Who broke the alliance?

[manicman]

So I'm playing a world 2.0 doubles game and I have an alliance with pink against green. I decide I don't want to attack green for fear he will attack me back. Pink wants to attack green and to do so goes through one of my territories. I think this is breaking our alliance so trash him. Now him and his partner say I broke it and are saying they both will leave negative comments for me at the end of the game. I think pink broke the alliance. The alliance was "we won't attack each other." Not "we won't attack each other when it's convenient." Who do you think was right and wrong?

[AK_iceman]

Leave a link to the game, or at least a game number if you actually want people to look at it.

[manicman]

http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=187547

[manicman]

By the way, even before pink attacked me he was talking about re-allying with green.

[vtmarik]

Yeah, pink (Monkton) broke the alliance when he took your lands:

2007-02-01 11:03:08 - monkton attacked Iraq from Iran and conquered it from manicman

Before then Magicman hadn't attacked him.

2007-02-01 10:18:28 - monkton: hey blue - i'd like to join my iranian and saudi armies - mind if i take over iraq and turkey?
2007-02-01 10:26:40 - monkton: yeah - but with those territories you're now getting 15 armies per turn
2007-02-01 14:52:18 - manicman: Hey you broke our alliance.

Manicman hadn't responded to Monkton's request to take iraq before going through with the attack. Monkton is in the wrong here.

[manicman]

Thanks. So what should I do about the negative comment thing?

[hawkeye]

Tell a mod. Reply to it. Leave feedback for him.

[Huckleberryhound]

Thanks. So what should I do about the negative comment thing?

Leaving a thread in the abuse forum worked for me, when a guy left negative feedback in one game when his beef was about another...maybe a thread there when the feedback is left will work for you

[Incandenza]

Okay, without having looked at the game, here's my take on this...

if Player A has an alliance with Player B against Player C, and A needs to take one or two NONESSENTIAL (read: non-continent-breaking, fortified by only one army) territories from B in order to take C's territories on the other side, that should not be considered a breaking of the pact.

In fact, I would say that A shouldn't even have to ask permission, as B, if he has half a brain, would be able to see the strategic advantage than A is gaining for the alliance with his actions. Plus A shouldn't have to telegraph his moves.

A is not attacking B. If A were attacking B, those territories that A takes would be essential ones that deny B armies. A is only passing through a lightly-held land or two in order to go put the hurt on C.

As the B in this discussion, manicman, I would say that you overreacted.

[vtmarik]

Okay, without having looked at the game, here's my take on this...

if Player A has an alliance with Player B against Player C, and A needs to take one or two NONESSENTIAL (read: non-continent-breaking, fortified by only one army) territories from B in order to take C's territories on the other side, that should not be considered a breaking of the pact.

In fact, I would say that A shouldn't even have to ask permission, as B, if he has half a brain, would be able to see the strategic advantage than A is gaining for the alliance with his actions. Plus A shouldn't have to telegraph his moves.

A is not attacking B. If A were attacking B, those territories that A takes would be essential ones that deny B armies. A is only passing through a lightly-held land or two in order to go put the hurt on C.

As the B in this discussion, manicman, I would say that you overreacted.

However, in this situation A asked B if lands could be taken. B hadn't replied to A's request before A went ahead and took action. When you ask your ally if you can do something, you don't go ahead without their consent. Since A acted without B's consent, he violated the implied terms of the oral agreement and thus broke the alliance.

EDIT: Also, I'd like to note that while the rules state that any and all alliances must be stated in the in-game chat, nowhere does it explicitly say that any planning between the allied players has to be done in the in-game chat

[AAFitz]

the terms of any treaty must be revealed in the chat...

[vtmarik]

the terms of any treaty must be revealed in the chat...

Yes, but does planning between allied players have to be transparent?

When two countries announce an alliance in the real world, they don't discuss their plans for military action over the AP Wire.

[hawkeye]

Yes it does. And cyan in that game needs to realise green never agreed to anything then jump off of a very tall building.

[Nous-irons]

Planning doesn't have to be transparent. I announce my proposal to ally in the chat then I send PMs to the player I want to ally with suggesting what he should do should he accept my proposal.

I always thought this was legal.

Now, terms of alliances are different things.

[manicman]

Yes it does. And cyan in that game needs to realise green never agreed to anything then jump off of a very tall building.

We never made any terms. I just assumed an alliance meant we don't attack each other. Then the attacking green thing was a vaguely stated goal. We never did private chat.