Breaking an Alliance/Truce - is it ever ok?

[monkton]

Say you've formed an alliance that's supposed to last 2 rounds. halfway through the 1st round of the alliance, however, you find yourself in a situation where the only other player left on the map is the person with whom you have the alliance. I think it's a given that you should feel free to break the alliance and launch an attack, right?

[AK_iceman]

Well, alliances are made to be broken in a game like this. Its part of the game. As long as you tell the player you are breaking the alliance before you attack him it should be ok.

[AndyDufresne]

Alliances can be broken at any time for any reason. Those who enter an alliance are usually only looking to further themselves and their progress, and it only makes sense to cut the alliance when it no longer becomes a benefit, but a hindrance.


--Andy

[Joe McCarthy]

You dont have to tell him squat, just attack. In fact, alliances are super gay anyway, and are only made gayer if one ally doesn't sneak attack the other. I'd be ashamed to enter an alliance I didnt intend to break.

[monkton]

Yes - I agree with you cats. At the same time, however, I don't want my ability to form alliances in the future to get tougher because the word is going around that I don't honor my alliances. I think most people in the situation I described would agree that an alliance would be, at best, silly and pointless.

Thanks for your 6 cents

[tanar]

Say you want to be known as a person who does NOT eat his words (ie eg break alliancecs)? So be (more) careful not to make any deal in which there is not enough freedom for you to end it - and remember also to expect the unexpected...

A situation like this - your remaining opponent might not agree that "ally" is always against someone, and now that you have no other players, its turned meaningless. If so, it's your reputation vs. some lousy points (depending on how strongly (s)he feels about the alliance, and if keeping the promise really costs you the game).

This is why I may make suggestions, promise not to do something, threaten to do something else, etc. but practically never make a truce.

[sully800]

I don't think its okay to break alliances unless the situation you described comes up. I don't think its okay to agree not to attack each other and then do so anyway when others are left. If the alliance becomes a hindrance then you should wait it out and learn from the mistake you made when forming the truce.

[TuckerCase]

I usually don't find it really needed to form a spelled out alliances, ie "we won't attack until turn 9," or something along those lines. I usually just say something like "I won't attack you for the present, or the foreseeable future, because it's not in my interest," and if it's really not in the other persons interest either they'll take the hint. Or I might say that another player is stronger, and that I won't some other player at present. If you even need to make an alliance, the situation is probably already at least mildly desperate, so the other person is probably in a tight spot, and not looking to waste armies on you. If the situation changes next turn, and you need to attack them, well then that's not the "present" anymore, or the "foreseeable future" so I'm fine.

[Marvaddin]

I broke already an alliance to win the game, but this is a thing I dislike... in fact, Im avoiding make alliances, they are very rare in Dragoons internal games (which Im playing now...)

But, about your question, since its an standard game and there are only 2 players, there is no more alliance, no need to warn: you are enemies now, period. After finish the other guy, in same turn you can attack, this is what I think.

But I disagree with tucker, I dislike pacts this way... So, if I cash a set, he can attack me, when I could attack him and didnt? No, I dont accept pacts like this. That answer and Im going to attack the guy.

[qeee1]

Your alliance was poorly made, and you must suffer either way. Either your reputation suffers, or you lose the game (presumeably).

[D.IsleRealBrown]

An alliance is formed in response to a threat.

Threat gone, alliance over.

Nothing needs to be announced, it's obvious. End of story.

[DavSav]

Yes it is ok. If you want to play teamgames join them. Not saying that you shouldn't go get whomever needs to be attacked, but don't make aliances in singles.

[Joe McCarthy]

I dont know why you guys arent listening to me when Im telling you the right answer. The right answer is that alliances are cool, as long as you intend to stab your partner in the back.

[mightyal]

I wish I'd known earlier

[N0g]

Typically, I'll get asked for an alliance and not see the message until the evening because my laptop at work has a small screen and I don't scroll down far enough. But, it's usually with someone I'd not planned on attacking anyway, so it looks like I agreed to the alliance even though I technically didn't.

Most of the time though, it's obvious who does and does not need to be attacking each other and there is an understood alliance until the stronger foe is no longer in a threatening situation(D.IsleRealBrown's comment reflected this).

Personally, I don't ask for alliances much, if ever, and like Joe said, I would never make one without expecting the other guy to give me the shaft. And if he doesn't feel the same about me, he's being naive.

[Thorhound]

I have only once broken an alliance and have found others to act honorably when in an alliance. While i always plan on having enough forces to repel my partner if he breaks the alliance i wont ever do the breaking. Also I am in a game now where i had a 4 turn alliance with the other guy and on turn 2 we were the only people left. We both kept the alliance until all 4 turns were over because neither of us wanted to start attacking yet ( weird situation ).

Anyway for my 2 cents it is NEVER ok to break an alliance. No matter what. End of story.

[Kenny_Smooth]

you should set some rules on your alliance, like it will last 'til round 9, or it will last 'til some one gets eliminated. that seems to work better.


.

[wcaclimbing]

i like till someone gets eliminated

i hate it when you have s america and you ally with someone and that person gets africa after the alliance is made so your only options are break the treaty or go up against the 10 guys on central america

[Kenny_Smooth]

yeah, i tend to try to make alliances in short bursts. like 2 rounds here. 3 rounds there. then you can review if you like it or not. amd if you do, make it again.


.

[AK_iceman]

yeah, i tend to try to make alliances in short bursts. like 2 rounds here. 3 rounds there. then you can review if you like it or not. amd if you do, make it again.


.

or how about 5 rounds while in the middle of round 1 in a 42 player game?

[Kenny_Smooth]

why do you care. what differance does it make?


.

[boogiesadda]

If you are in an alliance and the game comes to the only two left playing are the ones in the alliance it is a no brainer. Unless you want the game to never end. The point of the game is to eliminate the other players. Yes i think an alliance can be broken at this time. Breaking it at any other time would be dishonorable but in this instance it would be ok