So, I have always played Risk as "free for all".  In other words, I don't like allies and especially those that are secret allies.  Opponents to my view will weakly say, "Its all part of the game.  They wouldn't add secret messages if you weren't allowed to ally."

So what are your thoughts?   I feel allies shouldn't be tolerated until its needed due to a gap in a single winner (i.e., competitors should unite and beat the leader or else they are all dead.).  But that is still more about strategy to me than about teaming up.  I am not in favor of immortals joining forces from the beginning or middle.  The messages are always the same... "Hey I propose a truce till its just us at the end."  This isn't strategy!  I wish we would get rid of secret messages and everyone is openly engaged.

Obviously you know what I think.  Thoughts?

Hey Vacano,

As this seems particularly relevant to a maze game we are both in (at least in part), let me respond with my opinion.  While I sometimes send messages proposing a temporary truce, it is not my style to propose to eliminate other players, and certainly not to eliminate all other players.  I don't think that kind of truce really works, as each player tries to be left the stronger of the two at the end and will therefore "pull their punches" and attempt to reserve as many of their units as possible.

Rather, when I feel it's relevant, I will propose something like "Let's not attack each other at border ____ for three turns," or even just "Let's take it easy on each other for a couple turns until Vacano is under control".  I think this is an entirely different kind of proposal than two players deciding to eliminate all other players.  But I don't see anything wrong with any of these scenarios in principle, I just think the type of message you describe is not a strategy I like.

I don't think it is weak to take advantage of existing features. Instead I think it's necessary in order to play well, as other players will certainly be able to use any feature that's available.  It's just a matter of circumstance that such private messages are allowed.  If there were an option to create games without private messaging, I would be indifferent and I would join such games just as readily as games that allowed private messages.  But creating an option for games with no private messages takes away some of the value of the Premium upgrade, so maybe this is not a practical solution.

While players colluding behind your back can be frustrating, I just can't see anything inherently wrong with it.

I'll put my 2 cents in...I don't mind players becoming 'temporary' allies due to the course of events in a game...it makes sense and I will do that (or attempt to) on occasion.  What is not cool is players teaming up at the outset or due to familiarity with another player, especially when the strategic situation does not call for it...and it really sucks in tourney play when the same two players keep advancing from game to game.  Players playing it straight up simply do not have a chance to compete...and then, what are we really playing for?  Personally, I never enjoyed playing with the deck stacked against me...or in my favor, for that matter...it just takes the fun out of the game.

Thingol wrote:

I'll put my 2 cents in...I don't mind players becoming 'temporary' allies due to the course of events in a game...it makes sense and I will do that (or attempt to) on occasion.  What is not cool is players teaming up at the outset or due to familiarity with another player, especially when the strategic situation does not call for it...and it really sucks in tourney play when the same two players keep advancing from game to game.  Players playing it straight up simply do not have a chance to compete...and then, what are we really playing for?  Personally, I never enjoyed playing with the deck stacked against me...or in my favor, for that matter...it just takes the fun out of the game.

i think this - in some variation - is what you'll find most here have to say about it.

When I propose a truce it is always because somebody has gotten too strong too soon and 2 players are needed to bring them down, not eliminate them, only bring their bonus down.  I have never made a permanent truce, something like lets make it only myself and another player at the end.  Everybody on here knows I propose truces, I think its part of the game.  But if truces are kept to a turn or 2 turns at minimum I think that is perfectly fine and fits in with strategy to make the best scenario for yourself.

Just my thoughts on the whole thing.

The Real Rasputin

Evan

From the Help FAQ: "Are alliances allowed?
Alliances in games are allowed and usually make sense from a strategical point of view. However, pre-conceived alliances are NOT allowed or tolerated. Player's that are found colluding in multiple games will be at risk for being banned."

There shouldn't be games where two or more players collude from the beginning.  If so let tom know.

When I propose a truce it is always because somebody has gotten too strong too soon and 2 players are needed to bring them down

This is 90% of my truces.  In rare occasion, depending on the board position, I can tell that me & another player are bound to self destruct each other, I'll suggest we have a truce.  Sometimes just an informal "hey let's stop attacking each other so we don't both lose", and sometimes more formally for 3-5 turns, but once or twice I have made truces 'until the first player gets taken out'.  I'm more likely to propose a truce if it is a player I know, or if it is near the end of a tournament that I have a chance to win, otherwise I don't usually bother.

Of the 1000+ games that I've played here, I've proposed less than a handful of truces, if even 1 or 2.  Also, I've only been proposed to a truce a relatively low number of times, which sometimes I agree or just ignore (thus decline).  That said, I think they can be a part of the game, but I play as if they are assumed rather than written out, meaning if someone has a huge lead we shouldn't be attacking each other and give the game to him.

I've found the best strategy to keep the "leader" close, but allow him to be ahead of you and look for the best time to strike.  This can reduce the number of truces but still give players someone (other than yourself) a target.

Also though, Fog games can be a bit different since it can take multiple players' views to see who needs to be attacked to be kept in line, so those should be played differently.

Yertle wrote:

I've found the best strategy to keep the "leader" close, but allow him to be ahead of you and look for the best time to strike.  This can reduce the number of truces but still give players someone (other than yourself) a target.

There are a number of intricacies involved with this strategy, like for instance, "Where in the que is the leader relative to your position?" but it is definitely sound. 

Here's another. Because your opponent's perception of who is most powerful plays a large part in the success of this strategy you have to be very cognizant of the card counts and their potential to produce armies. Also things like the consideration of prevention strategies (or sometimes lack of prevention to lure an opponent into trying to take out another play for his cards, but weakening or spreading themselves thin in the process).

The above is somewhat off-topic, but Y's comment is one I haven't heard before.

As far as truces/alliances are concerned, there have been many threads covering this topic, but again I find myself falling into the Yertle camp of those who rarely make explicit alliances.  With good players, there is an understanding that when a player is significantly in front, there is little sense in making life easier for him and implicit alliances occur naturally. 

In most all other cases, the creation of alliances ends up with the breaking of these alliances, which can get ugly. 

And there are other hazards, among them, the prospect of being put on a bunch of enemies lists. Consider that creating alliances too early in a game has the potential to look as if the alliance was formed before the game even started.  The community here is small enough that this kind of behavior will get noticed. Anyways, I don't think I've every been messaged privately or otherwise by a top player to form an alliance. My guess is they don't need them to win.  Now what does that imply about the effectiveness of alliances?

Vacano wrote:

So, I have always played Risk as "free for all".  In other words, I don't like allies and especially those that are secret allies.  Opponents to my view will weakly say, "Its all part of the game.  They wouldn't add secret messages if you weren't allowed to ally."

So what are your thoughts?   I feel allies shouldn't be tolerated until its needed due to a gap in a single winner (i.e., competitors should unite and beat the leader or else they are all dead.).  But that is still more about strategy to me than about teaming up.  I am not in favor of immortals joining forces from the beginning or middle.  The messages are always the same... "Hey I propose a truce till its just us at the end."  This isn't strategy!  I wish we would get rid of secret messages and everyone is openly engaged.

Obviously you know what I think.  Thoughts?

In what way is that not strategy?

It may not be a very good strategy, but it seems like a strategy to me.

I thineamk once the game is over all messages should be revealed. That way you could tell wich players are ganging up on you, and you could choose to not play with those players or not.

p.s. I hate secret messages, except for team games.

That's an interesting idea j-bomb (about revealing all messages at end-game...very similar to the history reveal after a fog game)...not sure how easy it would be for Tom to implement, but it would certainly shed light to obvious ganging-up (ie - "can you attack player A there, etc).  For my part, I like PMs because I think the subtle usage of them can have quite an impact...and without them, in a fog-of-war game for example, if one player is not paying attention and is basically winning the game for another player, they could be very necessary...and without the PMs, I've seen games then deteriorate into a he said/he said posting match which can get very childish.

j-bomb wrote:

I thineamk once the game is over all messages should be revealed. That way you could tell wich players are ganging up on you, and you could choose to not play with those players or not.

p.s. I hate secret messages, except for team games.

I am fine with this change in the functionality of private messages as long as it is not retroactive and is well advertised. 

In my 1500ish games, I cannot remember offering a truce and can only remember around 5 truces being offered.  I am fine with private messaging and with truce/alliances being allowed and I expect them to happen.  Moreover, they are an essential part of team games.

All of that aside, I have had some private conversations, in game, that had nothing to do with wargear or the game we were in.  I have probably made a harassing comment or three to a personal friend and expect that these private comment are private.  I can think of nothing that I would be ashamed of having aired, but I am sure that I am not the only one who uses the messaging for other reason than game related messages.

Alpha wrote:

j-bomb wrote:

I thineamk once the game is over all messages should be revealed. That way you could tell wich players are ganging up on you, and you could choose to not play with those players or not.

p.s. I hate secret messages, except for team games.

I am fine with this change in the functionality of private messages as long as it is not retroactive and is well advertised. 

In my 1500ish games, I cannot remember offering a truce and can only remember around 5 truces being offered.  I am fine with private messaging and with truce/alliances being allowed and I expect them to happen.  Moreover, they are an essential part of team games.

All of that aside, I have had some private conversations, in game, that had nothing to do with wargear or the game we were in.  I have probably made a harassing comment or three to a personal friend and expect that these private comment are private.  I can think of nothing that I would be ashamed of having aired, but I am sure that I am not the only one who uses the messaging for other reason than game related messages.

Ditto.  I have made a number of comments to friends that include personal information that I would prefer remains private.

Fact is.. if people want to collude, they could simply use the PM system (and whatever realtime system tom might choose to put in place in the future), so I'm not quite sure what is gained.

Hmmm...but couldn't that type of message be sent via PM directly to the player instead of in-game?  One of the features that WG has that WF doesn't...

And I see what you two are saying; I've done that myself (chiding another player or making comments to a player that I know personally - which may be embarrassing/amusing to have others see), but now I don't see a need to do that in-game.

No opening up Private Messages IMO, as some of them are Private.  It could be done outside of a game, but usually easier/more convenient inside a game.  Same with Team games, Team messages shouldn't be opened up either for similar reasons and for more Strategic reasons.

..not to mention "messages to self".  I may even have insulted myself on occasion.

As it stands, are messages tagged to move numbers or given some kind of time-stamp that can be referenced back to a point in the game?  I liked that feature on Tos.

I would agree regarding team games...yes, you wouldn't want to give away team strategies.

M57 - "..not to mention 'messages to self'. I may even have insulted myself on occasion."  -

Nice!! LOL.

M57 wrote:

As it stands, are messages tagged to move numbers or given some kind of time-stamp that can be referenced back to a point in the game?  I liked that feature on Tos.

Yes, in the upper right corner of each message there is a page with magnifying lens icon.  Click on this and it will show you the state of the board at the time of the message as well as the turn id.

Alpha wrote:

M57 wrote:

As it stands, are messages tagged to move numbers or given some kind of time-stamp that can be referenced back to a point in the game?  I liked that feature on Tos.

Yes, in the upper right corner of each message there is a page with magnifying lens icon.  Click on this and it will show you the state of the board at the time of the message as well as the turn id.

Yikes!  You're right.  Very nice.   Don't know how I missed it.  Has it been there long?  I'll be embarrassed to know that it's been a year or more..