How many people will break alliances?

[Kingof the Apes]

Originally posted by statusperfect
I will always do what it takes to win. And i expect my opponents to do the same.

Exactly. If someone sees they can gain an advantage, they'll take it, unlike the AI.

[statusperfect]

BTW... anyone knows if PtW will have webcam support so i can see my opponents cry when i crush them?

[Trifna]

Depends... If I feel like playing a role, I may be totally loyal or totally machiavellic. But generally, I'd look at the situation and try to keep friends.

[Master Marcus]

It depends "on the situation". I usually break RoP ( 3-4 times per game ), especially when playing at a higher diff level in which "resource denial" is extremly important, otherwise I play relativately fair. I never make MPP, since I don't like being permanently involved in a modern world war, so I guess that my average number of treaties broken per game is quite reasonable for a hybrid builder/casual warmonger.

[Raion]

Well, in this case, the goal is to win the game, so it depends on the type of game.

If someone else does it, then probably all will do it.

Tread carefully, that footprint on your face, means that you been ran over.

Now, with Paint Shop Pro 7 with Animation 3, maybe you all can make flc files of your diplomatic faces and put them in the game. Have to look into that, not sure right now.

But if can, look good!
Poker faces!
Argh faces!
Mad faces!
Happy faces!
Smiley faces!
Crying faces!
Determined faces!

Oh, but then the host of the game would need all your faces. Ah, too much work. Well, maybe someday.

(Smiley goes here!)

[Zero]

i would take a digital cam of my face animation and have fire coming out of my nostril for mad mode. that should carry the message.

Game's objective is to win. if you can win without breaking a treaty, you deserve a cookie. If not, well you should have tried backstabbing!

[N. Machiavelli]

Having a reputation as an honest person is ideal, but alliances truly have a shelf-life....just make sure that *you* are the one determining the shelf life and not your enemy.

[aahz_capone]

Actually I think it is important to look into the faces thing.... If you're on a netwrok and you can voice chat during diplomacy anyway (I assume), then why not video? It would be cool if there is an option to change the faces of the leaders to premade faces of yourself on your computer. This entire concept might need a new thread....

[ChaotikVisions]

I've never had an alliance last, i'm just a horrible person. I consider myself a pre-emptive pacifist, striking back in self-defense ahead of time. And besides, in the end there can be only one, heh.

[introvert]

I will always play fair. i would never once even consider breaking an alliance. You can rely on me to not stab you in the back. Any evidence otherwise is just line noise and can be safely ignored. And that stack of knights which just appeared outside your capital are on their way to attack the guy on teh far side of you, honest.

[Master Marcus]

history shows how often treaties can be broken: just consider France and England from medieval to pre-industrial. We can do the same in Civ III, now the good player is always seeking to force his rival to bear the atrocity of a broken treaty.......but this mostly gives only a moral satisfaction: unless launching ICBMs without warning at the end of a game, making occasionally an atrocity ( like eradicating a captured city ) or breaking occasionally a RoP or MPP has LITTLE IMPACT ( one side effect: difficulty for renegotiating the said treaty for the next 100 turns or so ). The "integrity" system could have been more severe.

[Dis]

I can't see myself ever breaking alliances. It makes the meaning of the word alliance worthless if you do this.

The only option I could see is if I'm allied with the leader and he starts beating up on the little guys and I don't want him to get to powerful.

But even in that situation, I'd probably wait until the 20 turns are up.

[Adagio]

Originally posted by Dissident
I can't see myself ever breaking alliances. It makes the meaning of the word alliance worthless if you do this.

That's how I feel too...Only in very rare situations, I'll break an alliance...I prefer to be honest and lose, than to be called the winning alliance-breaker

[ZargonX]

I think the key to alliances, as I've learned from other games, is make them reasonable. By that I mean that if you just flat out say that you and your ally agree not to attack each other ever, the odds are that at some point in the game, situations are going to change and someone will be sticking something in someone else's back.

However, if you set simple limits, perhaps with renewable terms, you can get out of your deals while not being considered a filthy liar. i.e., maybe a ten-turn non-agression pact, or an alliance so long as your partner doesn't move any forces along your borders. Stipulations are the key, as I see it.

Of course, if you don't mind the stigma, just nuke 'em when they least expect it. In that case, though, I wouldn't expect any help next game...