asm wrote: Jesus spoke English in the Bible, right? (Obviously). If it's good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me!

King James English. That socialist* sumbitch can take his bible and stuff it up his royal ass. Jesus spoke American, and you know it.

If you can't recognize the use of this term for its hilarious misapplication and pseudo-irony, please step away from the conversation.

Xenophobia.

Closed-mindedness.

Impermeability to reasoned analysis or even rational thought.

This is... the high life.

asm wrote: Xenophobia.

Closed-mindedness.

Impermeability to reasoned analysis or even rational thought.

This is... the high life.

I think it might be the crisp, cool waters of the often backflowing with sewage Milwaukee river which gives High Life and the local citizens our outstanding character.

Cramchakle wrote:

asm wrote: Xenophobia.

Closed-mindedness.

Impermeability to reasoned analysis or even rational thought.

This is... the high life.

I think it might be the crisp, cool waters of the often backflowing with sewage Milwaukee river which gives High Life and the local citizens our outstanding character.

Either that or 3 decades of crappy baseball.

Here's another suspicious case: http://www.wargear.net/games/view/8589

Gotta love all the common borders defended by 1 unit.

Hmmm, and they're both from Hungary. Intriguing...

The only issue I have with the alliances is that you're missing certain bits of information that you have during a real game. If you're sitting at a table, it's pretty obvious when 2 of the players wander into the next room that they're scheming. Online, you often can't tell an alliance is taking place until it's too late, esp. in games with fewer players.

I'm not saying we try to make the site exactly like playing a game at a table, but it's something to keep in mind.

yes, sry. she is my gf, i've invited her a few days ago. thats the only game where both of are us playing, sorry for the 'agreement' in it, won't happen again. .)

valdid_shaw wrote:

tom wrote: I think they are a fun tactical way to get an edge in a game that makes them a lot more like real life.

Tom is absolutely spot on. In my view, alliances can be a crucial part of the game, especially games involving larger number of people. They add a human edge to a game that would otherwise be almost entirely down to the role of a dice or, in other words, luck.

Alliances can be frustrating for those not involved but it's up to them to engineer a way to break that alliance, either by forming alliances of their own or by persuading one of the two partners that they would gain from breaking the alliance.

Also, alliances are not without risk. Of course it's advantageous to not have to protect some boundaries so you can concentrate your forces on other fronts, but ultimately one of the two alliance partners must betray the other... and the risk (and fun) of being in an alliance is trying to time it right so you're the one doing the betraying and not the one getting betrayed.

I think you're missing the point of the thread.  We are not talking about alliances.  We are talking about colluding.  The players involved (General Novak and ObiWan) are not forming an alliance, they are forming a team.  Alliances are formed to complete an objective and dissolve once one player tries to take the upper hand against the other.  Teams are permanent with no risk of backstabbing.  In the case I posted, they were clearing playing as a team to wipe everyone out so they could duke it out one on one.  If they wanted to play a 1v1 they could have done so without luring me and another player under the false pretenses that we were going to play a FFA.  If they wanted to play a team match they could have done so and declared they would not be attacking each other under any condition (<-- this is the key point.  They didn't attack each other under ANY condition.  THAT is the definition of a team game.  I recommend you watch the replay if you don't feel colluding might be a bad thing for the game and community as a whole.)

EnixNeo wrote:

We are not talking about alliances.

What is the world is Cram and asm talking about?  I've read their posts, but have no idea. 

Yertle wrote:

EnixNeo wrote:

We are not talking about alliances.

What is the world is Cram and asm talking about?  I've read their posts, but have no idea. 

If you don't understand you must be a latte-drinking tree-hugging carbon-taxing granola-eatin' pinko-liberal socialist.  Now get off my lawn.

IRoll11s wrote:

Yertle wrote:

EnixNeo wrote:

We are not talking about alliances.

What is the world is Cram and asm talking about?  I've read their posts, but have no idea. 

If you don't understand you must be a latte-drinking tree-hugging carbon-taxing granola-eatin' pinko-liberal socialist.  Now get off my lawn.

Look, asm, another recruit! I'll pop the top a cold beer and bring up a case of shells for 'im!

EnixNeo wrote:

valdid_shaw wrote:

tom wrote: I think they are a fun tactical way to get an edge in a game that makes them a lot more like real life.

Tom is absolutely spot on. In my view, alliances can be a crucial part of the game, especially games involving larger number of people. They add a human edge to a game that would otherwise be almost entirely down to the role of a dice or, in other words, luck.

Alliances can be frustrating for those not involved but it's up to them to engineer a way to break that alliance, either by forming alliances of their own or by persuading one of the two partners that they would gain from breaking the alliance.

Also, alliances are not without risk. Of course it's advantageous to not have to protect some boundaries so you can concentrate your forces on other fronts, but ultimately one of the two alliance partners must betray the other... and the risk (and fun) of being in an alliance is trying to time it right so you're the one doing the betraying and not the one getting betrayed.

I think you're missing the point of the thread.  We are not talking about alliances.  We are talking about colluding.  The players involved (General Novak and ObiWan) are not forming an alliance, they are forming a team.  Alliances are formed to complete an objective and dissolve once one player tries to take the upper hand against the other.  Teams are permanent with no risk of backstabbing.  In the case I posted, they were clearing playing as a team to wipe everyone out so they could duke it out one on one.  If they wanted to play a 1v1 they could have done so without luring me and another player under the false pretenses that we were going to play a FFA.  If they wanted to play a team match they could have done so and declared they would not be attacking each other under any condition (<-- this is the key point.  They didn't attack each other under ANY condition.  THAT is the definition of a team game.  I recommend you watch the replay if you don't feel colluding might be a bad thing for the game and community as a whole.)

Word. Alliances and pre-meditated collusion are not the same thing. Going into a FFA game with an alliance already set is cheating. It'll also be damn hard to prove. Warnings are ok when there's a strong suspicion, action is really only called for if there's a long string of strong suspicions.