Conquer Club

Accused:

Jeux
ScootChina

The accused are suspected of one of the following:

Either-
Being Multis
Conducting Secret Diplomacy

Game number(s):

Game 11446524


Comments:
During the game, the two seemed to work together rather than attack each other. Even when red (Jeux) claimed in the game box that Scoot was the strongest, he continued to attack me, claiming it was the only way to survive/win. In the end, they seemed to work together to defeat me rather than actually fight each other. The whole time, Jeux claimed green was stronger, yet still suicided into me. While this may not be definitive proof, it shows either a multi-, secret diplomacy, or something far more insulting.

Nonetheless, I wanted this checked out.

V/R
-padfootsm

Scoot's in the UK whilst you and Jeux are US based and I'm quite sure that Scoot plays fair.

is first or twice game i play with Jeux and padfootsm and 2 minute speed game. i thing padfootsm sad she lose.

Vid, you may be correct, but bear in mind that one can declare where ever they want when they set up their account. I could say I live in Australia, but that doesn't make it true.

Second, if Scoot was indeed 'playing fair', then why lie repeatedly in a "Fog of War" match? Seems a bit underhanded and cheap to me.

padfootsm wrote:Vid, you may be correct, but bear in mind that one can declare where ever they want when they set up their account. I could say I live in Australia, but that doesn't make it true.

Second, if Scoot was indeed 'playing fair', then why lie repeatedly in a "Fog of War" match? Seems a bit underhanded and cheap to me.

Your flag always shows where you are located.

Bruceswar wrote:

padfootsm wrote:Vid, you may be correct, but bear in mind that one can declare where ever they want when they set up their account. I could say I live in Australia, but that doesn't make it true.

Second, if Scoot was indeed 'playing fair', then why lie repeatedly in a "Fog of War" match? Seems a bit underhanded and cheap to me.

Your flag always shows where you are located.

Correct, so they are not multies, looking into the SD.

sniffie

Checking the game logs, I don't think there is sufficient evidence there was a secret alliance in the game between red and green. Yes, we can say green became strong by controlling the middle part of the map and it also worked to his/her advantage that the other opponents seem to have an argument in the game chat. If green had his borders well guarded, especially against red, and blue didn't have enough troops to guard his own, add the disagreement between blue and red in the game chat, I won't be surprised if it influenced red in particular (and probably green as well) to attack blue when there was an opportunity.

Red could have hoped that if he gets out of the way of green so that green could assume that he is not a threat and focus on blue, and they would fight it out eventually. However, since things didn't go out nicely in the game chat, inevitably, the strongest player won the game.