Good morning: I am fairly new here and very new to the civil war map (and love it).  But I have been approached by a couple of players on separate games to ally against another player.

Is this an accepted practice?  I resigned from the first game because I didn't want to be involved in something I thought to be underhanded.  I was doing rather well, too. 

But if I win, I want to win on my own merits.  An alliance to scheme against someone defeats the entire purpose, I find.

One player made it clear that an alliance was an option to consider.  That wasn't quite so bad.  The others made it pretty clear that to ignore the offer would place me in the target position.

Is there a way to join a game knowing there will not be any collusion, especially shortly after a game begins?

Hey U,

Depending on who you talk to, alliances are an important part of the game ..or a thorn in the side of the game.

Technically speaking alliances are allowed - it is when players join a (non-team) game knowing in advance that they will work together to eliminate other players first that it becomes cheating.  From there, there's a bunch of grey area.

Personally, I avoid alliances - and I don't worry about them too much.  They are a two-edge sword. Remember - in the end one player has to win, which often means that one player usually needs to break the alliance, so when you think about it - there's no such thing as a perfect alliance.

In my opinion - alliances are often implied.  If in a three-player game, Player A is way ahead and it is clear that Players B and C can only win if they don't attack each other, it shouldn't need to be said. right?  On the other hand, if Player C is a weak player and doesn't recognize the position, and player B 'suggests' that they need to coordinate their efforts on A, and they do just that, then I suppose that could be called an alliance.  But we're arguing semantics at this point ..and the slippery slope ensues.

Some have actually suggested that the site implement a feature that 'enforces' an alliance ..such as "Player A and B cannot attack each other for 2 turns," etc.  I would not play in such games.

Sorry, it's not much of an answer; unfortunately, there's murky water between the pools of Cheating and Alliances. I suppose it's part of the game.  When I was a kid and played Risk - if early in the game my two opponents said they'd get together and beat me, I'm pretty sure I'd accuse them of cheating, whack the board, and pieces would fly - then we'd all grab an orange soda and go out and play some hoops or do something else.

M said it well.

I despise alliances and try not to take part in them.  Sometimes I agree to them and then invariably I don't feel like playing that game any more because I feel something died inside me.

You shouldn't resign from games in any case if you are doing nothing wrong.  

Some players will give you the stony silence when you message them. Some dont.  Some are right a**ho**s about the whole situation, some are perfect gentlemen. 

Sometimes you eat the bar, and sometimes the bar eats you. 

I say, if it works for you, and it gives you and another player a chance to get an edge, why not? But be clear about how it goes down.  

If another player is all: "Do x or I'll kill you" well, that's not really an offer now is it? Maybe we're not going to win this game... me and that player.  But more likely, that player is easy to anger, and therefore going to make a mistake. Wait a bit till they do something dumb, then consume them. 

I find it an interesting aspect of the game. You can play the players. But lots of guys win just with their brains and strategies too. 

Take it or leave it, You've done nothing wrong...

Except surrendering... there is scant little reason for that. ;)

U,  if you decide to undertake any alliances, it is best to do so in the following ways:

a) short-term (ie - "hey, we're killing ourselves here to everyone's advantage; what say we stop attacking eachother for 2 turns?")

b) to keep the game alive against a clear dominant power

And whatever you do don't offer a truce to Thingol. He'll just shoot himself in the foot attacking you.

I think alliances are fun!  After all, this is a Risk emulation computer game, and I could never imagine sitting around the dinning room table playing Risk in complete silence.  People talk!  They try to sway individual attacks, plot, and ally... And trash talk sometimes too!  The computerized version is far more tame with regard to communication, and, due to private conversations and fog can be way more scheming as well, but, such is the game of War!  I have no problem with alliances so long as they are situational and make sense.  Like M57 said, pregame alliances are cheating, but, if my neighbour in an in-game situation approaches me from turn 1, and it looks good for me too since we already have the potential for shared borders, then I will consider it! 

That said, I will NOT make turn based alliances.  Those would only be good for simulgear since in turn placed game play one player would always have the advantage of first attack upon its expiry.  I also do not like the 1 turn announcement whereby the other player gets first attack once announced as you have to be way out ahead before making that call. As with M57, I would also not join an enforced alliance game, unless if it were perhaps simulgear, otherwise, for turn based it is inherently either in my favour our out of my favour, as far as its enforced conclusion is concerned, and I would not be interested in benefiting nor being potentially railroaded by such an alliance.

For me, alliances are situational and are subjective to some degree.  If there are three players left and the alliance should be implied, if I were to point it out anyway, it would only be until the runaway player is roped in.  Once the tables are balanced then all attacks are fair game. 

Or, if I decide to agree to an alliance based on the "down till we are the last two" rule, then, once the tables are turned and the runaway player is roped in (or the rest of the field is eliminated), then it becomes a chess match to get the elimination of the last player, and with it, the advantage of first attack.  So, at the end of the game, one might even try protecting the last player from the ally to assure that they get the elimination.

I also prefer subjective alliances because, to a degree, they keep players a bit more honest.  Since both players know it has no guaranteed ending point, at first, a player might leave the shared borders weak to turn the tables on the runaway player, but, as things even out, they start protecting those shared borders again, or, at least, defend one step back to send the message "I'm still not going to attack you, but, I am defended and there will be consequences if you attack me".  In such a way alliances are variable and fun and don't take all the steam out of the game (for me), as Amidon was saying it did for him.

This is War after all, and in war, everyone should always be playing to win the war!  Most alliances should be implied, but, sometimes someone doesn't see it and to not point it out could potentially cost you the war!  It'd be crazy to not at least point out the obvious since it should be to both of your best interest.  If they see the benefit, then an alliance either spoken or silent might be forged.  By silent, I mean, sometimes the player doesn't write back but their play on the board shows they got the message anyways.  Once in such an alliance (spoken or silent), however, you should still be trying to win the war, and thus, once the objective of the alliance has been had, every player should be gauging the best time for the alliance to come to an end to their benefit.

The best measure of a good ally is not a player who holds onto an alliance into self defeat.  The best measure of a good ally is the ally, who upon following the word of the alliance and then breaking the alliance once the terms are satisfied, translates that into their victory in the war 99% of the time.  If they went through me to win the game, then, the alliance must have served its purpose, and, if it was me to go through them to do the same, then the same can be said.  An alliance should be a means to an end and it's as important to know when to break it as much as it is to see when it's needed in the first place.

One other thing.  If someone says do this or I'll attack you... That is not an alliance, or even an alliance request.  That is an act of war from an irrational player who can not be reasoned with at that time (and perhaps ever?).  You should try and get the upper hand on them and eliminate them from your vicinity, if not from the game all together.  You might also consider putting them in your enemy list and keeping them out of your vicinity in future games.

Well, thank you all.  Sadly, I chose to surrender in my first game of a tournament.  I just didn't feel it correct to take part in that kind of game.  And I was doing well, too.  Ah well, just a game.

So if I understand the response correctly, just take each offer and game in stride and judge each accordingly.  Surrender is not necessary to remain honest.  Some alliances are acceptable.  Pre-arranged are NOT.  I'll see how it goes now that I know.  Thank you again.  (I still don't know what simulgear is but I guess I'll catch up with that soon enough)  Good luck all !

berickf wrote:

Or, if I decide to agree to an alliance based on the "down till we are the last two" rule, then, once the tables are turned and the runaway player is roped in (or the rest of the field is eliminated), then it becomes a chess match to get the elimination of the last player, and with it, the advantage of first attack.  So, at the end of the game, one might even try protecting the last player from the ally to assure that they get the elimination.

I had one of these recently. There was some interesting tactics involved. I surrounded one of the third player's territories  with my own and made sure he always had enough troops left to make it hard for my "ally" to eliminate him. Despite being able to turn that into a win, it seems like a stupid way to ally to me. Once I was in the lead the other two players should have allied against me.

I also prefer subjective alliances because, to a degree, they keep players a bit more honest.  Since both players know it has no guaranteed ending point, at first, a player might leave the shared borders weak to turn the tables on the runaway player, but, as things even out, they start protecting those shared borders again, or, at least, defend one step back to send the message "I'm still not going to attack you, but, I am defended and there will be consequences if you attack me".  In such a way alliances are variable and fun and don't take all the steam out of the game (for me), as Amidon was saying it did for him.

This is War after all, and in war, everyone should always be playing to win the war!  Most alliances should be implied, but, sometimes someone doesn't see it and to not point it out could potentially cost you the war!  It'd be crazy to not at least point out the obvious since it should be to both of your best interest.  If they see the benefit, then an alliance either spoken or silent might be forged.  By silent, I mean, sometimes the player doesn't write back but their play on the board shows they got the message anyways.  Once in such an alliance (spoken or silent), however, you should still be trying to win the war, and thus, once the objective of the alliance has been had, every player should be gauging the best time for the alliance to come to an end to their benefit.

This is my preferred method of alliance. Temporary non-aggression pacts until the lead player is brought down to a manageable size. I have no problem with letting someone know that you recognize that another player is in the lead (or helping them notice if they don't appear to have noticed), but making that permanent or for a fixed number of turns doesn't feel right to me.

+1 to how to judge a good ally. If someone breaks alliance with you and loses then they can't be trusted. If they break alliance and win then they can be trusted to make rational choices.

+1 to 

U-555 wrote:

Well, thank you all.  Sadly, I chose to surrender in my first game of a tournament.  I just didn't feel it correct to take part in that kind of game.  And I was doing well, too.  Ah well, just a game.

So if I understand the response correctly, just take each offer and game in stride and judge each accordingly.  Surrender is not necessary to remain honest.  Some alliances are acceptable.  Pre-arranged are NOT.  I'll see how it goes now that I know.  Thank you again.  (I still don't know what simulgear is but I guess I'll catch up with that soon enough)  Good luck all !

Surrender is not a reasonable reply to that situation in my opinion. There are two choices. Either that person was right and you should learn something from them despite them being a jerk (for example Toto), or they aren't right and you should cripple or eliminate them as soon as possible

Korrun wrote:

berickf wrote:

Or, if I decide to agree to an alliance based on the "down till we are the last two" rule, then, once the tables are turned and the runaway player is roped in (or the rest of the field is eliminated), then it becomes a chess match to get the elimination of the last player, and with it, the advantage of first attack.  So, at the end of the game, one might even try protecting the last player from the ally to assure that they get the elimination.

I had one of these recently. There was some interesting tactics involved. I surrounded one of the third player's territories  with my own and made sure he always had enough troops left to make it hard for my "ally" to eliminate him. Despite being able to turn that into a win, it seems like a stupid way to ally to me. Once I was in the lead the other two players should have allied against me.

Totally agree that this type of treaty leads to stupid and unfun play.  I never make "down to the last two" treaties, because I think they feel too unfair.  If there are a lot of players I might make an 'until the next elimination' deals.

U-555 wrote:

Well, thank you all.  Sadly, I chose to surrender in my first game of a tournament.  I just didn't feel it correct to take part in that kind of game.  And I was doing well, too.  Ah well, just a game.

So if I understand the response correctly, just take each offer and game in stride and judge each accordingly.  Surrender is not necessary to remain honest.  Some alliances are acceptable.  Pre-arranged are NOT.  I'll see how it goes now that I know.  Thank you again.  (I still don't know what simulgear is but I guess I'll catch up with that soon enough)  Good luck all !

Good summary & an often enough forum topic that I added it to the wiki faq:

http://www.wargear.net/wiki/doku.php?id=general:faqs&#common_forum_topics

Feel free to edit/revise/add/etc.

Ozyman wrote:

Korrun wrote:

berickf wrote:

Or, if I decide to agree to an alliance based on the "down till we are the last two" rule, then, once the tables are turned and the runaway player is roped in (or the rest of the field is eliminated), then it becomes a chess match to get the elimination of the last player, and with it, the advantage of first attack.  So, at the end of the game, one might even try protecting the last player from the ally to assure that they get the elimination.

I had one of these recently. There was some interesting tactics involved. I surrounded one of the third player's territories  with my own and made sure he always had enough troops left to make it hard for my "ally" to eliminate him. Despite being able to turn that into a win, it seems like a stupid way to ally to me. Once I was in the lead the other two players should have allied against me.

Totally agree that this type of treaty leads to stupid and unfun play.  I never make "down to the last two" treaties, because I think they feel too unfair.  If there are a lot of players I might make an 'until the next elimination' deals.

They are different.  Like I said, sort of like a chess match where it comes down to maneuvering and positioning.  I would not say they are unfair though, since many, including myself, have won them before from a weaker position by using maneuvering to secure the final elimination and with it the spoils and first attack against the stronger final foe.  I also wouldn't say that it leads to stupid play, since, the winner typically has to be more cerebral to how they conclude the game.  Perhaps unfun for some though?

All that said, I do try to enter into them only if I think when it gets down to seeking out the final elimination that I will be in the stronger position.  That is a factor of if I accept such an alliance, though, it doesn't always play out as I had envisioned!

I meant more that it's unfair/unfun for everyone else.  I've been in situations where (at least it felt) like the other two players had decided to team up against me until I was eliminated.  It's profoundly unfun to be a mouse caught between two cats playing with you trying to keep you alive long enough to time your death to their advantage.