[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/viewtopic.php on line 1091: Undefined array key 0 [phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/viewtopic.php on line 1091: Trying to access array offset on null [phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/viewtopic.php on line 1098: Undefined array key 0 [phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/viewtopic.php on line 1098: Trying to access array offset on null [phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/viewtopic.php on line 1098: Undefined array key 0 [phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/viewtopic.php on line 1098: Trying to access array offset on null Treaties and NAP's (ignore the last one I posted) - Conquer Club
In a recent game it was suggested that I broke a NAP. I was accused by a player who wasn't even included in the NAP. In the game chat I had offered a NAP (the sentence ending in a ?) which was not taken since I received no reply. I believe if no reply is made then there is no treaty to break. Surely this is fair enough.
Even so it got me thinking about NAP's and alliances in general.
Is it ever justifiable to break an alliance?
Should you agree to an alliance with an intention of weakening your ally and thus launch a killer blow?(ie. Hitler-Stalin pact)
I think under certain condition alliances become redundant anyway ie. If both members of alliance are the only remaining players left and 3 turns left of the treaty to play.
I picked option 4 as I think they are reprehensible....
However, many folks that make them break them in a heartbeat for an advantage (I liked your option three!).....I can think of 4 or 5 people on my Ignore list I have seen do this.
Make em, break em, its war, eh?
"Gypsy told my fortune...she said that nothin showed...."
under certain circumstances, but i would given at least 1 turn notice. The reason for breaking the treaty would simply probably be because I have the advantage.
KoolBak wrote:Bishop - Non Aggression Pact...essentially an alliance.
Not necessarily, I've had non agression pacts that have applied to only one territory or border, but due to the progress of the game we ended up attacking each other all over the rest of the map. An alliance implies working together for a common aim, such as taking down the strongest player. An NAP applied to the whole map is still different from an alliance in that respect, but not by much.
Frigidus wrote:but now that it's become relatively popular it's suffered the usual downturn in coolness.
I try to be as good-willed as possible ... often it means I get attacked first. But usually I try to consolidate a position to try to take advantage while still in treaty.
Also, "under certain circumstances" - but not necessarily with a 1 turn notice!
There's only one situation where I'll break a treaty without a one turn notice. If a person has almost been wiped out, I'll finish the job off to get the cards. I figure if they'll be wiped out anyway that round, it doesn't matter who does it.
Obviously, if I know they'll trade in a set and be able to get a good position, I won't take them out.
Bishop wrote:There's only one situation where I'll break a treaty without a one turn notice. If a person has almost been wiped out, I'll finish the job off to get the cards. I figure if they'll be wiped out anyway that round, it doesn't matter who does it.
Obviously, if I know they'll trade in a set and be able to get a good position, I won't take them out.
In that situation I usually ask the player...
Frigidus wrote:but now that it's become relatively popular it's suffered the usual downturn in coolness.
when you play risk in person,diplomacy and treaties are more important than actually playing. It makes for a fun and intellectual game. That's the one thing I don't like about playing here is nobody even discusses treaties and diplomacy, and when you suggest them people either ignore you, get mad and attack you, or scoff about you needing help to win. This site is great but, I wish people would play on a higher level every once in a while
Been on the recieving end of treaties/nap between my opponents, real great fun in a standard game trying to fight of two or more people that refuse to attack each other If they want team work why don't they stick to double/triple games.
Blackadder wrote:Been on the recieving end of treaties/nap between my opponents, real great fun in a standard game trying to fight of two or more people that refuse to attack each other If they want team work why don't they stick to double/triple games.
I concur. If I'm playing a free-for-all game, I'd prefer it remain that way. Those who wish for teammates have modes to cater to their desires, so why shouldn't lone wolves be able to have the same?
NAP's are only effective if it's on one or two borders. Anything more than that is too restrictive to your movements around the board because the other player could essentially cut you off from entering a weakened continent. It is also my opinion that if any time your NAP partner attacks the continent from a different position, it breaks the NAP and you are free to attack at will. The entire point of an NAP is for both parties to keep their bonuses with little to no fortification on their common border.
In my first World 2.0 game (private game) I had the Far East subby and another player tried to take China because it would lessen the hold points for the Indian subby. He didn't take it but weakened me to a point where I could no longer hold the FE subby. I PM'd the player and asked for a NAP but he declined, saying he didn't want to fight with me and was moving towards Europe. He told me to feel free to take the Indian subby. I felt this was a trap as he was just wanting me to overextend myself before he took China, and possibly the FE subby once I had thinned out my forces. So I simply used a 3 card mixed set plus the bonuses to fortify China and got a card attacking elsewhere. Basically I let him keep the Indian subby and sure enough he went into Europe. Over the next 12 turns I continued to let him keep the Indian subby as it served MY purpose to have him spread himself out thin while drawing attention from the rest of the players. Then someone accused us of a secret alliance and he moved his massive forces from Oceania into position to attack. I knew at that point I was done for so I moved my forces through India, ME and into Africa. It didn't help as I wiped off the board in about 5 more moves. Point of this story is if someone declines an NAP, then attack him and take the territory before the entire board decides to attack you for a supposed secret alliance.
There is no luck, only preparation and execution.
Alliances are for the weak, whimpering masses looking for someone to hold their hand through the storm.
i can't stand them. i think they go against the ideals of them game. there can only be one winner (unless you're playing deuxes or trips) but you make a treaty anyway? i understand they're a part of the game, so i use them when i have to. but i would never break a treaty. i am a man of my word.
But usually I try to consolidate a position to try to take advantage while still in treaty.
