Ok, so I was playing a 4 player small earth game. Now I don't generally make an alliance or truce on this map. However, someone with the screen name Octavious thinks that brakes alliances and stabbing your partner in the back is how to win the game, when everyone else knows that is not the case. So I made an alliance with Octavious somewhere in the first 3 turns. After about 30 turns, it was me, Octavious, and a 3rd player. I graciously let Octavious have Asia while I took Europe and Africa. What I didn't know was Octavious wasn't really helping me fight the 3rd player. He was stacking armies behind the border in Asia. Then I found out he was aligned with the 3rd player. Don't get me wrong, this has happened to me before. That is not the reason I'm posting this. After the game Octavious told me that stabbing people in the back is how you win the game. What do you think of this? It's almost like booting someone when they take 5 seconds longer than the boot time. I told him that's not how Warlight works. Is this unfair? I believe winning Warlight games does not require betrayal, but Octavious thinks apparently thinks so. If you are ever in a future game with "Octavious," don't be surprised if he wants an allience. Don't do it... He will be in a allience with everyone at the same time. And if your heart desires, kill him first for thinking that Warlight is about doing whatever it takes to win...


Post replys and tell me what you think about betrayal...

Thanks

I think that as long as it's made clear from the start of the game whether or not alliances are allowed (if there are pms they are), then they should be allowed, and if someone manages to ally with both players while stacking armies then they're playing very well =p
as for backstabbing i find that its a very cheap way to win, and never do it (always at least 1 turn warning)

I'm actually rather looking forward to your replies on this. Truth be told I thought I had played in a rather enjoyable and friendly little game, and was somewhat surprised by BigPie's reaction. Yes, I used deception and stabbed him without mercy, but in a game in which there can only ever be one winner surely all alliances are expected to collapse at some stage? I would understand if alliances themselves were frowned upon, but the breaking of them is a vital part to a game's completion, surely?

My personal view is that the game is best enjoyed when everyone tries their hardest to win, and to not do so is to in effect rob the other players of their enjoyment. I would not waste people's time by refusing to play until the last possible second, for example, nor would I ruin a game of 4 or 6 people by leaving at a crucial time, because I believe this takes the fun out of the game. But a betrayal every now and then (I do not do it every game by any stretch of the imagination, but rather enjoy it when the opportunity arises) surely adds to the fun of the game?

I look forward to your replies :)

Octavious

Think about it though... if he was allied with both of us that means that both of us would think he would be trying to attack the other player. So instead he chooses to stack armies while each of us is thinking that hes attacking the other person. He ended up winning the game and was proud of it. I hate the fact that he thought he won that game legality. And I told him about the warning thing. He said that giving a warning wasn't necessary as long as he won the game... -_-

Oh wow...

So you think that making multiple alliances and having them all crumble because you decided to backstab everyone is fun? How is that in any way fun for other players knowing they wasted 30 min - 1 hour playing a game that was a scam. I can see why that would be fun for you...

In regards to the warning thing, I feel I should point out that I could have given a one turn warning and still won because the stack of armies needed to win had been carefully prapared turns in advance. Indeed, a warning in this instant could almost be considered an insult or gloat and no better than saying "I'm coming for you and there's sod all you can do about it, mwahhahah", or something along those lines.

If a warning is truly all you need to satisfy your values of fairness then I have to confess I don't see the point of them as they are effectively useless.

@BigPie

Do you consider every game you lose a waste? Rather sad, if so.

Basically what Octavious is saying is as long as it's fun for him (because he can win that way) then it should be fun for everyone. At the end of the game he told me it was a fun game. Well how would like to have spent 45 minutes wasting your time on a game. And Octavious, you said you would never try to take the fun out of anyones game. Were you talking about my game, or the other guys game for that matter? And obsolutely not, i don't consider every game I lost a waste. It's a waste if you dont have a chace and you've been played the whole time...


And for the record... Octavious was the one who wanted that allience...

Everyone else please feel free to post

Btw, Octavious follows a similar game called wedDiplomacy. Apparently they have completely different standards than warlight. Alliances are a joke in webdiplomacy. I respect that a different game can have different standards. But I dont think people should bring those standards into a different game. The way I see it, Warlight is the more social, friendly type. webdiplomacy, is focused on one thing and one thing only... winning! (This is coming from what I've read, what I've heard and because of the fact that Octavious himself said so) Once again, I have no problem with this standard, as long as you don't bring it to the game of Warlight. Keep this standards webdiplomacy please. If winning and doing whatever it takes to win ids importent to you, then you should consider webdiploymacy. If you play for fun with a little bit of competition on the side, then stay with warlight.


Every game has their standards... Keep those standard within your own "group"

Could either BigPie16 or Octavious just post a link to the game. Otherwise, I do not think that there is much more to say.

id never think i hear myself say this but im sorta tired or FFA truce threads... but even soo my 2 sense is that in a game that is generally known as a "Free For All" youd think anything goes?

I hear what your saying. Ive been backstabed on too many times and I'm sick of it

Oh, I play Diplomacy for fun, as I do this game. I just believe that more fun is had when everyone strives to win. Diplomacy includes the option to draw, so in some ways can be considered less fundamentally bloodthirsty than Warlight, but the art of making and breaking of alliances is considered a cornerstone of the game and one of the most enjoyable elements.

Both are good games and I would encourage anyone to check out Diplomacy if they have the time. I just see no reason why the cut and thrust nature of Diplomacy can't be applied here as it breaks no rules I can see and seems rather effective. If I am mistaken in this please tell me.

But you do agree that if someone wants to make an allience they would honor that... Not to sound too goody goody but is there any trust in this game anymore?

I trust each player to act in their best interests and not to cheat. To ask for any more or less than that strikes me as being unreasonable.

i think Octavious is right when he says in an ffa truces will always fail, but i also think you should tell the person and give them a notice a turn in advance.

Oh believe me i am always prepared for any act of betrayal

How about making multiple alliances and sitting back stacking up armies... hows that for fair gameplay. But that's how they do it a diplomacy

It's not really... We have far fewer armies and all are clearly visable at all times.

A question on this "turn in advance" warning idea. In our game (sorry... don't know how to post a link to it) the act of betrayal was a slow build-up of armies out of sight but close to our boarder. This betrayal became obvious when I moved my armies up to our shared boarder, but naturally this involved no physical invasion during that turn. Does that not count as a "fair" warning by your one turn definition? If not how many turns would be required to be fair warning for an army too big to be stopped?

Hang on... maybe I do...

http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer.aspx?GameID=3270090