MP-game ettiqutte question...

KhanMan · March 4, 2000, 23:26

This follows in the same stream as Vespasian's "Hypothetical Situations" threads, with one difference: it describes a situation that happened to me when I was new to MP, and as yet unlearned in the points of ettiquette. IMHO, I made the wrong choice, but I want to know what other people would have done in my shoes.

Situation:
You have been allied with the largest civ since near the beginning of the game. (traded techs, maps, etc.). You are currentl the third largest civ, with your ally (the largest civ) currently winning by a long shot (controlling 1/3 the world, ownly most of the important wonders).

Because the world has mostly been conquered, and all seven human civs are well entrenched, your expanssion oportunities are limited. Your ally's civ, however, has a lightly guarded area along your border.

You have just been approached by the second largest civ, who points out how large a lead your ally has, and asks if you would be willing to join in a foru-human-civ surprize attack at a later point.

What do you do? Support your ally, tell him of the plot, and ensure his victory? Betray your ally, and attack him when the others do? Or sit on the sidelines, and pick off whomever you can? Or would you do something else?

-KhanMan

Graag · March 5, 2000, 01:42

This situation has come up for me.
I never break allianced unless my ally is not acting as if in an alliance, i.e. refusing tech, never conceeding anything, no trading maps.

So in your scenario I would stick with my alliance. If the civ you are allied with is that strong I suggest you start a war with the nearest civ, or the second largest to take out your best opponent.

Graag

------------------
Summon my Ukrainian antipope!

rah · March 5, 2000, 03:44

Agreed, if you ally has done nothing to deserve a stab in the back, I would support him. On the practical side, if you stick with him, second place should be assured. Do you think the ally that you betray will forget it in future games? I doubt it.

RAH
Peace treaties are a different animal.
They just mean, not attack now but you never know about later.

Ming · March 5, 2000, 05:08

I agree with the "boys".

Staying allied with the big dog will never hurt you. There are smaller people to pick on. As pointed out... second place looks like a lock, and you may want him as an ally in the future. Sounds good to me

KhanMan · March 5, 2000, 16:37

Will do, from now on...

I only hope the one I wronged has had enough time to forgive me by now...since I'm hoping to be back at mp gaming for two weeks, starting this Saturday...

-KhanMan

My Wife Hates CIV · March 5, 2000, 19:52

Well I disagree. This is not the real world but a CIV world. There is an end game and only one winner. What, am I supposed to just play along while someone else takes the win?? No. If you see a weakness and it's at a point in the game where something must happen (no more room for expansion...) than make your move. The CIV your allied with should know this also and be ready. If they are not than you may not want to be allied with them anyway. Is this back stabbing? I don't think so. If the game never ended than yeah, maybe. Perhaps you could warn your the person your allied with. Give him say a couple of turns. This is being pretty nice IMHO.

But! if your playing with a group that can't forgive and forget from the last game than perhaps you should not attack your allie. IMHO this takes something away from the game.
[This message has been edited by My Wife Hates CIV (edited March 05, 2000).]

War4ever · March 6, 2000, 00:41

I have to agree with MWHC....... this is a game for winning not second best

There comes a time in all games when the alliance is no longer in your best interest... this doesnt mean three turns into the alliance of course

My time to break an alliance would be when the other civs have been weakened to the point where they are not a major threat anymore......

Now i know this sounds like a typical warmonger..... but thats life and civ.
I recently made the mistake of leaving my self vulnerable and almost payed too dearly with my life..... protect all borders and prepare for the inevitable.... we all know its coming....

If your neighbor is foolish enough to leave himself vulnerable , then launching an offensive is smart and may pull you ahead on the powergraph and in the demographics not to mention city count and such.

To hold a grudge is simply silly unless the alliance is broken in poor taste.... but then again sometimes a little backstab adds excitement.

personally i would never hold a grudge...... my fault if i forget how to defend

And most importantly, keep tabs on your ally, while its great to ride the coatails of the leader, he will eventually turn his sights on you so strike first , strike fast and strike last

------------------
It's clobberin time!!
- The Thing from the Fantastic Four

Steve Clark · March 6, 2000, 16:01

Trust no one, use alliances to your advantage and play to win.

Smash · March 6, 2000, 16:31

Working alliances is the funnest part of MP.REAL alliances that is.Where whats mine is yours.Splitting or leapfrogging research.Controlling and sharing wonders like Leo's and SOL(if agreed in advance)Priming cities prior to caravan/freight deliveries.There is tons of stuff that 2 or even 3 can do.Great fun but you must build up a level of trust.Usually thru previous games

this actually happened in a 3 player powergraph game

I make early contact and an alliance is formed with 1.We agree to work together for Monarchy first off.We both had Alpha and were working Laws-coincidence.First to Laws gifts etc.I'm just about to get it and I ask "Do you have Laws yet?"...reply-"no 2 turns maybe 1"
I get Laws and make contact to gift.One problem...Laws is not available to gift.This means they have Laws allready.I switch to the barter menu/knowledge and see they have Burial and Bronze also.Not a good start to an alliance.

What would you do?

------------------
In a MP game I only care about getting a good ally. Nothing else is as important.....Xin Yu

Eddy · March 6, 2000, 18:15

There can be only one...

finbar · March 6, 2000, 19:13

Sounds like what I'd call an ex-alliance.

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

March 8, 2000, 08:16

That's why your advisor says "Strong and Unhonorable", Steve.

[This message has been edited by SlowHand (edited March 08, 2000).]

Steve Clark · March 8, 2000, 14:02

Strong and Unhonorable with a win is far better than Supreme and Spotless and not winning.

My Wife Hates CIV · March 8, 2000, 15:26

I dont play with those who can't forget about a past game. If you only trust based on past games than it's going to be a boring 'lets race through the tech tree building wonders weeeeee' game (gezz, play the AI for that). It's fun to mix it up. If your going to hold it against me for all time to come than forget it.

If I bust an alliance in a game than yeah, treat me like scum for *that* game.

Garth Vader · March 8, 2000, 16:33

Here's what I would do in that situation, if it is possible. Tell them that you will join in the attack and share battle plans. Don't inform your ally. But instead of actually following through with your part of the plans actually move an invasion force to hit your new "allies". When the time comes to break your old alliance and attack I would assume your new allies would have the bulk of their forces massed against the #1. Since the #1 is ahead by quite a bit I would expect that to be a close fight. While they are slugging it out invade your new allies. You should make good progress since they are using most of their forces elsewhere and you know where that is since you shared battle plans.

This way you get your ally to fight the bulk of their units, while you get the bulk of the territorial gains. You have retained your honor and made a huge leap in the game. Your new allies can't be too upset because they asked you to betray someone, so why is it so hard to imagine you betraying them.

War4ever · March 8, 2000, 19:19

Surprisingly the back stab is a no no in civ
however, like i stated before and like Steve and MWHC..... alliances are only for so long , and after that anything goes

KhanMan · March 10, 2000, 03:02

Garth-Unfortunately, I was in no position to attack anyone else by land, except for my original ally. This, and the fact that I had a fairly small navy, but a descent army, led me to the mistaken belief that Makeo would be easy prey...of course, since one of my "new" "allies" turncoated to his side, I guess I deserved the beatdown that followed...

War-That's my new mp motto: alliances are forever, or at least until mutually decided to terminated...

-KM
Thrice dead my Makeo's Aztec-horde...long life the Greek losers!

March 10, 2000, 06:25

K - Have you just been playing Makeo or is that an old game? Where is the bugger?
Still in the States, I know, but is he MP civving??

------------------
*THE DEITY*
#8388924

March 10, 2000, 12:36

So what's being said is many consider alliances that exist only as long as it benefits them, and regardless of number of past transgressions involving trust, don't consider that in future games.

I want what you're smoking.

KhanMan · March 10, 2000, 16:07

Iadkins-I have no idea what's up with Makeo...I think SmartFart mentioned him leaving a while back...

The game I played was almost exactly one year ago...my first three mp games, I died by Makeo's hand after some form of betrayal, trickery, or shady conduct. After that, I decided to take time off to strategize, and plan my moves and views more carefully...

In the game I mentioned, though, I must say I was somewhat of a spiteful loser...after Makeo rebribed the city I took, he hit my two border cities with 20+ cannon, rolled over them. Next turn I gave all my cities but the capital to my strongest ally, the vikings...unfortunately, they restarted...would have been interesting to see Makeo cope with a true three-front-war...

KhanMan the reformed

inca911 · March 11, 2000, 01:59

Every war, treaty, and alliance should have a purpose or else why engage in any of them? The current purpose of your alliance is to guarantee someone else wins the game--that doesn't quite sound right to me! An alliance is only as strong as the fear of retribution that may occur if you break it. If you can take some cities from your main rival, and not get too beat up--go for it! The only thing you have to lose is second place!

If you have been allied with the #1 civ throughout the course of the game and you are not close to being his equal, you should have dumped the alliance a long time ago and allied with some lower civs to break his power base.

Perhaps you can prepare a plan with the other civs to destroy his ship and still win the space race? With 2 difference civs using all their production to make howies/dips for a siege of his spaceship city, you should have an OK chance of burning it. Then you and #2 can fight out the space race. Besides, if you can get a few cities from him, the playing field should become a lot more level.

March 11, 2000, 06:23

he he LOL

I beat Makeo in my first ever MP game.
There is a thread for this game but basically we played a game with Kingar (& Raz too) where Kingar and I are allies. We tricked Makeo into believing that we were into a space race. Kingar was genuinely only interested in this but I was quietly amassing a big army of vet howies etc

Once Makeo launched his SS I made out that his capital must be attacked to stop the SS.
He hastily attacked both Kingar's and my capital and took them in AD907, I think (2x1x). He was showing off!!

I was a newbie in MP and he was an old hand!

Even though he had SoL he went into anarchy for ONE turn, long enough to bribe back my 3 cities along with all his units and after offering an ultimatum for him to give HIS capital in return for the destruction he wrought on us (which he refused of course!) I launched into full scale attack and wiped out his Aztecs by AD915

2 years before arrival on AC!

Kingar and I are still continuing with this game by PBEM.
I'm wiping out the AI while Kingar builds a SS.

GREAT GAME. MY FIRST MP.
So, I learnt heaps in that game and have since honed my skills. Thanks to Makeo I've become quite a strong player now.

------------------
*THE DEITY*
#8388924

March 11, 2000, 20:17

Inca, and others.
If you were allied with the strongest nation, I'm sure reaped benefit from this association. Then the time comes when you decide to discount the alliance.
You deserve the thrashing you may well receive.

Vespasian · March 16, 2000, 01:20

I usually wouldn't get into this situation, as I usually follow the Metternich Method of Diplomacy, using smaller states to band together against behemoths.

However, were I in your position, I would pretend to go along with the plan, confer it with my ally, and launch a massive raid against various points they have been developing for war. It's risky, using your resources in such a way, but the greatest fighters have also been gamblers.

------------------
"On ne peut pas apprendre la chance si on n'est pas hardii."-Napolean

KhanMan · March 16, 2000, 03:27

Vespasian-While that would have worked under different circumstances, the geography of that game made it next impossible. No one had anything past tremeres, as far as naval techs went, and we were basically at the cannon-rifleman-dragoon level for armies.

The positioning was bad too. The metaphor would be Norther Scotland, Wales, and Cornwall attacking England. (or Californian, Florida, Alaska and Maine taking on the rest of the US): we could all attack Makeo, but shared no common land borders amongst ourselves...

Also, if I tried to take the Vikings (the nearest human civ besides Makeo) down, it would have failed horribly...there was enough no-mans-land in between Makeo's Aztec Empire and the Vikings (under ariitea, if memory serves me right?) that I would have been slaughtered...

Anyway, just thought I'd share that...

-KhanMan the paranoid expansionist