Reply to Thread
Return to thread view
Return to main page

Forum: GW General
Thread: Alliance Etiquette
Post by: Three Finger Sally(164235)
2007-02-28 12:42:41

I'd like to get opinions on the etiquette of Gangwar alliances. Specifically:

Is it ever ok to break a formal alliance?

Is it ever ok to break an informal treaty?

For the scoring games, should there be a point where, when only an alliance is left, the lesser allies have a right to break the alliance and fight for better scoring position?

My opinion is this... It's always ok to end an alliance with the agreement of both parties. I don't think you should ever be permitted to end an alliance with a surprise attack. I'd never ally with a player who did that again. I'd be more forgiving if an ally gave me three turns notice.

In fact, I'd forgive almost any ally who turned on me with three turns notice. Anything less than that would give me heartburn.

I'm torn on the scoring game problem though... In 570 right now, my two allies are in second and third, and they'd like a shot at the title. But it's not in my interest to give them permission to back out. It can't turn out any way but bad for me... At the same time, I feel like they deserve a shot. I allied with Baldone in 540, and ended up playing second fiddle, though I did win one category.

So, should Red and BigB have to tough it out? Or should I give them a shot at number 1?
Post by: mob(23502)
2007-02-28 13:06:28
"My opinion is this... It's always ok to end an alliance with the agreement of both parties."

I would agree.

I don't agree with a gang giving three days notice that they are going to turn on you. Personally that would just piss me off to no end and I would never ally with them again.

Weren't you in top spot in 570 all along? I think that you deserve the win and your allies should support you. Who says they can't make a run for top spot in money or strength?

How about dirty tactics? Like the good ol' land grab where your ally hedges you in so you can't beat them in the blocks catagory! Or securing all the insta-cash one blockers. Or the best one -- going behind your back and getting another gang to attack you!
Post by: Shalimar(257353)
2007-02-28 21:36:50
Personally, I would rather finish 2nd, 3rd, etc. than break an alliance for a chance at catching the leader. Being on the winning team is still an achievement (though you do have to eliminate everyone who wasn't in your alliance to make it truely mean something).

As for your situation, you were always the stronger player in 570. IMO you could have picked Fragal or Crusty or Baldone as an ally and still been in first, they couldn't have picked anyone other than you and kept their current positions. Let them fight it out (after you get rid of the losing gangs) for one of the categories if you want, but you earned the win.
Post by: Doug the Designer(55)
2007-03-01 00:21:25
Active alliances, IMO, can be broken upon agreement by both parties. I have attacked a formal ally on one or two occasions, but only when they failed to keep their end of an agreement (i.e., they abandoned the game with enemy blocks inside their territory.), and only after I bugged them for a week to do their friggin job.

If your ally abandons the game, that's different. I think if taking their blocks could help you secure a win, and it is clear that they are no longer playing, go for it.

I definately would never ally again with a player that betrayed a formal alliance.

Informal treaties? I always keep my word, although it is clear that some out there do not (as evidenced by game 570 - you know who you are). Crusty French Bastards do not forget a slight.

I'm all for non-violent intra-alliance tactics. Your allies should have a chance to out-smart you non-violently.
Post by: bear88(119403)
2007-03-01 00:40:33
I agree that breaking an alliance shoul ONLY be done with both parties agreement however should only be done because your ally is inactive or not holding up an agreement. I do not think that an alliance should be broken simply because th egame is ending to get more blocks for the end result. That is a player's responsibility to play the game to get an advantage when the smoke clears without turning on your allies

Now the thing I do have a problem with is the idea that players who make a NAP, or non aggression pact, think that that means an alliance. A NAP is just that an agreement, temporary that those players will not attack one another at that time. Now preferably I feel that prior to attacking the other a message should be sent telling them that the NAP is no longer. But for a surprise attack it is unethical to attack but not wrong. I think it is a waste of aps for that player who adds another with a NAP as an ally, annoying actually, kind of like the players who add you in the start of a game without asking...
Post by: Three Finger Sally(164235)
2007-03-01 06:25:27
For Non-Aggression Pacts, I've always stated upfront what the conditions for breaking them would have to be. I'm big on the three turns notice thing again...

I've a follow-up question: If you're allied with two other players who are not allied with each other, do you have any obligation to defend one of them if the other one of them attacks?

To clarify: I'm allied with A and B. B attacks A. I can't defend A without breaking my alliance with B. Do I owe it to A to defend them?

Post by: Shalimar(257353)
2007-03-01 10:49:58
The allies-who aren't-allied-with-each-other situation is extremely tough. I don't think there is an obligation to help A, but my feeling is that I would rather get killed than let an ally get killed and if that means unallying with the dominant ally (with notice) and fighting with the weaker ally even though both of us die as a result, then so be it.

Of course, the real lesson here is never enter into potentially conflicting alliances and you won't have an ethical dilemma to figure out. In fact, I really wish someone would kill me in 580 so I don't have to worry about it again.
Post by: mob(23502)
2007-03-02 14:39:32
In regards to 'A' vs. 'B' my obligation is to my first (primary) ally, 'A'. I will not ally with 'B' without letting 'A' know about it first. Depending on the situation I may or may not let 'B' know about 'A' right away. This may cause some hard feelings for 'B' but when it comes to information about alliances you can never be too careful! Isn't that right, Doug? ;-)

Players may try to jockey their way into a better position by adding allies as the game progresses but I think that as long as you are true to your main ally(s) no one can fault you. Consider that 'B' (or 'C' or 'D') might be choked that you can't/won't assist him/them in a war against 'A' but they should realize that future alliances with you are viable because of your loyalty.
Post by: Doug the Designer(55)
2007-03-04 01:26:02
If two of my allies fight, they fight. Nothing I can do about it. Let the best ally win.
Post by: mob(23502)
2007-03-17 09:13:33
Would you run interference for one ally over another?
Post by: Rabid(15955)
2009-12-09 19:52:26
blah blah blah! it's a strategy game about hardened criminals,they always want the top spot whether it's f**king an ally or enemy,play the game as a criminal,think like one,"there can be only one" lol
Reply to Thread

Total Users: 581
Total Forums: 20
Total Threads: 2107
Total Posts: 21819