The etiquette of alliances.

[nospoons]

In standard or FFA games are there any rules or general practices regarding diplomacy that experienced players abide by? For example is it cheating for me to propose a non aggression agreement with another player because it would be mutually beneficial? so as he stops invading my continent to stop me getting the bonus, while i stop invading his continent to similarily deny him the bonus.


Thoughts and suggestions welcome

Damien.

[Keebs2674]

It's not against the rules so I'll never complain about people making alliances, but I don't particularly like the idea of them.

I prefer more subtle methods of non-agression such as just commenting in the comment box to an opponent, that he or she "shouldn't feel threatened by me at this point in the game" or something like that. That way, either of us could still attack the other when it was necessary and also it wouldn't be a formal gang up on another player in the game. I could then take a risk and leave a border less well defended, but there is no guarantee that it won't be attacked. I just like this better because it leaves more up to chance and judgement of human motivations and reading other people.

[Keebs2674]

I forgot to add that yes, I do think that if you make a formal alliance both players should stick to it. Breaking an alliance with someone just because the alliance doesn't suit your needs anymore is wrong.

[Metsfanmax]

There does seem to be an important difference between saying "Truce between Sakha and Alaska for x turns" and "Green, I probably won't be attacking you in Greenland anytime soon."

[jako]

there is no such thing as an informal alliance. those that make informal allainces are pussies that are too scared to commit to a real alliance but dont have the strenght to go it alone.

[alster]

I think you people are mixing up the terms here.

The poll doesn't really fit the term "informal alliance". There are simply no diplomacy involved in informal alliances. Merely self-preservation on part of the economic man. In certain instances it's stupid to attack certain players, for example when there is one player having grown much stronger than the rest. Then it doesn't make sense to attack your weaker neighbor. Doing that is just a sign of stupidity.

[nospoons]

imagine a large 6 player standard game where you and one opponent share adjacent continents. Both of you have managed to take control of your continents, but in order to stop the other gaining a large production advantage each turn you attempt to invade just one piece of territory so that he does not recieve the bonus, he of course tries to do the same thing to you.

is it ok to propose that you both stop attempting to deny the other the bonus, so that you can both stop committing a large number of armies to retake your territory and to guard it on that front.

So its not really a 'you and me vs the rest of the players until the end when we duke it out' situation, more of a mutually beneficial agreement which would enable both players to concentrate their efforts elsewhere.

Damien.

[Xyl]

What you're describing is a truce rather than an alliance.

[Mensathis]

What you're describing is a truce rather than an alliance.

So at the risk of hijacking this thread....how long do you think a truce should last once proposed and accepted? I played 1vs1vs1 on the Seige map where I accepted a proposed truce on turn 3, and was backstabbed on turn 5. Obviously truces all end sometime, but does someone always have to backstab? And that seemed kinda fast to me; any thoughts?

[Xyl]

In my opinion, if breaking a truce will assure you of winning the game, you can and should break it. This applies double to truces with no pre-agreed duration.