alliance breaking, did I? please give your opinion

panzermeyer · Post by **panzermeyer** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 11:34 am

I was in a 6 player game and got into an alliance with one of the players until the end or round 8. In round seven I eliminated the 4 other players without once attacking my ally. I will point out that it would have been considerably easier to do this by reneging our agreement, as my ally had weakly held some countries blocking the easiest advances. I did attack my (former ally) only after all other players had been killed. There is no way you can have an allaince/truce with only 2 players, is there? I would appreciate some opinions as me former opponent is quite upset and I am receiving negative feedback and pm's from him.

sully800 · Post by **sully800** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 11:39 am

Most people feel that what you did was fine, but I still think you broke your alliance. If you said round 8 you should wait till round 8, even if that means not attacking for a turn. Otherwise I think the negative feedback is warranted if he feels it is fitting.

panzermeyer · Post by **panzermeyer** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 11:52 am

I do not think your argument holds, what if it was round 11, do we all deadbeat and all lose?

wfd336 · Post by **wfd336** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 12:36 pm

Oh, come on. If there are only 2 players on the board, the previous alliance, " Attack everyone but me ", is null and void. I hope you crushed him for being such a crybaby.

Went back and checked the game:

1. Only 20 or so games (still a noob in my book)

2. If he looks at the conditions of the truce correctly, you all only actually agreed for you to not attack him in Tunisia. 1 country not a "Non-Aggression" Pact.

3. He was losing his ass and wanted some way to make you feel responsible for his weak play.

AK_iceman · Post by **AK_iceman** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 1:31 pm

panzermeyer wrote:I do not think your argument holds, what if it was round 11, do we all deadbeat and all lose?

You could just deploy and end for 3 turns. :rool:

panzermeyer · Post by **panzermeyer** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 1:36 pm

good point ak but the point is .....if we where still in an alliance, who exactly are we aligning against? My point is, if there is no one to align against, there can be no alliance!

mightyal · Post by **mightyal** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 1:37 pm

AK_iceman wrote:
panzermeyer wrote:I do not think your argument holds, what if it was round 11, do we all deadbeat and all lose?
You could just deploy and end for 3 turns. :rool:

Haven't you just ended a game where you did that for like 3 months?

Ronaldinho · Post by **Ronaldinho** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 1:39 pm

its fine you were clearing up, good work by the sounds of it

AK_iceman · Post by **AK_iceman** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 1:44 pm

mightyal wrote:
AK_iceman wrote:
panzermeyer wrote:I do not think your argument holds, what if it was round 11, do we all deadbeat and all lose?
You could just deploy and end for 3 turns. :rool:
Haven't you just ended a game where you did that for like 3 months?

No, we deployed and attacked to get cards. Its still going actually, I got the dice analyzer installed for the next battle.

panzermeyer wrote:good point ak but the point is .....if we where still in an alliance, who exactly are we aligning against? My point is, if there is no one to align against, there can be no alliance!

Thats the problem with alliances though. It makes sense that if the 2 people who made the alliance are the last 2 people left, the alliance would be over. But to some people, you have to wait until the alliance is over before you attack. Its a personal decision, but I would not hold it against him if he left you negative feedback. Just be more careful next time about the terms of the alliance.

mightyal · Post by **mightyal** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 1:54 pm

Alliances are for assholes. If he was willing to enter one, he deserved to be betrayed.

panzermeyer · Post by **panzermeyer** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 2:07 pm

mightyal wrote:Alliances are for assholes. If he was willing to enter one, he deserved to be betrayed.

If you are offered an alliance wich woud unquestionably be to your advantage, and you refused, you would not be an asshole but a dumbass

AK_iceman · Post by **AK_iceman** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 2:09 pm

panzermeyer wrote:If you are offered an alliance wich woud unquestionably be to your advantage, and you refused, you would not be an asshole but a dumbass

A dumbass with honour!

sully800 · Post by **sully800** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 2:36 pm

Okay, first of all, I agree that its dumb to sit and add men and end attacks for no reason. However since you were in an alliance I don't think you should be breaking it with him during that turn. If you beat everyone else except for him and had an alliance with him, you shold at least let him come back to see the situation and then decide what you want to do. If I had an alliance with somebody and they wiped me out on that turn I'd be pretty miffed as well. Perhaps that's why I don't enter alliances.

The best way to play on this site is with players good enough that you don't need to tell or ask them what to do. How do you think some people like AndrewO play games for months at a time? It's not by entering alliances, but by playing with guys who know what to do at the appropriate time. Now THATS a fun game!

wicked · Post by **wicked** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 2:37 pm

Are you high sully? The only person left for him to attack was the guy he was in an alliance with. Common sense has to prevail at some point.

panzermeyer · Post by **panzermeyer** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 2:44 pm

panzermeyer wrote:good point ak but the point is .....if we where still in an alliance, who exactly are we aligning against? My point is, if there is no one to align against, there can be no alliance!

sully, can you answer this question?

sully800 · Post by **sully800** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 2:58 pm

Your alliance stated that you wouldn't attack him until a certain round. If you wanted a way around it you shouldn't have set it in such concrete terms. Why not say something to the effect of "I will not attack Brazil from North Africa for 3 rounds" or "I will not break North America if you capture it".

As it stands, you did go against what you said you were going to do. It's simply a matter of how much your word means of whether you care or not.

I agree that its not a big deal in this situation, but I think if you are going to make alliances you should be smart about it and leave yourself a loophole so then you won't be caught breaking it. Ya get me?

panzermeyer · Post by **panzermeyer** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 3:01 pm

you still have not answerd my question.

wicked · Post by **wicked** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 3:12 pm

COMMON SENSE PEOPLE .... USE IT!

MeDeFe · Post by **MeDeFe** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 3:39 pm

Really, what's the problem here? If there are only 2 people left all and any agreements between players are (or at least should be) null and void, at that point an all-out attack is the only sensible thing left to do.

And the agreement was really only about Tunisia, not a general NAP.

The fact that you left him for last instead of taking the easy route already shows that you're an above-average honourable player.

Dehumidifier · Post by **Dehumidifier** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 3:45 pm

I agree, reguardless of what round the alliance lasted for, its over if he is your only enemy left. However, in the future you could say like "round 8 or until everyone else is gone" just so they can't complain.

Additionally, it is a strategic game and alliance-breaking is simply another tactic, even if you had deliberatly broken the alliance early it doesn't justify negative feedback.

tals · Post by **tals** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 6:28 pm

I think it works both ways, having skimmed the transcript .

2006-09-20 21:22:50 - panzermeyer: I know it is only round 7, but as you are the only one left, bye-bye (next turn)

You did warn him, so I think that was a fair break. That he didn't like it is his problem - the game ultimately only has one winner in a standard game. If you hadn't warned him then not giving a turns grace would have been poor sport - but more than that would seem silly.

That said - possibly not a great idea to specify a turn to end on - you possibly didn't realise the game would take such a quick turn in your favour

Tals

P Gizzle · Post by **P Gizzle** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 6:48 pm

what you might have done was wait for the next round. fortify heavily and wait. or just attack him.

ZawBanjito · Post by **ZawBanjito** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 7:41 pm

Sorry, was this an escalating game? It sounds like it was... in which case, what are you making an alliance until Round 8 for? I've had 6-man escalating games end in Round 5, and a Round 7 end is very common. You should have seen this situation coming and it's your own fault man, because you're panzermeyer... you've been around.

If it was flat rate, why couldn't you have waited one turn? Was the situation that desperate? Had he saved up a billion forces that could have lost you the game if he'd had a chance to use them? He's got a right to be pissed if that's the case. But if you eliminated him that turn it sounds like no, so why not wait?

I don't think you did anything horrible evil, but it sounds like you got impatient and decided to see if you could get away with it. Easy enough to do.

Robinette · Post by **Robinette** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 11:06 pm

I found myself in a similar situation.... and got a neg feedback for it....

So I did a poll: "Should you honor a truce when you can end the game?"
The poll question was worded: "If I have the chance to sweep the board & win..... "

69%.....Forget about any deals; I'm going Kill everybody and take the WIN

10%.....No, a promise is a promise... I'm going to play nice and let someone else win.

20%.....If somebody did this to me, they're getting NEGATIVE feedback for stabbing me in the back.

So only 1 out of 5 would give you neg feedback while 7 out of 10 would do the same thing you did. Hmmmm....
So accept the neg feedback and wear it proudly as a beacon to all that shows you were not only a better player than your opponents, but you understand the game far better than they... perhaps in time they will discover a game more suited to thier personality, like CHUTES and LADDERS

MeDeFe · Post by **MeDeFe** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 3:48 am

Isn't it "snakes and ladders"?