How do I check players' histories with other specific players to find out if my opponents in a particular game are colluding on purpose or just monumentally stupid in a way that coincidentally results in simultaneous mistakes that end up with throwing the game to one of them?

Don't think you can, other than looking through each of their Games List.
WF had the Ranked Opponents list on the Ranking tab, that was kind of a "safe guard" for players to look for colluding. I wouldn't mind seeing something like that here, but could even be expanded to show the list and some information about the other player and the games they've been in together.
For example your profile would have
Yertle - Yertle's Global Ranking - Yertle's Championship Points - Asm's Wins Against Yertle (which would be 0) - Asm's Losses Against Yertle (which would be like 100) - etc.
Nice little chart/table showing common opponents or something and how good those opponents really are.

Okay, you guys tell me, then...

http://www.wargear.net/games/player/10868

Start with history move 319. Blue suicides all his armies in North America, yellow trades a set (using a wild to make a 3-card set for 6) and kills 80% of everything blue has outside NA, green trades ABC for 8 to easily sweep up the rest of blue and his 4 cards, coasting easily to a victory from there.

I was initially leaning towards colossal stupidity until I reviewed the history a 3rd time to type this out. That's an awful lot of coincidences to have to happen in one round.

It's borderline. You have to remember not everyone is as tactically brilliant as you, and even some smarter than average people just refuse to learn how cards work.

Light blue could have been trying to get to SA to take away green's bonus, he didn't make it. Yellow could have just been trying to take Africa. He had some extremely lousy luck that turn and was left with no defense.

Green gets lucky with 3 cards and takes out light blue. There doesn't have to be any conspiracy, just back luck and poor tactics.

Oh I agree, I mean I see the gray area for sure. And obviously you're totally right that most people are not as smart as me.

Honestly what made me even bring it up was the fact that blue was rolling 2v2s for no reason. So: Blue accidentally gets his keyboard mixed up and hits '2' instead of '3' three times running. Then Yellow figures he has some outside chance to take Africa and assaults blue, knowing that if he succeeds he's just setting up the elimination for another player. Green happens to have the 3-card set.

Like I said: a lot of coincidences. But as you said, nothing conclusive. I guess we'll see. It looks like green wants yellow to win now (or at least anyone but me). Thanks for the compliment.

I can't believe you guys are talking about this...my first aim was to eliminate the light blue since he obviously had a 3 card set, i didnt succeed in africa so i hoped the blue and the green will make the right choices or in case the light blue survives that he would still take just a few and not important territories of mine. the next aim was to eliminate the blue. the only problem of the blue however is that he didn't take those two territories in NA and the cards of the light blue so now i m guilty for giving them to the green.....indeed, what should i think about the guys that with 10 "soldiers" erase 3 territories of mine equiped with 3 "soldiers" each? coincidences or just the probability? however...i wish you guys many entertaining games and i hope asm will be able to sleep tonight ;)

I sleep fine, thanks. Your claim that you tried to eliminate blue is pretty silly though.

I've never played a game where I could determine anyone other than myself obviously had a three card set. That said, I don't care about any of this.

well he had 4 cards, it s really rare u don't have a three card set in this case :)

First of all, it's not that rare.

Second of all, that's a damned lie. He had 3 cards.

i m not a liar :) look the log view, move 383...

I know I'm the one that ends up looking obsessed and petty by continuing this conversation, but I don't understand why you insist on having this discussion. The more you make ridiculously false claims for no evident reason, the more I think there really was something going on this game.

You think I didn't check the history? How else do you think I noticed that blue killed himself on purpose so one of you could scoop his cards? And that you helped green to do it by taking most of blue's territories when you obviously had zero chance to finish the job?

Green went first and played his first turn beginning move# 168. He received a card on move# 175. His second turn began move# 207 and he got a card move# 214. His third turn began move# 247 but he did not get a card, ending his turn move# 251. His fourth turn began move# 287 and he got a card move# 301. On his fifth turn, beginning move# 355, he turned in a set ABC (move# 356) with his THREE CARDS.

I'm in or have played a few games with p0m (light blue) and otium(green), but they don't appear in the same games, and a small but reasonable sample of their games lists indicates that none of these players are in the same games together.

Getting three people to agree upon "Hey, you commit suicide, I'll weaken you, and this other guy will get your cards" seems a bit out there to me. Plus, suicide is best committed with the Attack with 1 button (can't even get that right!)

Light blue had one strange move - using attack with 2 when he had 5 units. Looking at this same game, and other games with this player, it's not clear that the same logic you and I use dealing with the attack with 2 button is used by this player. http://www.wargear.net/games/player/10644 move 462 reveals a logic whereby you place armies where you need them for strategic purposes, but use attack with 2 to grab a card to be "efficient". In the sequence you mention, he tries for Africa (clearly the goal), then attacks central america, probably spacing on the first attack. However, he doesn't secure a card until the very last attack with 1. He really wanted that card. This is not an uncommon approach for those who don't sense their own upcoming elimination. Notice how once his armies in Africa were down to 3, he refused to make attacks from that spot, preferring to be weak in North America, a continent he isn't going for.

Twice in the game, Yellow has a vague goal of taking someone out, doesn't seem to think through the fact that he can't get to the armies in North America (or your armies later in the game). I just think this is inattentiveness to detail. You have won the fact battle in this thread, which reveals to me not collusion, but inattention to detail by your opponents. Most of my mistakes are spacey mistakes - I'm pretty sure they look strange on a history log.

So..... paranoia paranoia everybody's comin to get me

I agree with your assessment.

BTW odds for a 44 card deck w/ 2 wilds is:

match with 3 cards = 42.3%
4 cards = 81.7%


I wasn't able to find information on that game board as to how many cards are in the deck for that board, or how many are used in a standard board. A deck with more cards and same amount of wilds would of course decrease those numbers.

IRoll11s wrote: BTW odds for a 44 card deck w/ 2 wilds is:

match with 3 cards = 42.3%
4 cards = 81.7%


I wasn't able to find information on that game board as to how many cards are in the deck for that board, or how many are used in a standard board. A deck with more cards and same amount of wilds would of course decrease those numbers.

Truly. And all well and good. When I hear someone say "3 card set", I interpret that as "Got a set in only 3 cards" not as "Got a turn-in set of 3 cards using 4". But maybe that's just me.

I was reading this thread with a small "glad I'm not involved" smile on my face, when I noticed the names you were playing against. I was wondering the same thing in this game: http://www.wargear.net/games/view/10903

Yellow (suopland) started off really well, and then red (otium) decided that instead of trying to get bonuses or take out yellow, he randomly attacked me. I was on the fence like you asm, but then reading this thread seals the deal for me. Hmph.

bengal, you disappointed me. could me explain the reason to fortify maramures (the red territory I have) in my first turn if I have an agreement with suopland? it's obvious to me that if I tried to attack you in satu mare (the other red province), which you consider the normal way to move, I will ended the turn with my little miserable empire difended by maybe 2 armies on each red territory: very easy for suopland to take advantage from this situation due to his extremly good position, his turn is just after mine. just think about it. the same applies for my decision to fortify timis instead of trying to take the whole banat, which has been taken by garfield later. look at the position of suopland's armies. my moves were determined by my bad starting position and the worry to not help anybody, expecially soupland who was (and still is) the strongest. finally, if I had attacked suop directly in my first turn, the profit wuold have been all for you and for garfield, for sure not for me!
too many times I commited the error of risky attacks in the first turn, being eliminated few turns later. I decided to take some precaution from bad luck this time and play a more defensive game, at least for the moment :).
In my second turn I attacked you, that's right. look at the history: you were the weakest, just because you play your first turn the way I avoided! so you're the living demonstration that my strategic thought was right. after taking bihor in #209, I tried to conquer satu mare as well, basically because I was afraid of suopland's counterattack: I prefer to try to conquer and hold a region were I could make a transfer from maramures, were I got five armies. but I was unlucky and maybe I want too much.
In move #226 suopland attacked me, even if for bengal sounds weird.
do anybody really think it's a strange way to play? not me.
maybe we can discuss about my strategies, I don't pretend to be the best player on this site. but I find arrogant and childish to claim that somebody is a cheat just because you, bengal, don't understand my play or are weakened by my attacks.
I've seen dozens of moves I don't understand at all, most of them apper to be completely irrational to me: not for that I start complaining on the forum or crying at home.
everyone can play in the way he prefer. or not?

to Hugh: thanks for your wise words

I don't understand why Otium is explaining every his move...what is the point of this discussion? the paranoias of asm were blown away by the ocmment of Hugh, and afetr all asm has calmed down once he realised he is the intellignet, p0m is the suicide and i am the stupid of the whole story. now there is another "disappointed"...i was enjoying the stakeology till this very moment but not anymore. it's not correct to make such comments, if other players start believing to these paranoias i guess few of them will like to play with me, so it s almost a slander what asm and bengaltiger are doing.
by the way, you should check my games, 90% of them include another player to suspect, i.e. absurd, although that s actually an excellent name for this discussion. I appreciate the posts of other players that don't see anything strange in those two games, and i hope that we can all return to our games without being suspected.

by the way, i forgot to ask of what i am accused, i still don't see what is the issue since by now we had just some pointing at one, two, three games and asking the others whether they see something "STRANGE" there...