results in less spoils for the victors.

PS: I think the wording of the poll is slanted, so I'm declining to vote.

[Lord Diamond]

I didn't really like the poll choices either, so I won't vote.

I never intentionally organize a gang-bang against another kingdom, but it's possible that I might be planning an attack on one kingdom while others are planning the same. Or I might attack him, while he is attacking someone else. If that happens, then the player should get real diplomatic, real quick. It would take some convincing to get me to completely back off after investing 2-3 king actions, group moves, recons, and a mess of emmy movement to an attack, but there might be room to negotiate.

This is nothing that good diplomacy cannot prevent or correct. If it happens to the same player all the time, that player should ask himself why. If it happens because certain players bully others, which has to be rare or nonexistent, then I would jump at the chance to even the odds.

[Hawk_]

I didn't really like the poll choices either, so I won't vote.

I never intentionally organize a gang-bang against another kingdom, but it's possible that I might be planning an attack on one kingdom while others are planning the same. Or I might attack him, while he is attacking someone else. If that happens, then the player should get real diplomatic, real quick. It would take some convincing to get me to completely back off after investing 2-3 king actions, group moves, recons, and a mess of emmy movement to an attack, but there might be room to negotiate.

This is nothing that good diplomacy cannot prevent or correct. If it happens to the same player all the time, that player should ask himself why. If it happens because certain players bully others, which has to be rare or nonexistent, then I would jump at the chance to even the odds.

I would be interested to learn if the players in anonymous games have encountered less 3:1 situations or if they still occur frequently.

IMO, the game would be better if less 3:1 contests occurred. Currently gaining numbers against an opponent is common tactic. I have been both a giver and a receiver of uneven odds.

It is particularly bad when it happens to new players and they get soured on the game and quit. Without adding more players the game will not survive. If we brought back the appeal to the Gods option I think first time players should get special consideration

I think there was less of this in anonymous team game 116 and hope to continue that variant as a game option. I think it increases game balance at least to some extent.

[Harry O]

The choices of the Poll don't mean much to me so I'll abstain. I wonder if the mechanics of the game could be changed by requiring enemy declaration to attack. I'm not sure that's the solution but the game was designed for post cards, letters, phone calls, pay per turn, not instant email or subscription. I like the way the instant email works and subscription works so I've adjusted my views. I've been taken out of 2 games recently because of piling on by 3 or more. I'm doing good in a couple other games that I've not been piled on. I'm now looking at it as a through mud at the wall and see which sticks and if it doesn't work out in a particular I'll sign just up for the next one.

[Kalrex]

When this has happened and I mentioned anything the behavior was "rationalized" by whomever I said anything to.

I think players tend to have tacit alliances from game to game whether they admit it or no.

Afaik I have not actually attacked a 'new' player in any game of Alamaze since 1980's but I could be wrong. - It's easy to avoid attacking someone who's obviously new or having issues imo.

Can you possibly look at the turns of the people who complained and dropped and see what occurred?

"I've been taken out of 2 games recently because of piling on by 3 or more. I'm doing good in a couple other games that I've not been piled on. I'm now looking at it as a through mud at the wall and see which sticks and if it doesn't work out in a particular I'll sign just up for the next one."

Same here but if it causes and inordinate amount of players to no longer be players it's an issue. 75% dropout rate is far too high.

[Daredevil]

And let's be clear about bullying and honor. Bullying and teaming up 3 or 4 on 1 is not cool or fun. But then doing so and then misrepresenting facts later is even less cool. This is exactly what has happened in Game 121, my third game. (My first game was over really quickly with teaming up on turn 1 and I was out by turn 5).
Anyway, here is how 121 has gone for the Dwarf, so let's get the actual facts out there.
Turn 1: No contact from RD so guess we will be fighting for the region. We both send emmies to the City. All cool, 1x1 with the RD should be fun.
Turn 2: Did a bunch of recruiting.
Turn 3: Trained and moved to RD capitol. Still fighting for city.
Turn 4: Took out RD capitol. Took City. RA moves emissaries into TM.
Turn 5: Took out RD cap again. Then I moved out of DA pop center to avoid hostilities with a new opponent.
Turn 6: Took region, though now RA is sending multiple emmies into region. Took final RD village and then WI takes it from me (why is WI in the region?). DA takes a town and a village. Ok, guess I am fighting two new folks while still recovering from RD fighting.
Turn 7: Now RA, DA and WI all sending in emmies, plus the 2DA, 4DA and 4RA (all divisions or better). Plus WI moves Prince and Count to city.
Turn 8: Getting lucky holding off emmies and taking back pop centers and killing some emmies, and somehow holding region. My only help so far was some food from DE. I did reach out for other help but my nearby neighbors were the invaders. I also had appealed on the forum, but only the DE and GN were responsive but the DE had some other issues and the GN had conflicting loyalties about helping . Influence dropping, gold dropping, food scarce. Then the RA increases his invasion and sends a note saying what fun this challenge should be. LOL - challenge.
Turn 9: RA and DA both take some things and I take some back. Still 5 enemy groups in region.
Turn 10: Still just holding region and by my math I cannot see how. Now the WI sends 2 groups in (1WI and 3WI).
Turn 11: Now help arrives - the 1GN shows up with a group at an RA village and I hear the DE has invaded Synisvania. Finally some help/relief. Now here is where the funny part starts. The RA starts sending emails to people complaining that he is being picked on by too many enemies LOL.
Turn 12: The RA loses control of Synisvania - oops. RA is mostly beaten in TM. Still 5 enemy armies and lots of emmies of all 3 invaders and RA still telling folks about the unfairness of Alamaze team-ups.
Turn 13: Finally lost capitol to DA army, influence so low I cannot take much back, 2WI is now killing leaders, DA and RA still taking pop centers, WI tries for city and fails, now 3 Witchlord groups in TM plus DA, though looks like the RA groups left.
Turn 14: Tired, so tired, so tired. Almost nothing left except a small army and a city and a few pop centers. Lose capitol again, and lose region. Influence at min and king survives, so losing capitol not much of an issue. I decide to make a grand exit and move my 1DW to city where sits the masked 3WI.
Turn 15: Figuring it is my last turn, I lose my capitol again to the DA (he has lost about 15,000 troops hitting my cap 3 times). So, I attack the masked 3WI on a 3. I have 7 DW brigades and a brigade of recruits and my attrition is high, but I have good leaders and good morale. Sadly, the WI has a P-7 and a P-4 and 5 kingdom brigades. Even before the battle, I face waves of death (lose 2 brigades) and a wall of flames. Oops. But my brave fellows journey on, survive the wall and hit the WI. The WI ends up running. I lost 2800 troops and he lost 4700 troops. Not bad. But I did promote his leader to a Warlord.
Turn 16: Today - Now my poor, wounded dwarves are facing the fresh DA army. Nothing to lose - time to go nuts again.
So, yes, it is very frustrating for a new player to face these kinds of pre-formed alliances so early in the game and I can see why some might quit. But it is even more frustrating when those same teaming players claim they were provoked or teamed up on. Come on, man up at least. I will gladly share any turn results if the RA wants to continue to complain about unfair teaming up or if the WI continues to tell people he only attacked because he was attacked first. And yes, in the course of 10 turns the WI, RA and DA never showed up at the same pop center (that means teamwork).
Ok, enough of my speechifying. Let's find a way to limit the teaming up so early in the game. It is not fun and it will continue to lead to new players quitting (although it was a little fun to put down the RD and then hold off 3 invaders for 10 turns).

[Lord Thanatos]

The players who prefer 3 v 1 odds know who they are. And yes they place well usually. And none of their excuses are valid.

So much for a challenge!

So much for growing the player base! [so that we can still play this game a few years from now...]

Everyone is missing the point by talking about game mechanics or players unknowingly ended up in the same region. The problem is when three or more players are communicating together and elect to coordinate AGAINST THE SAME PLAYER. And each of you know it when this is happening.

I have been on plenty of group email threads with a total of three of four players. They will each tell you I refuse to coordinate against the same opponent [unless he is threatening to win the contest.]

In game 118 - Invitational Championship: Two players are both attacking me after I refused to be a part of a three-player team coordinating against a single opponent [I acknowledge there were other miscommunication issues leading to the decision to attack me].

In one game I played GN and was teamed up upon by UN and RD. Fair enough and great game for all with lots of fun.

In another game I played EL and had AN, TR and GI coordinating against me in region 1 almost from the start. While I survived, even was voted Iron Willed, that game was distinctly NOT FUN. If a newbie had faced such odds I can see why he would not want to play again.

In short, you guys doing this know you are doing it and simply don't care. The ONLY rationalization I will half-way accept is that it happens against you in other games and turn about is fair. But the point of this thread is to keep it from happening, especially to new players.

The ONLY way to keep it from taking place is for each of us in those group email threads to make clear that we won't accept greater odds than 2 of us against 1.

Finally, for those of you who continue to play this way: not only are you robbing yourself of the challenges in Alamaze (who always wants an easy game?) but also you are stealing from the rest of us the chance to grow our player base.

[kevindusi]

Much like everything else, we need to self-police on this issue, and to be realistic about it. In 118, I'm dealing with EL, WI, and AN... but all of those are of my own doing so I'm not going to get up in arms about it.

What gets to me is that people jumping 3v1 or greater against a person means that each of the attackers likely isn't going to get enough out of the collective spoils to make the attack worthwhile.

This is a behavior that should be discouraged as it hurts the player base. Call the players out if you see it happening, but be realistic about it. If you invade and get hit with retaliation, that's not an issue. If you suddenly own multiple regions and get swarmed by other kingdoms trying to knock you down a peg and preserve their own chances at winning, also not an issue. That's the part of the game that requires a diplomatic hand which some people tend to ignore. However, if on turn 4 you've got 3 invading kingdoms that cross paths but never seem to get in each other's way, that needs to be stopped. If you (or a friendly referral) are in your first game and find yourself on the wrong end of an unprovoked attack by an experienced player early in the game, that also needs to be brought to people's attention. In games like 118, 119 - experienced games - this early conflict makes the games fun. In mixed games it leads to a limited number of return players.

LT, I'm still kind of sorry about 102 (your GN game), but mostly because your darn agent kept escaping! XOXO, UN 102.

[DuPont]

Well, I've been on the bottom of some of those 3v1 attacks. 108 where I was playing the GN was the first one that I remember as I got jumped on by the BL/DE/SO on the same turn. I think I've mostly avoided the same, though I'm currently in a 3v2 in 118 but that was because one player had gotten a second region and I was worried that they would earn their SVC. And I'm currently just finding one in 124 where as the DW I've been suddenly hit by the RA/SO/BL, but those seem to be mostly newish players so I'm not that upset about it.
I do love anonymous for this reason - I've played in a few games but not seen a 3v1. There was a 4 way fight in #9 that involved the BL, RA, SO and DA(me) but everybody was fighting everybody else, there was no team-up. I haven't seen anything that looks like clandestine co-ordination in any of the games I've been in and nobody has ever approached me under the board to see about cheating. I hope it's not happening and I have no reason to expect that it is.