Conquer Club

Say, I am playing in a round limited Terminator game. Red is by far the strongest, Green is 2nd strongest, Blue is close to dead, and I have no chance of winning.

Would it be fine for me to (publicly) team up with Green, with the terms that Green lets me eliminate Blue (Blue share a border with me and Green), in return for me attacking Red with the rest of my troops?

I'd refrain from suiciding in a normal game, but I'm not sure about how it is for a Terminator game, where eliminating players is the goal.

What you describe is just one particular case of an informal, game-chat alliance, all such alliances are doomed to end at some point. If your former ally kills you, so what? That is the game.
Focusing on the supposedly suicidal aspect of the alliance is just "bad marketing".

I say "supposedly suicidal" because in all* games, not just Terminator, the act of suiciding is largely a myth.
If a player is in a position where their odds of winning are unlikely, they still have the perogative to play as they choose, without being at all obligated to assist any other player (a terr neighbor, the point leader, etc.) with their chances of winning.
Trying to persuade other players to not attack (or otherwise sabotage one's chances) is just part of the soft strategy of any game.

Also, in the situation you describe, the other player would likely only agree to the deal if he felt his chances were uncertain without your help.
Otherwise, he would just ignore the offer and take all the points for himself anyway.

*In Assassin, the situation is slightly different. Obviously taking out the very last terr of a non-target player is pointlessly suicidal, but beyond that, the player still has freedom to attack his assassin (and other players) instead of his target, without being considered suicidal. Though clearly, in most cases, the more target-directed attacks the better.

yclee0206 wrote:Say, I am playing in a round limited Terminator game. Red is by far the strongest, Green is 2nd strongest, Blue is close to dead, and I have no chance of winning.

Would it be fine for me to (publicly) team up with Green, with the terms that Green lets me eliminate Blue (Blue share a border with me and Green), in return for me attacking Red with the rest of my troops?

I'd refrain from suiciding in a normal game, but I'm not sure about how it is for a Terminator game, where eliminating players is the goal.

Ofcourse it's ok in a terminator game.

The point of the game is to get points. This agreement would get you more points than no agreement, so it is good for you. A business will try to maximize its profits - a million penny profits is $10,000. A lot of little points adds up. If the rules were you get points, for winning and extra points for terminations, but no points otherwise, that would be a different story.

Votanic wrote:What you describe is just one particular case of an informal, game-chat alliance, all such alliances are doomed to end at some point. If your former ally kills you, so what? That is the game.
Focusing on the supposedly suicidal aspect of the alliance is just "bad marketing".

I say "supposedly suicidal" because in all* games, not just Terminator, the act of suiciding is largely a myth.
If a player is in a position where their odds of winning are unlikely, they still have the perogative to play as they choose, without being at all obligated to assist any other player (a terr neighbor, the point leader, etc.) with their chances of winning.
Trying to persuade other players to not attack (or otherwise sabotage one's chances) is just part of the soft strategy of any game.

Also, in the situation you describe, the other player would likely only agree to the deal if he felt his chances were uncertain without your help.
Otherwise, he would just ignore the offer and take all the points for himself anyway.

*In Assassin, the situation is slightly different. Obviously taking out the very last terr of a non-target player is pointlessly suicidal, but beyond that, the player still has freedom to attack his assassin (and other players) instead of his target, without being considered suicidal. Though clearly, in most cases, the more target-directed attacks the better.

Informal alliances in games are always temporary, and their eventual end is inevitable. If your former ally turns on you, it's just part of the game, and nothing more. The focus on alliances being "suicidal" misses the point of the dynamic nature of these relationships. Instead, it's better to view such situations as opportunities for growth and strategic adaptation rather than failure.

jastingreyyy wrote:

Votanic wrote:What you describe is just one particular case of an informal, game-chat alliance, all such alliances are doomed to end at some point. If your former ally kills you, so what? That is the game.
Focusing on the supposedly suicidal aspect of the alliance is just "bad marketing".

I say "supposedly suicidal" because in all* games, not just Terminator, the act of suiciding is largely a myth.
If a player is in a position where their odds of winning are unlikely, they still have the perogative to play as they choose, without being at all obligated to assist any other player (a terr neighbor, the point leader, etc.) with their chances of winning.
Trying to persuade other players to not attack (or otherwise sabotage one's chances) is just part of the soft strategy of any game.

Also, in the situation you describe, the other player would likely only agree to the deal if he felt his chances were uncertain without your help.
Otherwise, he would just ignore the offer and take all the points for himself anyway.

*In Assassin, the situation is slightly different. Obviously taking out the very last terr of a non-target player is pointlessly suicidal, but beyond that, the player still has freedom to attack his assassin (and other players) instead of his target, without being considered suicidal. Though clearly, in most cases, the more target-directed attacks the better.

Informal alliances in games are always temporary, and their eventual end is inevitable. If your former ally turns on you, it's just part of the game and nothing more. The focus on alliances being "suicidal" misses the point of the dynamic nature of these relationships. Instead, it's better to view such situations as opportunities for growth and strategic adaptation rather than failure.

Informal alliances in games are meant to be temporary, and their breakdown is a natural part of the gameplay. Rather than seeing betrayal as a failure, it's an opportunity to adapt and grow strategically. Players should focus on their own long-term goals instead of fearing short-term setbacks. Viewing shifting alliances as part of the challenge adds depth and excitement to the game.

Mod edit: Removing suspicious link

jastingreyyy wrote:

Votanic wrote:What you describe is just one particular case of an informal, game-chat alliance, all such alliances are doomed to end at some point. If your former ally kills you, so what? That is the game.
Focusing on the supposedly suicidal aspect of the alliance is just "bad marketing".

I say "supposedly suicidal" because in all* games, not just Terminator, the act of suiciding is largely a myth.
If a player is in a position where their odds of winning are unlikely, they still have the perogative to play as they choose, without being at all obligated to assist any other player (a terr neighbor, the point leader, etc.) with their chances of winning.
Trying to persuade other players to not attack (or otherwise sabotage one's chances) is just part of the soft strategy of any game.

Also, in the situation you describe, the other player would likely only agree to the deal if he felt his chances were uncertain without your help.
Otherwise, he would just ignore the offer and take all the points for himself anyway.

*In Assassin, the situation is slightly different. Obviously taking out the very last terr of a non-target player is pointlessly suicidal, but beyond that, the player still has freedom to attack his assassin (and other players) instead of his target, without being considered suicidal. Though clearly, in most cases, the more target-directed attacks the better.

Informal alliances in games are always temporary, and their eventual end is inevitable. If your former ally turns on you, it's just part of the game, and nothing more. The focus on alliances being "suicidal" misses the point of the dynamic nature of these relationships. Instead, it's better to view such situations as opportunities for growth and strategic adaptation rather than failure.

how did last guy link the website to this quore ?

jfm10 wrote:

jastingreyyy wrote:

Votanic wrote:What you describe is just one particular case of an informal, game-chat alliance, all such alliances are doomed to end at some point. If your former ally kills you, so what? That is the game.
Focusing on the supposedly suicidal aspect of the alliance is just "bad marketing".

I say "supposedly suicidal" because in all* games, not just Terminator, the act of suiciding is largely a myth.
If a player is in a position where their odds of winning are unlikely, they still have the perogative to play as they choose, without being at all obligated to assist any other player (a terr neighbor, the point leader, etc.) with their chances of winning.
Trying to persuade other players to not attack (or otherwise sabotage one's chances) is just part of the soft strategy of any game.

Also, in the situation you describe, the other player would likely only agree to the deal if he felt his chances were uncertain without your help.
Otherwise, he would just ignore the offer and take all the points for himself anyway.

*In Assassin, the situation is slightly different. Obviously taking out the very last terr of a non-target player is pointlessly suicidal, but beyond that, the player still has freedom to attack his assassin (and other players) instead of his target, without being considered suicidal. Though clearly, in most cases, the more target-directed attacks the better.

Informal alliances in games are always temporary, and their eventual end is inevitable. If your former ally turns on you, it's just part of the game, and nothing more. The focus on alliances being "suicidal" misses the point of the dynamic nature of these relationships. Instead, it's better to view such situations as opportunities for growth and strategic adaptation rather than failure.

how did last guy link the website to this quore ?

Yikes!
Good spotting, 2d...