Alliance Ethics

OzzyKP · October 19, 2003, 02:16

This question came up in tonight's HOTW4 diplogame, but has universal MP application.

If you are allied with someone and you want to cancel that alliance, is it ethical for that person to refuse to accept the diplomacy screen and keep the alliance against your will?

rah · October 19, 2003, 04:05

that's why in our games there are no formal alliances so all of them have to be true gentleman's agreements with both sides knowing it can be broken at a moments notice. The agreements are only as good as the players.

But for the record, to me, it seems tacky to deny a diplomacy screen from an a person you have an agreement with.

atawa · October 19, 2003, 11:44

Its a feature thats build into the game so players should be aware of this when making an allience.
There is an easy way around it though, just ask another civ to declare war on that civ.

Ljube · October 19, 2003, 18:36

First, I didn't make the alliance with you.
I made it with winzity.

Second, I didn't think you would try to exploit the alliance mechanics. That's just too easy and unfair, especially in this type of game.

Third, nobody wanted to help me cancel the alliance.

Rasputin · October 20, 2003, 01:21

more info needed please...

but in general i would say , especially in a dipl ogame, no diplomatic requests should be denied.

deity · October 20, 2003, 08:00

Yeah, I've come around to this way of thinking too - especially for a diplo game. I thought that the Revolt thing would work but apparently not. Learn something new everyday.

Anyway, In this diplo which is focussed on negotiations (that could just as easily occur in icq where this restriction does not apply) I vote that FA negotiations be allowed to occur.

Ljube · October 20, 2003, 10:03

For not helping me out when I needed it the most I place thee, deity at the top of my must kill list!

atawa · October 20, 2003, 16:40

Quote:

Originally posted by ljcvetko
First, I didn't make the alliance with you.
I made it with winzity.

No mate, you made it with the leader of the Tartars. And as in all gouverment succesions there will always be a shift in politics under a new goverment.

Quote:

Second, I didn't think you would try to exploit the alliance mechanics. That's just too easy and unfair, especially in this type of game.

Exploiting the game mechanics, including this one, is all part of the game beyond newbie level. I heared nobody mentioning it was against the rules, being someone who usualy plays for points I took that as a 'yes its allowed'.

I asked for a vote on it myself but no vote was ever taken, another sign that there wasn't a majority for disallowing this loop in the game.

Finaly I contacted you and the alliance was dissolved, but had I not waited you would have taken 3 undefended city's.
I dont expect someone I'm allied with to declare war all of a sudden. If you do you'll be sure I will do everything in my power to make sure you dont get away with it.
Unless it is against the rules of this game witch it clearly wasn't.

Quote:

Third, nobody wanted to help me cancel the alliance.

They could have easily done this but didn't. I think the ones who are now saying I was in the wrong are more to blame but me.

ljcvetko,nothing personal, just rollplaying the Tartars wanting to get back to their homeland on the Krim. King sub felt this was not even a fair compensation for the Serb settlement in the dessert witch clearly llies in our sphere of influence. When even that was denied the Tartar settlers decided instead to found on the closest river they found.

atawa · October 20, 2003, 16:42

Quote:

Originally posted by ljcvetko
For not helping me out when I needed it the most I place thee, deity at the top of my must kill list!

Thats the spirit

Ljube · October 20, 2003, 20:10

Quote:

Originally posted by atawa

No mate, you made it with the leader of the Tartars. And as in all gouverment succesions there will always be a shift in politics under a new goverment.

This shift in politics is going to cost the Tartars dearly. Unless they surrender Uppsala and Subotica to the Serbs, there is not going to be peace between us. I wonder if winzity is going to be pleased with the way you handled the foreign affairs in his absence.

Quote:

Originally posted by atawa

Exploiting the game mechanics, including this one, is all part of the game beyond newbie level. I heared nobody mentioning it was against the rules, being someone who usualy plays for points I took that as a 'yes its allowed'.

I asked for a vote on it myself but no vote was ever taken, another sign that there wasn't a majority for disallowing this loop in the game.

The people didn't know what was going on. Some of them (deity and he is going to pay for it) simply enjoyed the spectacle. You see from the comments in this thread that you shouldn't have used the alliance to plant a city in the middle of my territory like that.

Quote:

Originally posted by atawa

Finaly I contacted you and the alliance was dissolved, but had I not waited you would have taken 3 undefended city's.
I dont expect someone I'm allied with to declare war all of a sudden. If you do you'll be sure I will do everything in my power to make sure you dont get away with it.
Unless it is against the rules of this game witch it clearly wasn't.

I don't expect someone I'm allied with to break all agreements between us all of the sudden. Nevertheless, that happened precisely. Unfortunately, you are going to get away with it because winzity is going to take over again in the next session.

Quote:

Originally posted by atawa

They could have easily done this but didn't. I think the ones who are now saying I was in the wrong are more to blame but me.

They simply didn't care for my problems.

Quote:

Originally posted by atawa

ljcvetko,nothing personal, just rollplaying the Tartars wanting to get back to their homeland on the Krim. King sub felt this was not even a fair compensation for the Serb settlement in the dessert witch clearly llies in our sphere of influence. When even that was denied the Tartar settlers decided instead to found on the closest river they found.

Your actions have pushed Serbs into war with the Tartars until the bitter end. The desert city was arranged with former king of Tartars. It is very unusual for a country to cancel all treaties signed by previous rulers. Such countries can never be trusted again.
About the settlement on Krim, I warned you that my cities were already very close because I left much space to the Tartars for their expansion. Another city in that area would have denied all food to my other cities nearby. You ignored my pleas, which isn't something an ally would usually do, and headed right for the heart of Serbia. The mess you made cannot be described with words.

OzzyKP · October 20, 2003, 21:51

Just so you know Mingy, I didn't intend for this to be an additional HOTW4 thread, I hoped all players would discuss this point as it is applicable to all games.

OzzyKP · October 20, 2003, 21:53

and Ljube, if you are gonna go on a war rampage over this (and I strongly recommend otherwise both for tactical reasons and because thats just not fitting for the game) don't forget who was arguing your case the whole time.

rah · October 21, 2003, 08:28

It would be hard to have a discussion of the ethics involved here without a discription of the situation that prompted the initial question.

It does show that agreements can be viewed differently, especially by subs, and that you have to be able to back up your agreements with might. I can remember making border agreeements only to see a player encroach farther than I intended but still technically behind the line (but using squares that my cities could reach) That has been known to make me rethink the agreement and resort to acts of agression. (which always seem to work best on surprise.

)

It does seem that another diplo game is going to decided by the sword and not the pen. I won't be that surprised if that's what happens.

Rasputin · October 21, 2003, 09:15

subs are the biggest problem with diplo games, and the palyers really need to work this sort of thing out. jsut becuase certain players push through a session at al lcosts and insist on subs or even worse AI in control a few dipl ogames have gone down hill.

I think a revaluation of the whole process needs to be looked at

rah · October 21, 2003, 10:57

The answer is, to not play unless all players are present. But having organized many many games over the years, I know the problems associated with that. Unfortunately it's why we usually end up playing one night stands.

atawa · October 21, 2003, 12:11

Quote:

Originally posted by ljcvetko

This shift in politics is going to cost the Tartars dearly. Unless they surrender Uppsala and Subotica to the Serbs, there is not going to be peace between us. I wonder if winzity is going to be pleased with the way you handled the foreign affairs in his absence.

We allready exchanged city's with you gaining Krim II and Sigtuna for Subotica.

At the time you were ok with this and now that you realised you wasted a couple hundred shields on building useless crooks you decide you want 2 more city's????

I thought I made sure Winz could take his civ back unharmed and a lot stronger then when he finished the last session. If I had known that I wouldnt have traded at all and your crooks would have died attacking the fortified/river/forrest pikes in Sigunta...........

Quote:

The people didn't know what was going on. Some of them (deity and he is going to pay for it) simply enjoyed the spectacle. You see from the comments in this thread that you shouldn't have used the alliance to plant a city in the middle of my territory like that.

Were they asleep????

And seeing that you did the same thing by stealing a good spot with whale/oil and oasis whats the point?

Quote:

I don't expect someone I'm allied with to break all agreements between us all of the sudden. Nevertheless, that happened precisely. Unfortunately, you are going to get away with it because winzity is going to take over again in the next session.

Reading the above one could say you got away with it

Quote:

The mess you made cannot be described with words.

Tarters shifted the balance of power, they came out stronger while the Serbs lost a lot of ground.

And if I were you I wouldnt decide on an all-out war as the only city you can destroy in the next session is Uppsala.

Shame I cant play this civ in next sessions

Ljube · October 21, 2003, 13:19

If the Tartars don't surrender Uppsala and Subotica to compensate the Serbs for their loss of shields, we shall not stop until Trondheim is burned to the ground.

You can still be in the next session if winzity agrees.

And yes, since I have so many crooks I might as well use them. However, I'll refrain from doing so for those two cities. I insist on that for the protection of my civ, for I can never trust the Tartars again.

And I have learned treachery in your school.

OzzyKP · October 21, 2003, 17:46

Y'all should roleplay this conflict and put it in the story thread.

Rasputin · October 21, 2003, 21:06

guys guys, settle down, take this away from this debate on how alliances and subs do things to the story thread.....

as for alliances i too am stuck with some in the current game i didnt make, my sub did it for me. He never asked me for any advice he just did it, and now i have to live with it. its a pity that no emails were sent to get a overall plan from me. but at least the game went on.

Frank Johnson · October 21, 2003, 23:32

I think alliance's shouldn't be used to commit actions that'd be considered "hostile" like this one.

But that's one reason I haven't exactly pressed my allies for exact boarders yet. Maybe its just my position.

In the future I think for my civ itself I'll try to avoid the "strategic" alliance and instead make specific defensive (or offensive >

) pacts clear with players as neccessary. I suggest you guys do the same.

deity · October 22, 2003, 08:07

I'm just catching up with all this

Remember, this is a diplo game with role-playing. Play the role, not the player. Make decisions based on your world story.

We must separate technical issues from game-play... more later....

deity · October 22, 2003, 08:18

I vote that from here on in we must always use the FA when requested. It is diplo and at least a formally cancelled alliance gives some for warning.

During the game I thought that what atawa was doing was not a problem and I don't blame him at all. However the game is full of experienced players who like me didn't fully understand Lubje's problem. It was an honest mistake. No vote was possible because it was not understood. But, during play and with my understanding at that time it would have been absurd for me to ask the Serbs to delcare war on my allies the Tartars. Ozzy could have done it though since he seemed to understand the issue better than me.

OzzyKP · October 22, 2003, 09:46

I had not met the Tartars so I was unable to do that.