I've been faced with this dilemma before and have always just not bothered to pursue the alliance but I'm just curious what you think.
It is obvious that any unannounced alliance is strictly forbidden. However, what is the opinion of initiating an alliance in confidence and then announcing it to the board when it is official?
My point is, the mere suggestion of an alliance can cause an non-included person to retaliate even if the alliance is never agreed upon. It would be nice to test the waters privately before continuing in the board chat.
It really doesn't need to be an alliance as much as a one turn agreement or some such.
you can pm people asking for alliances, just make sure that before anyone makes a move you tell them the exact conditions in the alliance in the game chat
Regardless of the rules, it is my opinion that alliances should be PROPOSED in the "in-game chat area". This is what i always do.
If someone asked me for an alliance via PM, i would declare it in the "in-game chat area" whether i agreed to it or not.
By following my protocol, all negotiation is out in the open and there can be no accusations of cheating.
NB: There is a second advantage of this method. If an alliance is agreed upon, there is a record for all to see as to what has been agreed upon, should subsequent arguements over the location/time length/etc of the truce occur. It also ensures that no omissions occur when informing the other players of the arrangement.
True, but they aren't visable to the other players. It's just less of a hassle, and you don't wind up with dumb pointless accusations of secret alliances or being a multi.
I had really bad experiences with alliances so far. One player broke truce and attacked me in same round. That wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't his idea that we announce end of truce one round before we attack. So, next time I'll think twice when someone propose truce.
prestige wrote:I had really bad experiences with alliances so far. One player broke truce and attacked me in same round. That wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't his idea that we announce end of truce one round before we attack. So, next time I'll think twice when someone propose truce.
In the end, all of this comes down to a gentleman's agreement between all the players involved. When an alliance is made, the only thing really holding the player to the alliance is his word, and vice versa for the other player. We have nothing more than our word that we will not make secret alliances behind the other players' back either. Unfortunately, the internet, and almost every site is drowned in players who you can't trust and who look for ways around the spirit of competition no matter what the stakes.
I don't think I would even consider an alliance unless it was with someone I was familiar with and had some semblance of trust with.
I do not think there is anything wrong or illegal about someone making an alliance offer through the pm system just as long as the proposal is repeated in the Game Chat as soon as it has been agreed upon in pm land, so that it can be made official and publicly known to other players of the game.
As far as knowing who to make alliances with and who not to, feedback is always a good place to start before agreeing to or proposing an alliance with another. Obviously, you wouldn't want to enter into an alliance with someone who has a reputation for deception and betrayal. In the absence of feedback, it comes down to if you've played any prior games with this person and have an idea of their trust value. If that does not exist, then you can simply "roll the dice" so to speak and hope that this person does not violate the terms of the alliance even though it is legal for that person to do it. Some people use betrayal as a tool to gain an advantage over one or more opponents. Just hope it's not you.
I disagree with the posters who view PM's as acceptable. ALL alliance talks should be in the game chat. This gives opposing players the chance to propose counter offers etc. and ensures transparency in all dealings.
In my opinion PMs are unacceptable for any element of game play. All game realted talks should be in the game chat. Including any alliance co-ordination tactics. No alliance should need such a high level of tactical co-ordination. It is enough to state something of the effect of "don't attack me green for 3 turns while we team up on red" rather than a complex set of PMs to the effect of "transfer all troops from your western front to weaken his border while I follow up to break his bonus", why not play doubles if this is what you want?
