Forum
[DIPLOMACY] Alliance vs. Truce
|
MadWilly wrote
at 11:31 AM, Monday December 25, 2006 EST
So here we are.
this is simply a statement nothing i will debate to anyone. You yet may have your own definitions, the following are mine. I consider them binding to me and anyone accepting an offer involving the words "truce" and or "ally" by me or vice versa. 1st A truce is a truce. Noone attcks each other without asking for the specific square and even if permission is granted it is imperativ to act with extreme precaution. A Truce ends when everybody not involved in the truce is wiped off the board or at an unmotivated attack of one of the parties. Truces are bilateral for simplicities sake. 2nd Allies Allies to me are an all or nothing treaty i wont accept or offer lightly to anyone i dont know well. That is because of the delicate nature of alliances. An alliance asks for common thinking on a strategical basis. Alliances need either one strong leader which is granted the power of most participants squares And/or good communications between the Allies. I take and offer the right to attack an ally without splitting if it is for the common allies sake. I expect an ally not to loose faith in coming out the game as a winner until everybody involved in the ally agrees on it. This involves to focus on the biggest thread in reach, to defend weak spots of the ally and the like. I even offer the possibility to talk about specific rankings while someone did the best job for the ally but got marginalized in the process. Allies may end when everybody in it agrees on it. If an ally of mine should decide to change sides I will see to the worst outcome of the game to him i can possibly work for or not to do so at my own will. I expect allies being betraied by me to do the same. Although I express the vow that this wont happen by choice. 3rd All allies or truces of mine are lasting longest till the end of the game. Due to the binding nature of truces and allies to me i will possibly reject those i dont find serving me well or pleasing me in any possible kind. That may or may have not personal reasons i dont feel the need to discuss to anyone. at least not ingame. So far. You may talk about it. discuss about it. reject them. but as long as i dont change them they are binding to me. |
|
Bobbo wrote
at 2:22 PM, Wednesday December 27, 2006 EST Truces are non aggression pact. They should be in the middle of the game when you have a border that you don't feel you need to fight on, and there are other options.
Allies are merging two territories into one for a battle against common enemies. It can be appropriate to take a territory from your ally. Now it should never be the last territory, but if your ally has one territory bordering three of your enemies but none of their own, and they attack with it, you best take up the slack when its your turn. Keep the easy grab on your team, please. (Easy = 1-6 dice.) |
|
Lindsay wrote
at 4:50 PM, Wednesday December 27, 2006 EST I think they get confused because if you share a border with two other people, and one of them you have a truce with, it is in essence as if you've allied against the other player/s on your borders.
|
|
CNE wrote
at 5:15 PM, Wednesday December 27, 2006 EST Can't expect everybody to understand the difference between the terminology, so I guess the onus is on the diplomat (person requesting truce/allance) to explain. My new thing is making sure conditions are understood: "We'll stay buddies until colorA and colorB are off the board, ok?" That may not mean squat, but at least I typed out what I expected.
|
|
Krasen wrote
at 7:08 PM, Wednesday December 27, 2006 EST Yeah, like that new word i see today
"co-exist" :) like the in game example A: hey red, wanna co-exist? we are pretty f**kd anyway... B: yeah ok. nice ^_^ |
|
Pegasus wrote
at 9:07 AM, Friday December 29, 2006 EST I've notice 'truce' rather than 'ally' crop up a fair bit lately. Nice to know the sort of nuance that is implied by it.
What I would often like to offer (and be understood to be offering) is something even weaker. A "cease-fire" or "temporary cease-fire". OK? So if I agree one of these with you - it is a promise not to attack for the time being, not necessarily for the remainder of the game. The only obligation, if that is not too strong a word, would perhaps be a warning "cease-fire over, Pegasus" before a resumption of hostilities. |
|
Cabalistik wrote
at 5:32 PM, Friday December 29, 2006 EST For me personally, alliance == truce.
|
|
|
Dazzy wrote
at 7:18 PM, Friday December 29, 2006 EST interesting. i have never been in an alliance. sounds deadly to me, at least with bad guys u know that they are gonna be gunning for you! JAAAISH!!!
nah, im kiddin... to take an ally's solo state is not a problem, unless they are so weak that they may have been relying on this for extra longevity in the game. also, to rejoin 2 sets of large islands of ur own, i dont see that as a problem, in the right situation... obv if ur cutting ur ally in half, thats a silly thing to be doing... a few other things to note... as soon as i go to page 2 of the forums, i lose all my page buttons. this is less than ideal :p... willy, i am NoMMiE, we spoke before, u mentioned the 20 games 1800 thing... well, the NoMMiE account is sitting on 18 games played, 1750 rank or smth, 37% 1st positions... i have to leave it dorment a little while. for. reasons. :p and this account is Rating GP 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 1806 23 30% 30% 8% 13% 8% 8% 0% if the formatting got screwed, thats 30% 1st, 30% 2nd, but i missed the 20 game 1800 target by 3. but yer, i have only played 40 games in total ever! shower me with praise, else forever lose my love. oh, 1 last on topic thing, the cease fire thing, if u wanna do something like that, should prolly be for a defined amount of time, else this will 50% of the time prolly lead to ill feeling... imo. |
|
KimJongIl wrote
at 8:31 PM, Friday December 29, 2006 EST TRUCE = CEASEFIRE
TEMPORARY CEASEFIRE = "TRUCE WITH ONE-ROUND WARNING BEFORE BREAKING TRUCE, OK?" "OK" |
|
|
KimJongIl wrote
at 8:33 PM, Friday December 29, 2006 EST ALLIANCE = COOPERATE TO KILL ONE OR MANY, WHICH MAY INVOLVE ONE NEEDING TO TAKE A LAND OF THE OTHER TO PASS THROUGH, OR ONE TAKING ALL BUT ONE LAND OF THE OTHER TO GAIN DICE. ALLIANCES SUCK.
|
|
fuzzniznaz wrote
at 10:25 PM, Sunday December 31, 2006 EST Am I the only one that finds Alliances to often be unfair? I know it's a natural outcropping of the game (because it is a natural outcropping of human nature), but nevertheless I can't count the times when two (sometimes three) people decided to make an "alliance" before the game had even begun. There's nothing interesting about watching three people kick everyone elses ass because they decided to forge their so-called Alliance prior to the game even beginning.
At that point you just wait for the inevitable. fuz. |
