PlanetsCentral

... that you did not invite Belarus, North Korea and Iran into your alliance as well!

5 Races ain't apparently enough to smoothly rule the game, are they? Better also add the Bird so there is no doubt about who has the most races in his team. You folks must really be so highly keen on winning and at the same time so deeply worried about your own abilities that your only way to victory is to accumulate as many players as possible.

Obviously you guys have not learned anything from this conversation!

This is probably the most inglorious game I have ever seen.

Unkind regards
Mike, Klingon Empire

that's why I try to play wolf games - no one accuses me of alliances there. It's a pity that there's only one game right now and I'm not playing it.

Good afternoon. I propose to organize a series of team games 3x3 or 5x5

Good afternoon. I propose to organize a series of team games 3x3 or 5x5

I support it!

Then why didn't you mind at all when 1-4-6 players in the Titan 23 game killed one pirate with them in the company of 7?

... that you did not invite Belarus, North Korea and Iran into your alliance as well!

5 Races ain't apparently enough to smoothly rule the game, are they? Better also add the Bird so there is no doubt about who has the most races in his team. You folks must really be so highly keen on winning and at the same time so deeply worried about your own abilities that your only way to victory is to accumulate as many players as possible.

Obviously you guys have not learned anything from this conversation!

This is probably the most inglorious game I have ever seen.

Unkind regards
Mike, Klingon Empire

Then why didn't you mind at all when 1-4-6 players in the Titan 23 game killed one pirate with them in the company of 7?

That game was more dynamic than it might have looked like

that's why I try to play wolf games - no one accuses me of alliances there. It's a pity that there's only one game right now and I'm not playing it.

Wolf games ain't running the way they are supposed to be either.

North Star 17 is a wonderful example: I'm sure that Bird, Klingon, Borg and Robot were not happy when their territory was picked to be expansion space by the Russian played race living close (or not so close) to them. In fact I have not seen any hint for an inner Russian conflict for the entire game and I'm pretty sure that if Stefan would review the game data he would find long and completely unguarded inner Russian borders...

Then why didn't you mind at all when 1-4-6 players in the Titan 23 game killed one pirate with them in the company of 7?

The very simple answer is: I was not aware! I was busy to stand my ground against Fascist and Borg as well and my knowledge about the rest of the map was very limited.

It seems however that you have chosen your fate on your own:
According to some information I was able to gather you and the Rebel have attacked both Borg and Fed so you can't blame them for striking back together with their 3rd ally, the Fascist. The Crystal was simply running out of enemies in his own corner so he must have joined the attack independently.

In the end, even if you were beaten by an alliance of 4 (and I strongly emphasize the subjunctive!) I can't see any right for you to complain about a situation that you and your fellow citizens are causing in virtually every game you play...

Just like I don't see any reason to complain to anyone in this game.

Just like I don't see any reason to complain to anyone in this game.

Apparently you have never heard of the cause-and-effect logic...

at0mix in Re: I'm a little surprised...:

Just like I don't see any reason to complain to anyone in this game.

Apparently you have never heard of the cause-and-effect logic...

but I see your logic - the Russian barbarians should be sitting like a mouse under a broom when the great white lord came. And when the barbarians attacked the great white lord, we will complain to the UN.

but I see your logic - the Russian barbarians should be sitting like a mouse under a broom when the great white lord came. And when the barbarians attacked the great white lord, we will complain to the UN.

The question if I regard Russians or some of them to be barbarian is a different topic which we may gladly discuss in a different thread.

This whole thread is about the Russians who play VGA Planets on this server and spoil every game they could. Some successfully, some not. Edit: In fact there have been some games where I was able to draw one or two Russian players away from their usual alliance. Don't want to leave this unsaid!

I remember when I started to play at PlanetsCentral about 5 years ago. My first game was Pleiades 16 and already back then there had been a need to form a 5-race-alliance in order to stand a ground against the Russian dominated previously formed 5-race-alliance - including the Robot who has been pressed in by threatening him with a swift and violent end otherwise. I certainly can't tell if this behavior has been shown before so I appreciate if other players are able to provide some insights.

The basic misunderstanding in your mindset seems to be that you think you have to win every game you play, whatever it may cost and moreover no matter how much it will ruin the game for the others. This is not the fucking war! This is a game we all play for fun and sometimes you win and sometimes you lose.

I can't tell how many players have quit playing because of their frustration about how every game begins the same. And the only way not to let them all end the same is to do the very same shit like you do: to gang together in big numbers! If you go on like this you will end up with only Tequila War games where you guys can play with yourselves...

Kobrov and darkclow, I would appreciate your comments on this matter as well. I still hope we can solve this issue and find a compromise for future games that everybody is able to accept.

Be glad-I don't sign up for alliance games anymore-just wolf games.

Hi everyone! Russians or non-Russians - it doesn't matter. Do not escalate the situation. I have already written that there is a need for team games on the host. I propose not to delay, but to turn to Stefan and turn on several games. Let's remain respected rivals.

Hi everyone! Russians or non-Russians - it doesn't matter. Do not escalate the situation. I have already written that there is a need for team games on the host. I propose not to delay, but to turn to Stefan and turn on several games. Let's remain respected rivals.

I also approve of the idea of ​​teams, but I think that the two groups of races should be predefined, or that everyone should be given the possibility to choose their own race. And what about using FLAK? Giuseppe

Hi everyone! Russians or non-Russians - it doesn't matter. Do not escalate the situation. I have already written that there is a need for team games on the host. I propose not to delay, but to turn to Stefan and turn on several games. Let's remain respected rivals.

I'd support the idea of pre-designed team games (and probably also take part) if this means that the exaggerated team building will no longer occur in regular diplomacy games.

I'd support the idea of pre-designed team games (and probably also take part) if this means that the exaggerated team building will no longer occur in regular diplomacy games.

then first formulate the requirements for playing with diplomacy. will it be "No more than three together" or just the personal opinion of one player? There are TWO types of games - with or without diplomacy and alliances. A third option is now being proposed - advance certain commands. this option will exclude any overlaps.

then first formulate the requirements for playing with diplomacy. will it be "No more than three together" or just the personal opinion of one player? There are TWO types of games - with or without diplomacy and alliances. A third option is now being proposed - advance certain commands. this option will exclude any overlaps.

In my mind in a regular diplomatic game an alliance should consist of no more than 3 races. Of course this is just my personal point of view, therefore I'd like to invite every other player to add his comments to this matter.

In my mind in a regular diplomatic game an alliance should consist of no more than 3 races. Of course this is just my personal point of view, therefore I'd like to invite every other player to add his comments to this matter.

This is a very slippery issue. for example, there is a union 1+2, 2+3, 3+4, 4+1. How many races are there in the union? There are 3 races in each union - 1+2+4, 2+3+1, 3+2+4, 4+3+1. How to count?

in wolf games, everything is clear, as well as in possible team games - if Streu supports it.

in games with diplomacy, it is much more difficult to prescribe unambiguously interpreted rules, the implementation of which can be monitored.

This is a very slippery issue. for example, there is a union 1+2, 2+3, 3+4, 4+1. How many races are there in the union? There are 3 races in each union - 1+2+4, 2+3+1, 3+2+4, 4+3+1. How to count?

in wolf games, everything is clear, as well as in possible team games - if Streu supports it.

in games with diplomacy, it is much more difficult to prescribe unambiguously interpreted rules, the implementation of which can be monitored.

Well, I always regarded an alliance to be a multilateral agreement. 1+2+3 are allied instead of 1+2 and 2+3. In my mind the friend of a friend is only my friend when I make an active decision about it.

Maybe this is where all these mega alliances are coming from...

Well, I always regarded an alliance to be a multilateral agreement. 1+2+3 are allied instead of 1+2 and 2+3. In my mind the friend of a friend is only my friend when I make an active decision about it.

In the game, there is always an alliance with ONE race. The union of 1 and 2 does not mean that allies 1 SHOULD form an alliance with 2, does it? That's why I suggest you formulate requirements that can be unambiguously interpreted and controlled. because the personal opinion of an individual player is not the rule.

In the game, there is always an alliance with ONE race. The union of 1 and 2 does not mean that allies 1 SHOULD form an alliance with 2, does it? That's why I suggest you formulate requirements that can be unambiguously interpreted and controlled. because the personal opinion of an individual player is not the rule.

I suppose that if you ask 5 players you will receive 5 different opinions. Therefore I suggest that it should be Stefan to determine the rules for diplomatic games (Titan, Pleiades and Phoenix series. What about the FLAK series?), i.e. maximum number of players per alliance, bilateral or multilateral alliances, ... anything else I miss?

From my side, there's no need to change anything. More rules = greater need of checks and controls = greater need of punishment in case of breaking the rules. And how to do that? I have no clue.

The setups here are fine for me, just a team match could be a nice addition.

I suppose that if you ask 5 players you will receive 5 different opinions. Therefore I suggest that it should be Stefan to determine the rules for diplomatic games (Titan, Pleiades and Phoenix series. What about the FLAK series?), i.e. maximum number of players per alliance, bilateral or multilateral alliances, ... anything else I miss?

If you want a "maximum number of alliances" add-on (such as POneAlly, CMLimit) we can give that a try. Otherwise, alliances are not limited.

However, only one player can win. In that case, it doesn't matter how many allies they had. I had hoped that this at least provides an incentive to not make your alliances too big - at one point, you need to break them.

One generic, meta-rule to keep in mind, however: this is a game. It is supposed to be fun. Now it seems someone doesn't perceive it as fun. I am not tracking who is accusing whom of what, but it's not the first time. I would therefore asking everyone: if your playing style is perceived as not-fun, maybe tone down a little bit. Because if it's not fun for them, they will leave, and then it won't be fun for anyone of us again ever.

--Stefan

If you want a "maximum number of alliances" add-on (such as POneAlly, CMLimit) we can give that a try. Otherwise, alliances are not limited.

Personally I would always prefer a gentlemen's agreement instead of enforcing it by some kind of add-on. But if this is a possible solution I'd take it.

According to what at0mix wrote it is apparently very common to form circles of alliances, i.e. 1+2, 2+3, 3+4, 4+1. This way no player officially has more than 2 alliances but of course there is cooperation between all of them. Therefore I'd go with the POneAlly add-on.

Of course this disables official alliances only, there is no way to hinder two players to cooperate if they want to. This leads me back to my introductory sentence. If we could all agree not have multilateral alliances of more than 3 players there would be no need for an add-on or for monitoring that everybody's complying with it.

More opinions?

It is supposed to be fun. --Stefan

Everyone has their own cockroaches in their head.

Some people don't like super unions.

And I don't like economic scenarios in which a player can double his points on the last turn of the game.

Military scenarios like "tequila" or "invasion"/"super invasion" are much better suited to assess players' skills in military operations rather than delivering resources to planets.