Are never ending treaties kosher?

[Kid_Cisc0]

In a current game, and in the discussion, we began discussing the ups and downs of treaties. I mentioned that the game seemed unfair because 3 of the players (not me) had treaties with each other. Seemingly, with out end. I and one other player are surrounded by said other treaty members who all boarder each other. These members do all attack each other in Asia (World 2.1), but for the most part, half the game board is occupied by them and for their use to gain men per turn.

I thought that 1 or 2 turn treaties were always fine, but that never ending treaties amongst counties was somewhat bogus to the game. Takes the sport out of it. I said it wasn’t wrong, but, it’s not an honorable win.

Technically, anyone who were friend could easily just decide to join a game together, declare treaties, and clear the board.

[Kid_Cisc0]

Oops.

I voted "Yes!" on my own thread, when I really meant to vote "No!".

[bringiton4]

Agreed - they're not kosher. Alliances of mutual alliance are acceptable when being over-powered by a stronger player - but that's really about it.

You can stretch it, and make non-aggressions pacts for certain spots for some time if the game demands it, but never-ending treaties? That's a tad unfair

[Visaoni]

Like most things in CC, it depends who you play with. Some will say yes, some will say no.

I'm not sure I've ever had a never-ending alliance but I have had some with ambiguous length, although mostly against against a much stronger player.

[MeDeFe]

Never-ending? There is no such thing as a nevereanding treaty, sooner or later someone will break it. But by that time it might be too late for everyone else, so I'm most inclined to vote "no".

[muy_thaiguy]

I think better words would be "Long lasting" instead of Never ending. But going on for several turns is ridiculous, one or two turns is all right.

[PerkinsRooster]

Both enter into a treaty knowing at some point it will be broken. This is part of the game and I don't understand why people make such a big deal about it.

[Kid_Cisc0]

Both enter into a treaty knowing at some point it will be broken. This is part of the game and I don't understand why people make such a big deal about it.

BTW - these treaties between these 3 players have been in effect for about almost 25 turns or so (we’re almost 30 into the game).

I'm not questioning the fact that the game will end with a winner, thus ending any truce. That's not what’s being questioned here. I'm talking about unfair advantage.

[oVo]

Treaties are kosher if they're established in the game chat and can last for as long as the involved players want them. I've been in games where the treaty of one border between two territories was never broken for the entire game.

It's the player with the biggest fortifications while occupying the most territories who has the unfair advantage.

[Kugelblitz22]

There's always the ignore list.

[lord voldemort]

most annoying is when u have an indefinite one and u make the agreement not to attack without 2 turns notice...then they attack you...there for the ignore list

[billy07]

i ve never had a alliance with any1 and if i offer u 1 i`m already dead

[mibi]

Alliances are an imaginary crutch and will f*ck you in the end.

[AAFitz]

a quick alliance to insure a superior player doesnt crush you in a turn is one thing, but an all out kill the other guy till he's dead, defeats the very purpose of the game

its also, a dangerous game... id rather have the third guy there usually, unless im much stronger, to kill the other guy for me...