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. |
« First
‹ Previous
Replies 21 - 29 of 29
|
qrs wrote
at 12:32 PM, Monday January 1, 2007 EST Well, no one likes alliances from before the game, but it's common for alliances to start in the first couple rounds. I don't like that very much myself; I think it makes the game less fun, and more predictable. Still, some people swear by it...
You can sometimes try counter-allying... |
|
fuzzycat wrote
at 12:49 PM, Monday January 1, 2007 EST improv42 this is a fucking game, not a fuckin war simulator! I hate people talking s*** like this.
improv42 a war simulator you should see all the time dead bodies of humans, to get a "simulation" how stupid and cruel war is. Talk to people how relatives died in it. |
|
|
fuzzycat wrote
at 12:52 PM, Monday January 1, 2007 EST KimJongIl, look at the left side of your keyboard, there is in the middle of it a key that says "caps lock" please press it, and try to type again.
people are not reading your text more or less, if you WRITE IT LIKE THIS. |
|
lardhat wrote
at 9:49 PM, Monday January 1, 2007 EST Interesting thread. I read it all (except for the capslock guy).
You're totally right, MadWilly. But i offer alliances even to those whom i don't thoroughly trust (not because of dishonesty but because of lack of wits), if i find it beneficial nevertheless. Truce and alliance the same thing???????? You make a truce with an enemy. You don't take care of him. I take care of my ally's enemies so he can defend me later. I kill his islands without warning or request. If i have a truce with som1, i just don't attack him. I might even reinforce one of his enemies, to make sure i end in better position. I really love this game. I like alliances. There are some players that fuck alliances out of stupidity more than dishonesty. |
|
frambojan wrote
at 7:59 AM, Tuesday January 2, 2007 EST If I have any sort of truce/alliance with someone any sort of agression without warning is violation of it. If they really need a territory it's not that hard to discuss it in advance.
No offense Madwilly, but you have a very self serving definition of truces and alliance that change depending on game circumstances. While I have never been victim of it, I've seen you screw over allies several times without remorse. While you are entitled to your style of play, it's fairly abrasive irritating so it shouldn't surprise you so many people take affront. |
|
|
frambojan wrote
at 8:03 AM, Tuesday January 2, 2007 EST "Am I the only one that finds Alliances to often be unfair?"
I enjoy alliances when two weaker powers band together to stop a over powering third. The teamwork adds excitement and changes the flow of the game. When the two most powerful ally to crush everyone else it is less fun. To be honest, though, I have been guilty of both kinds. |
|
MadWilli wrote
at 8:26 AM, Tuesday January 2, 2007 EST @frambojan: thx for your input.
What specific you find in any for unfair about them or my behaviour? I personally have seen you only at quite few of the 450 games i already played. I so far dont remember a single time i broke a treaty if accepted. the self serving aspects i see in my definitions are mostly due to the fact that i usually propose allys or truces either in game critical situations or in situations of relativ powers. in such situation the allies or truces i offer have a probable positive outcome for all involved parties as they were in the game sitation without them. I dont remember situations where the treaties i offered wouldn't have a possible positive outcome as the situations at that time proposed. so please give me examples. |
|
SandyBell wrote
at 1:02 AM, Friday February 9, 2007 EST .
|
|
|
MadWilly wrote
at 4:29 PM, Monday December 15, 2008 EST i still stand to my definition.
|
