crash and laney, part of a secret allience

[rama kandra]

These are suspected Secret Aliance

Suspect users: crash and laney

Game number: Game 38601

Comments: as can be seen in the game (log) both have concquered adjedecent continants respectivly south america and africa. however i had conquered north america and in the next turn crash conquers central america taking the extra reinforcments from me. now normally i wouldnt be bothered by this except: he made no attemt to defend north africa (wich respectfully defended his continent from laney) plus he had moved all his units from brazil to central america. also nothing wrong there youd say. EXCEPT laney did not even try to take brazil (he had 6 armies against 1, so he easily could and should have). also it strikes me that crash makes no attemt to defend against laney, allthough he aparantly has more then enough armies to defend and even attack me. now the only thing in the chatlog at the moment is this and i quote:
2006-07-01 21:20:34 - crash: sigh... ur turn.
2006-07-04 00:30:39 - crash: sorry Laney, this is just a war
2006-07-04 15:10:33 - crash: hi guys!

wich refers to crash taking 2 countries in south america (both "protected by the mighty force of 1 army each). as you can see there is no mention whatsoever of an allience of any sort by any of the partaking players in that game. this strikes me as being a secret allience. which for all i know is illigal.

yours sincerely

rama kandra

[Laney]

The reason I didn't attack Brazil was because I wanted to hold africa and collect the 3 men from doing this. I had 6 men in North Africa but this also borders onto Western and Southern Europe neither of which I held and if I remember rightly had 2 or 3 men on each, If I attacked Brazil the chances are I would have lost 1 man in a 1vs1 battle then I would have had to move 1 man across leaving my border with Europe defended by 4 men.

I can see that attacking Brazil would have suited you but as I've explained it wouldn't have suited me.

[crash]

Rama,
Firstly, pls do not be to harsh on your feedback. It need not go too extreme.
Second, I have my reason and my freedom to chose which continent to attack. I must take 1 state to earn a card. If i go Afrika, which Laney has 6 troops each at 3 country could easily retaliated and bite back to brazil.
Instead- i'd chose to amerika, coz u only have 7 troops at 1 country- central amerika. Furthermore, u'll enjoy additional 5 troops from america continent- while Laney only enjoy 3 from africa.
I did not leave any troop as i need all mine to take central america, ensuring success to earn another card.


So do u see my point here? I do hope u can be nice and take back the feedback left.

[PaperPlunger]

I don't think it's a secret alliance. I have many times left myself undefended (or not nearly enough) bordering an adjacent player (duh) who had a continent bonus. Respectfully, I have also been the one to not attack the country taking a bonus (this may be from my never ending bad roll spree). I usually do not attack because I may lose my bonus the next round from me not being able to stop hitting the attack button, but more of the time I usually just think that I already have more armies and I get a bigger bonus...

On the part of Crash taking your bonus, he's in a bad spot being flanked by two continents which are held by enemy players. I myself always go for the big one, I am also paranoid and think everyone will only attack me. The five bonus alone is enough to take SA, while the three will take some.

I understand that it may seem fishy, but usually that happens to me, but only as a result of being fairly frustrated, which comes naturally to a game which I can't take a country with one army when I have 12.


Cheers, and remember, this is only my opinion, but Lack or Twill will figure it out.