Conquer Club

a lot of people complain about truce breaking. How about having a coalition button?
Being part of a coalition would mean you have the impossibility to attack your allies. A coalition would be valid only for a pre determined amount of rounds and would need all members of said coalition to agree.
A coalition cannot have more than 50% of total troops on the board. If the coalition passes 50% of total troops, the weakest allied gets kicked out of it on his next turn.
In fog games, you would simply be aware that making a coalition between A and B was attempted, and everybody would get to know if it worked or not, and how many rounds the coalition lasts.
There would be no limit in terms of number of players joining a coalition, the only limit would be the total amount of troops.

I have no idea if this could be balanced or not. But it sure would need a lot of diplomacy negociations in game chat, i think it could be fun. The best thing is that there could be no back stabbing.

I am not convinced that we should be going out of our way to implement things to assist people who enforce fictitious rules.

nietzsche wrote:I am not convinced that we should be going out of our way to implement things to assist people who enforce fictitious rules.

Reported for being metsfan's multi. I should ve known earlier!

eh... you can attack your own team members in a team game, so why protect them in a game with imaginary rules? makes no sense... if they can't code it so teams can hold a shared bonus/space by having the entire space between them all (person with most terits gets the bonus), why would they bother coding this? sounds like a crappy way to eliminate the risk of going into an alliance with someone... sometimes you get screwed over and sometimes you screw the other guy over, that is the beauty of diplomacy, isn't it?-Jésus noir

owenshooter wrote:eh... you can attack your own team members in a team game, so why protect them in a game with imaginary rules? makes no sense... if they can't code it so teams can hold a shared bonus/space by having the entire space between them all (person with most terits gets the bonus), why would they bother coding this? sounds like a crappy way to eliminate the risk of going into an alliance with someone... sometimes you get screwed over and sometimes you screw the other guy over, that is the beauty of diplomacy, isn't it?-Jésus noir

This has nothing to do with it. It is often necessary to make some team kills on some territories, or just to completely kill a teammate. This is for your own team s good.
Regarding the bonus you d get by having only team troops on certain territories that would be plain dumb and I m surprised someone with your game experience can even think of it. Games would always start with tons of undeserved bonuses and it would all be decided on the drop, mostly if you start.
In a multiplayer (or multi teams) game, the first one to break the truce either screws his ally or screws both him and his ally if he plays like shit. If you CANNOT attack your ally because you agreed on terms and conditions, the game is different. Interestingly different.

This seems a bit like adding a "No Bluffing" option in poker. Diplomacy - and the inherently risky nature of alliances - is part of risk. I'm not sure why you would want to take it out.

Lord_Bremen wrote:This seems a bit like adding a "No Bluffing" option in poker. Diplomacy - and the inherently risky nature of alliances - is part of risk. I'm not sure why you would want to take it out.

This is one of the best sentences I have seen in Suggestions.

JamesKer1 wrote:

Lord_Bremen wrote:This seems a bit like adding a "No Bluffing" option in poker. Diplomacy - and the inherently risky nature of alliances - is part of risk. I'm not sure why you would want to take it out.

This is one of the best sentences I have seen in Suggestions.

it would add a few strategies if you think about it. you could know more or less the timing when a guy gets kicked out of the alliance once reaching the 50% total troops on the board. It's much more perverse than you think. Also, chosing the amount of rounds you will get stuck with someone is pretty interesting too.

Lord_Bremen wrote:This seems a bit like adding a "No Bluffing" option in poker. Diplomacy - and the inherently risky nature of alliances - is part of risk. I'm not sure why you would want to take it out.

betiko wrote:

JamesKer1 wrote:

Lord_Bremen wrote:This seems a bit like adding a "No Bluffing" option in poker. Diplomacy - and the inherently risky nature of alliances - is part of risk. I'm not sure why you would want to take it out.

This is one of the best sentences I have seen in Suggestions.

it would add a few strategies if you think about it. you could know more or less the timing when a guy gets kicked out of the alliance once reaching the 50% total troops on the board. It's much more perverse than you think. Also, chosing the amount of rounds you will get stuck with someone is pretty interesting too.

ok... sooo, no bluffing for 4 rounds... still takes away an aspect of the game that is inherent to the game, right?-Jn

owenshooter wrote:

Lord_Bremen wrote:This seems a bit like adding a "No Bluffing" option in poker. Diplomacy - and the inherently risky nature of alliances - is part of risk. I'm not sure why you would want to take it out.

betiko wrote:

JamesKer1 wrote:

Lord_Bremen wrote:This seems a bit like adding a "No Bluffing" option in poker. Diplomacy - and the inherently risky nature of alliances - is part of risk. I'm not sure why you would want to take it out.

This is one of the best sentences I have seen in Suggestions.

it would add a few strategies if you think about it. you could know more or less the timing when a guy gets kicked out of the alliance once reaching the 50% total troops on the board. It's much more perverse than you think. Also, chosing the amount of rounds you will get stuck with someone is pretty interesting too.

ok... sooo, no bluffing for 4 rounds... still takes away an aspect of the game that is inherent to the game, right?-Jn

It doesn t remove an aspect to the game given that the whole point is to make it a different kind of game! A different way to aprehend diplomacy in multoplayer games. Also, if on your turn drop your alliance has over 50% of the board troops, the weakest is out of the alliance. That brings tons of strategies and anticipations. It is not supposed to be used for all games, just as an option!!!!

I agree with the haters, this is a silly idea.

Plus, back-stabbing would still be possible under that system. I could say to you 'let's form a coalition, as long as you promise not to take the North America bonus', you could agree and we form a coalition for 5 rounds. You then take the North America bonus anyway, and I can't do anything about it because I've locked myself into a coalition with you.

-----Why would the weakest coalition member get kicked out,at 50% of the board? Every time in RISK. The weaker armies team up to blast the strongest player(s) on the block.What,your trying to cover the strongest player(s)'s ass(es)? It should be the strongest coalition member kicked out of the Coalition. When the 50% is reached. Or are you throwing the Christians to the Lions. ConfederateSS.out!(The Blue and Silver Rebellion).

I'm of the opinion that the game and its interface are complicated enough already.

Coalitions work well in Alpha Centauri. Instead of having to drag it out to the bitter end, when you and your allies together fulfil the victory conditions, the game is done. This helps eliminate those long anticlimactic end games when you know you've won but there's still tons of work left to mop up.