Breaking Alliances
Moderator: Community Team
Forum rules
Please read the community guidelines before posting.
Please read the community guidelines before posting.
-
fordhamflash
- Posts: 43
- Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 8:48 pm
- Location: Sacramento, CA
Breaking Alliances
What is the protocol for breaking alliances?
For example, in one game I have (had) an alliance, but now have no where else to move and must break the alliance to simply take a turn. I announced the breaking of the alliance in the Game Chat. Is that sufficient?
Thanks.
For example, in one game I have (had) an alliance, but now have no where else to move and must break the alliance to simply take a turn. I announced the breaking of the alliance in the Game Chat. Is that sufficient?
Thanks.
-
Darkfire001
- Posts: 139
- Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2006 4:37 pm
- Location: Cary, NC
-
fordhamflash
- Posts: 43
- Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 8:48 pm
- Location: Sacramento, CA
-
fordhamflash
- Posts: 43
- Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 8:48 pm
- Location: Sacramento, CA
In this case, it was my only move.
In all other cases, I would imagine giving fair notice. For example, something like "Truce is cancelled, but will not attack for 2 turns."
Can't imagine breaking an alliance would cause a grievance. IMHO, breaking alliances should just be part of the game. History is replete with broken alliances. That's part of war.
In all other cases, I would imagine giving fair notice. For example, something like "Truce is cancelled, but will not attack for 2 turns."
Can't imagine breaking an alliance would cause a grievance. IMHO, breaking alliances should just be part of the game. History is replete with broken alliances. That's part of war.
You always have the option of deploying armies without attacking anyone.
Really, it seems to me like this was your own fault for making an agreement you couldn't keep.
[Edit: Sorry, that sounded a lot harsher than it was intended to.]
Really, it seems to me like this was your own fault for making an agreement you couldn't keep.
[Edit: Sorry, that sounded a lot harsher than it was intended to.]
Last edited by Jota on Tue Jun 06, 2006 3:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
natalinasmpf
- Posts: 13
- Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 10:05 pm
-
fordhamflash
- Posts: 43
- Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 8:48 pm
- Location: Sacramento, CA
You always have the option of deploying armies without attacking anyone.
Really, it seems to me like this was your own fault for making an agreement you couldn't keep.
That's confusing to me; perhaps you don't fully understand the situation.
I am landlocked by the person I have an alliance with. I could deploy armies, but I can never move again in this game without breaking the alliance.
Are you saying that I cannot break the alliance to move? Are you saying that I can no longer move in this game? Surely, at some point the alliance has to be broken (the game has to end) and it seems to me that a reasonable point in time would be when there is literally no alternative but to do so.
- areyouincahoots
- Posts: 1794
- Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2006 5:34 pm
- Gender: Female
- Location: Arkansas
well, if you really want to preserve relations with whoever you had the alliance with...you could simply deploy and not attack this turn and notify them through pm that the alliance is over next turn...that would give them fair warning...and would show you to be fair and considerate...then you could attack the next turn...but it is a game of war...so do as you please.
"It appears my hypocrisy knows no bounds." -Doc Holliday
- areyouincahoots
- Posts: 1794
- Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2006 5:34 pm
- Gender: Female
- Location: Arkansas
-
fordhamflash
- Posts: 43
- Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 8:48 pm
- Location: Sacramento, CA
fordhamflash wrote:I am landlocked by the person I have an alliance with. I could deploy armies, but I can never move again in this game without breaking the alliance.
You've agreed to not attack that person at all, for the indefinite future, with no provisions for that ever changing? That sounds like agreeing to let the other person win.
If they've agreed to not attack you under the same terms, then unless one of you gets eliminated by a third party, then game is going to eventually deadlock. It sounds like you need to talk to the other person to renegotiate the agreement. Or else make a deal with another player in the game to help you break out.
You could just break the deal, of course. But I'm sure there are a lot of players on the site who wouldn't want to play with someone who was willing to do that. It's your choice.
-
fordhamflash
- Posts: 43
- Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 8:48 pm
- Location: Sacramento, CA
Also... is this necessarily that bad of a position for you? It sounds like your ally has to keep defending against the other player(s) in the game, while you have full protection on all your borders. You can just keep increasing your army count every turn, while he/she is expending his/her forces in borders skirmishes.
- areyouincahoots
- Posts: 1794
- Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2006 5:34 pm
- Gender: Female
- Location: Arkansas
- areyouincahoots
- Posts: 1794
- Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2006 5:34 pm
- Gender: Female
- Location: Arkansas
Jota wrote:Also... is this necessarily that bad of a position for you? It sounds like your ally has to keep defending against the other player(s) in the game, while you have full protection on all your borders. You can just keep increasing your army count every turn, while he/she is expending his/her forces in borders skirmishes.
lmao...now THAT is the way to look at this situation!!!! Spoken as a true warrior would!!! lmao!
"It appears my hypocrisy knows no bounds." -Doc Holliday
- reverend_kyle
- Posts: 9250
- Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2006 4:08 pm
- Location: 1000 post club
- Contact:
i'm in a team game with those 2. One of em is out. I acutally like team games more. I ahve never made an allyship on conquer club becuase they cant be private. On landgrab i make them frequently. I like private alliances make them interesting> its private or no go for me so on conquer club where its forbidden its a no allys period.
Alliances make the game far more interesting. Also to refuse to make them is to resrtict your options.
In this case I'd say a one turn warning at least is called for.
I wouldn't advise breaking an alliance unless it's the last game you're ever going to play here.
But as Jota(?) said, it's not necessarily that bad a position. Cahoots and others may laugh but it's true.
In this case I'd say a one turn warning at least is called for.
I wouldn't advise breaking an alliance unless it's the last game you're ever going to play here.
But as Jota(?) said, it's not necessarily that bad a position. Cahoots and others may laugh but it's true.
Frigidus wrote:but now that it's become relatively popular it's suffered the usual downturn in coolness.
I think you non-alliance people are insane. I've been in games with ximembers, where I know unless I make an alliance with the xiplayer another player will win. And well I can't make the alliance and sure enough the other player always wins.
Those games piss me off, because the logical thing to do is to make an alliance, but... you can't. Compete to the best of your ability, and do what you can to win. To me refusing to make alliances is like refusing to use a limb when fighting.
As for breaking alliances, it's bad form, but it is only a game. Do what you have to win I guess, but once you break an alliance once you're screwed from ever having one again. You're left in the same position as those who refuse to make alliances. In the long run it's bad even if it helps you in the particular game. Of course there are also those who carry their code of ethics into the game, and don't break alliances because of their ethics, without thinking of game advantage at all.
Those games piss me off, because the logical thing to do is to make an alliance, but... you can't. Compete to the best of your ability, and do what you can to win. To me refusing to make alliances is like refusing to use a limb when fighting.
As for breaking alliances, it's bad form, but it is only a game. Do what you have to win I guess, but once you break an alliance once you're screwed from ever having one again. You're left in the same position as those who refuse to make alliances. In the long run it's bad even if it helps you in the particular game. Of course there are also those who carry their code of ethics into the game, and don't break alliances because of their ethics, without thinking of game advantage at all.
Frigidus wrote:but now that it's become relatively popular it's suffered the usual downturn in coolness.
