I'm playing my first anonymous game this week, and the other players' behavior has been baffling to me. I started in a pretty good position, didn't attack anyone, just played politely and tried to be friends with all my neighbors.

Fast forward a few days, and Red is WAY ahead of everybody else. Like, in Neptunium production, troop production, everything. I start messaging the other players to see if they want to team up and take on Red, since otherwise we're all going to lose in like a day or two. Nobody responds, except one player who says he's in an alliance with Red and refuses to break it. Then everyone except Red attacks me.

This morning I messaged Red about it, saying, basically, congrats, and that I didn't know what he did to form such a strong alliance but nobody would join me in fighting him, and that everyone attacked me instead. He got SUPER angry and said "I can't believe you'd do that, no wonder everyone attacked you if you're asking them to break their alliances, I thought we were friends" and attacks me as well.

Now I don't mind him attacking - that's part of the game - but I'm surprised he got so upset. Isn't making and breaking alliances a big part of the game? And he and I weren't in an alliance, so why should he expect me not to attack him? Especially when he's in first place? I talked to another player about it, and he was basically like "Yeah, I know he's winning, but I already gave my word," which seems... weird. You're basically saying you'll never attack another player no matter what. Is this a common attitude? This is my first-ever game with strangers, so I honestly don't know.

Depends on who you're playing with. Some people defend their allies to the end and some only use them to gain. Breaking alliances is a part of the game and should happen. I think what people were negatively reacting to was your subversion. You tried to use allies to backstab each other, which is an ok thing to do in the right situation but many people don't like it.

I think people should just always try for gold or connive their way to whatever better position. Makes the game more interesting. I find alliances that don't changes as condition changes boring and makes the game feel stagnant. Its funny when a game devolves into a chaotic mess as things suddenly shift.

No

topkilla wrote:No

TLDR

radioactivity wrote:

topkilla wrote:No

TLDR

Agreed.

acenorth wrote:Isn't making and breaking alliances a big part of the game?

Simple answer - yes, it is.

More complicated answer, and one that gets to the heart of the game - every player looks at these things a little differently. There are plenty of players who make alliances and then do their damnedest to keep them. There are others who make alliances simply to benefit themselves. Most of us lie somewhere in the in between. An absolutely essential part of the game is figuring out who your opponents are and where they are on that spectrum. The better you are at that, the better, in general, you will do in this game.

In this particular game, it seems you have found a group of people that do not want to betray their previously made alliance. If Red is really that far ahead, then perhaps it is best to move up to 2nd, or however high you can go; now that everyone is attacking you, that may be difficult. But good luck, anyway.

I am running into this same issue in a game. There is one guy who is clearly leagues ahead of everyone else. I'm in roughly 2nd/3rd place so I solicited a few other players to see if they wanted to help overthrow the top dog. They responded as if I had insulted their mother and 3 players proceeded to attack me. Did I do something wrong here? Isn't the point to kind of do the best you can in this game? No, apparently not. We have half a game of players all working to secure first place for one guy. Subservient and mindless automatons doing whatever their leader tells them. What is the point of this game even? Should I resign and start a new one? Is this common in Subterfuge? This is a complete buzz-kill and defeats the purpose of the game in my opinion. No wonder people resign if these are the kind of games they end up in.

In addition, one guy is basically clearing the way (removing shields/defenders) for the top player to follow up and claim the outpost. Did I miss something here? I had no idea I was playing against two people who are quite literally on a team to make only 1 of them win it. Boring. Game.

spaceman88 wrote:We have half a game of players all working to secure first place for one guy. Subservient and mindless automatons doing whatever their leader tells them. Should I resign and start a new one? Is this common in Subterfuge?

In addition, one guy is basically clearing the way (removing shields/defenders) for the top player to follow up and claim the outpost.

Some people are just like that, subservient and lacking ambition. If you want a little more competition you could try ranked games, or you could post an invite link to your next game here on the forums and one (or more) of us would be happy to help you enjoy the game.

From what I have seen — and this is across many games — there are people that escalate matters into highly evolved grudges; there are also people that understand that the game is a game, and there must be a winner and a loser.

I would not be too concerned, as most people playing these types of games (generally, though this community seems to have retained some intellect) are of course, children. It could be an unfortunate selection, but not all people are like that.

I like this thread as I've recently struggled with this. Two games ago I was in a situation where I was at the bottom of the pack and struggling to find some common ground with a couple of allies but they had all been tied down to other alliances they had placed early in the game, even though they seemed to be contrary to their interests. My answer in that game was to shoot for surviving or getting 3rd and it turned out being one of my favorite games.

The next game I jumped to make alliances early on, found myself tied down in an unhealthy relationship, so I simply announced the alliance was at an end. 5 days later I attacked the player and he called me a backstabber. In that same game an ally turned on us too. This also ended up being an amazing game and I'm thankful for the guy that turned on us because it ended up injecting an incredible amount of drama into the game.

I personally prefer chaos, and hate when a player feels he has to stay in alliances no matter what. Just announce its over and give them 24 house warning. I wouldn't judge you for it.