Breaking Alliances

[fordhamflash]

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.

[Darkfire001]

There is no protocol Just a terse understanding.

No rules, just do it

[fordhamflash]

Thanks. Obviously, alliances are made to be broken. Just want to make sure there is no unwritten rules.

[Haydena]

There is no unwritten rule, it just may piss em off, and may even result in a grievance by your name, you just have to be careful that breaking an alliance is your only move available...

[fordhamflash]

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.

[Jota]

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.]

[natalinasmpf]

I don't get why breaking an alliance warrants a grievance? It's the good ol Operation Barbarossa backstab.

[fordhamflash]

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.

[wacicha]

i have never broke an alliance course i haven't made one in over 800 games either

[areyouincahoots]

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.

[areyouincahoots]

i have never broke an alliance course i haven't made one in over 800 games either

I've never made an alliance either...lol...i don't work with anyone...unless it's teams

[fordhamflash]

Yes - alliances seem to be tricky and perhaps not worth it.

[Jota]

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]

I'm working it out with him now. A tricky situation indeed.

I appreciate the advise.

[Jota]

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.

[wacicha]

but if it is a team game cahoots will take out her partner just to prove she doesn't allie

[areyouincahoots]

only when my partner tells me to...lol

[areyouincahoots]

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!

[reverend_kyle]

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.

[wacicha]

you should click on the link in cahoots post and visit xigames take a look at the players there that all do not allie some good players alot in top 250 players

[qeee1]

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.

[KoolBak]

I agree with Wacicha; I think qeeeeee-ster is insane;

break away; no rules, no worries - it is no worse than making one in the first place......

[qeee1]

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.

[wicked]

so what you're saying qeee, is that you can't win without help from someone else?

[qeee1]

In certain situations, yes. Not when I'm playing against you though, that's easy.