MP-game ettiqutte question...

[KhanMan]

This follows in the same stream as Vespasian's "Hypothetical Situations" threads, with one difference: it describes a situation that happened to me when I was new to MP, and as yet unlearned in the points of ettiquette. IMHO, I made the wrong choice, but I want to know what other people would have done in my shoes.

Situation:
You have been allied with the largest civ since near the beginning of the game. (traded techs, maps, etc.). You are currentl the third largest civ, with your ally (the largest civ) currently winning by a long shot (controlling 1/3 the world, ownly most of the important wonders).

Because the world has mostly been conquered, and all seven human civs are well entrenched, your expanssion oportunities are limited. Your ally's civ, however, has a lightly guarded area along your border.

You have just been approached by the second largest civ, who points out how large a lead your ally has, and asks if you would be willing to join in a foru-human-civ surprize attack at a later point.

What do you do? Support your ally, tell him of the plot, and ensure his victory? Betray your ally, and attack him when the others do? Or sit on the sidelines, and pick off whomever you can? Or would you do something else?


-KhanMan

[Graag]

This situation has come up for me.
I never break allianced unless my ally is not acting as if in an alliance, i.e. refusing tech, never conceeding anything, no trading maps.

So in your scenario I would stick with my alliance. If the civ you are allied with is that strong I suggest you start a war with the nearest civ, or the second largest to take out your best opponent.

Graag

------------------
Summon my Ukrainian antipope!

[rah]

Agreed, if you ally has done nothing to deserve a stab in the back, I would support him. On the practical side, if you stick with him, second place should be assured. Do you think the ally that you betray will forget it in future games? I doubt it.

RAH
Peace treaties are a different animal.
They just mean, not attack now but you never know about later.

[Ming]

I agree with the "boys".

Staying allied with the big dog will never hurt you. There are smaller people to pick on. As pointed out... second place looks like a lock, and you may want him as an ally in the future. Sounds good to me

[KhanMan]

Will do, from now on...

I only hope the one I wronged has had enough time to forgive me by now...since I'm hoping to be back at mp gaming for two weeks, starting this Saturday...

-KhanMan

[My Wife Hates CIV]

Well I disagree. This is not the real world but a CIV world. There is an end game and only one winner. What, am I supposed to just play along while someone else takes the win?? No. If you see a weakness and it's at a point in the game where something must happen (no more room for expansion...) than make your move. The CIV your allied with should know this also and be ready. If they are not than you may not want to be allied with them anyway. Is this back stabbing? I don't think so. If the game never ended than yeah, maybe. Perhaps you could warn your the person your allied with. Give him say a couple of turns. This is being pretty nice IMHO.


But! if your playing with a group that can't forgive and forget from the last game than perhaps you should not attack your allie. IMHO this takes something away from the game.
[This message has been edited by My Wife Hates CIV (edited March 05, 2000).]

[War4ever]

I have to agree with MWHC....... this is a game for winning not second best

There comes a time in all games when the alliance is no longer in your best interest... this doesnt mean three turns into the alliance of course

My time to break an alliance would be when the other civs have been weakened to the point where they are not a major threat anymore......

Now i know this sounds like a typical warmonger..... but thats life and civ.
I recently made the mistake of leaving my self vulnerable and almost payed too dearly with my life..... protect all borders and prepare for the inevitable.... we all know its coming....

If your neighbor is foolish enough to leave himself vulnerable , then launching an offensive is smart and may pull you ahead on the powergraph and in the demographics not to mention city count and such.

To hold a grudge is simply silly unless the alliance is broken in poor taste.... but then again sometimes a little backstab adds excitement.

personally i would never hold a grudge...... my fault if i forget how to defend

And most importantly, keep tabs on your ally, while its great to ride the coatails of the leader, he will eventually turn his sights on you so strike first , strike fast and strike last



------------------
It's clobberin time!!
- The Thing from the Fantastic Four

[Steve Clark]

Trust no one, use alliances to your advantage and play to win.

[Smash]

Working alliances is the funnest part of MP.REAL alliances that is.Where whats mine is yours.Splitting or leapfrogging research.Controlling and sharing wonders like Leo's and SOL(if agreed in advance)Priming cities prior to caravan/freight deliveries.There is tons of stuff that 2 or even 3 can do.Great fun but you must build up a level of trust.Usually thru previous games


this actually happened in a 3 player powergraph game

I make early contact and an alliance is formed with 1.We agree to work together for Monarchy first off.We both had Alpha and were working Laws-coincidence.First to Laws gifts etc.I'm just about to get it and I ask "Do you have Laws yet?"...reply-"no 2 turns maybe 1"
I get Laws and make contact to gift.One problem...Laws is not available to gift.This means they have Laws allready.I switch to the barter menu/knowledge and see they have Burial and Bronze also.Not a good start to an alliance.

What would you do?

------------------
In a MP game I only care about getting a good ally. Nothing else is as important.....Xin Yu

[Eddy]

There can be only one...

[finbar]

Sounds like what I'd call an ex-alliance.

------------------
finbar
Mono Rules!
#33984591

[SlowHand]

That's why your advisor says "Strong and Unhonorable", Steve.

[This message has been edited by SlowHand (edited March 08, 2000).]

[Steve Clark]

Strong and Unhonorable with a win is far better than Supreme and Spotless and not winning.

[My Wife Hates CIV]

I dont play with those who can't forget about a past game. If you only trust based on past games than it's going to be a boring 'lets race through the tech tree building wonders weeeeee' game (gezz, play the AI for that). It's fun to mix it up. If your going to hold it against me for all time to come than forget it.

If I bust an alliance in a game than yeah, treat me like scum for *that* game.

[Garth Vader]

Here's what I would do in that situation, if it is possible. Tell them that you will join in the attack and share battle plans. Don't inform your ally. But instead of actually following through with your part of the plans actually move an invasion force to hit your new "allies". When the time comes to break your old alliance and attack I would assume your new allies would have the bulk of their forces massed against the #1. Since the #1 is ahead by quite a bit I would expect that to be a close fight. While they are slugging it out invade your new allies. You should make good progress since they are using most of their forces elsewhere and you know where that is since you shared battle plans.

This way you get your ally to fight the bulk of their units, while you get the bulk of the territorial gains. You have retained your honor and made a huge leap in the game. Your new allies can't be too upset because they asked you to betray someone, so why is it so hard to imagine you betraying them.