Alliances

Rasputin · August 18, 2000, 18:44

Just wondering how most people play allainces. Do you ally but then continue to play to win yourself, doing the usual race for the happy wonders and stuff. Or do you use the allaince to setup diferent research trees, perhaps one military nation, one science nation one cash society...

Any thoughts
[This message has been edited by Rasputin (edited August 18, 2000).]

Smash · August 18, 2000, 19:40

Only once have I betrayed an alliance.It was timed powergraph league game.That all or nothing thought pattern that entered my head made me swear off league forever.I felt terrible.
btw-the betrayal was unsuccessful.

Now its all out co-operation.
Leapfrogging.What do we want/need?If you can find someone before Monarchy it will come much faster.
Do we need to shutdown the Great Library?
What wonders do you want?I'll actually help you get them.By gifting tech,caravans'gold whatever.
Do we need to slow someone down abit?

In 1 game alone I gave my ally over 10,000 gold and 20 techs.Sent scores of caravans to his cities.Let him use Leo's and SoL whenever necessary.Wasn't a cheat then.That alliance kept that game going well into "modern" days.Otherwise it was a run-away for 1 civ in particular.

Empress · August 19, 2000, 14:01

I like to ally meaning you work together as one civ. You research one thing on tech tree, I'll research another and we share asap! I never play for myself when am allied but for the team

Hydey · August 19, 2000, 21:07

I think an agreement should be made before the game starts as to whether or not alliance victories count.
If they do then I am happy to be a good boy and work as a team, if not then I suggest you watch your back as it is every one for themselves.

finbar · August 19, 2000, 21:53

<center><table width=80%><tr><td>quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
Originally posted by Wezil on 08-19-2000 12:34 PM
*sigh*

<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></td></tr></table></center>

An oldie but a goodie, huh, Wez?

I've always thought alliances can be of convenience, by agreement, or permanent, by agreement.

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

Smash · August 19, 2000, 22:23

hehehe..I don't mind a no co-operation in your face game either.

Wezil · August 20, 2000, 00:34

*sigh*

------------------
'The absent are always wrong.'

Free the D**d Threads!!

Wezil · August 20, 2000, 10:38

Yeah Finbar, I'm with Mao (the real one not the ACS poser

) on this issue.

Alliances can be for 1 year, 5 years, or ten years.... So long as they don't tie my hands.

Do you guys play team Risk as well?

------------------
'The absent are always wrong.'

Free the D**d Threads!!
[This message has been edited by Wezil (edited August 20, 2000).]

cavebear · August 20, 2000, 11:16

I view a strategic alliance as permanent and cooperative, which is probably why I gravitated to Tribe play so readily.

I enjoy the challenge of forming a coordinated effort to advance through the tech paths, increasing trade safely, and combining playing skills (either different or similar).

------------------
Proud participant in GameLeague...

Proud Warrior of the O.W.L. Alliance...

Rasputin · August 27, 2000, 06:31

I hav eseen many doing the Tech swapping thing to speed up research but not many take advantage of allaicnes by leaving one civ in a lower form of government to do all the attacking while the other allys feed all their money and to them to buy new units. This ally may never attain Spaceship or any great tech heights but will be th eprotcetor of all....