Making four alliances in a four player game would be tricky, I have to admit, unless you ally with yourself which frankly sounds a bit weird. But talking to the others is surely a good thing? Comming to mutually beneficial agreements is certainly something to aim for, don't you think? I'm not sure how you could hope to win without doing so.

My poem to the public arguement:

Sinews flex and brows flare
The battle of words rage
In anger they declare
its reached the stage
no ground given
no sins forgiven
forever driven
to despair

WO (not thee)

"Unless you ally with yourself which frankly sounds a bit weird."


Are you kidding me... please tell me im the only one that doesnt understand this

And Wilfred---Great Poem! You should post it in a separate thread and put both mine and Octavious's names on it and direct it to this thread. Make sure to add that Octavious comes from a place called............

...

Diplomacy

Well, it trumps Dulce et Decorum Est, I'll give you that

Thanks!

I might make a Warlight poetry post. Encourage others to post!

Anyways, I now think alliances are crud and to never trust anyone

Excellent! I'm glad that's settled to all our satisfaction :D

Night, all!

Well if that's your choice reputation in warlight... then that's just your call.

I might add good luck in future games in Warlight

...they grow up so fast...

No seriously i wish him luck playing warlight the way he does in diplomacy. The multiple alliance thing is going to kick him in the rear one day and on top of that more people will call him out on it. Not a problem at diplomacy though

Last thing I'm going to say is this...

Anyone who makes an alliance or truce be aware and know you can trust this person. Isn't that what an alliance is? And try and steer clear of diplomacy players especially when making an alliance with them because their standards are different and they will betray you. Especially if they make an alliance with you. They will do whatever it takes to win and I know for a fact some warlight players would frown upon this. Octavious himself said they focus on one thing... WINNING. That's just the way they play I guess and that's fine for them. Just be aware and be very cautious if you do decide on a truce or alliance....

The BigPie definition of an ally:

"Someone who will blindly help you into a position of dominance, who will act with good grace when you declare war on him, and will lose after a brief bit of spirited and hopeless resistance whilst declaring to the world how great you are"

The Octavian definition of an ally:

"Someone to work closely with over a number of turns in order to advance both of our chances of winning. A player with whom to discuss plans, chat and joke with during the course of the game. Ideally one's ally will become the final opponent in the last exciting charge to see which of you deserves the victory"

The Octavian definition of a bit of a twit:

"BigPie"

We play for the fun of it, and this fun is maximised when all players aim to win.

Carpe jugulum!

Sir... I believe you have those definitions switched around

I think it´s fairly stupid to trust your opponent as much as you did, Bigpie.

But to make things easier, why not play games without fog and without pms? You´d never need to worry then.

If you agree with my definition of an ally then frankly I have no idea what you're complaining about. Anyone who wishes to look at our game (and to be frank, fun as it was, it's not a classic) will clearly see you, from around turn 23 onwards, building up a huge amount of force along our mutual boarder in preperation for an invasion. Good God, man, but by turn 30 your side of the boarder had 86 visable units compared to my 12!

You were expecting to turn on me after defeating darica and win an easy victory, and you got upset that I wasn't the pushover you were expecting. Simple as.

I told you I was merely defending to border around Europe and Asia. Obviously it wasn't enough i what i was afraid of happening happened. The reason I posted this is because you thought it was a fun game for everyone. You were proud of the win... You didn't win that game legitly. You were playing both sides for 30 turns.

Anytime you make an alliance, you open yourself up to be betrayed. Sometimes making an alliance is a wise strategic move, and sometimes it's not. I've experience both. I understand, BigPie16, how you feel upset that Octavious made alliances with both players and I feel that you are somewhat justified in feeling that, but I don't think you can blame it wholly on him. The game had light fog, so you knew how many armies the 3rd party player was getting, and for quite a few turns you could see that he was putting all of them in territories bordering yours, implying that he was placing none of them in territories between him and Octavious. Realizing that and noticing that Octavious was not advancing on the other player should have tipped you off that something fishy was going on. Now, I'm not excusing him for what he did, as I agree that it was a cheap and dirty trick and is not a win to take pride in... I'm just saying that warning bells should have been going off.

Octavious, I'm just a third party observer, but I don't think you played that game as an ally to BigPie16 as you define it. According to your definition, it is impossible to have 2 allies when there's 3 players left. You cannot work with both of them so that when one is finished, the remaining 2 will not be in the same situation to have "one final charge" to decide the winner. You can't honor your agreement to both, as you will be attacking each to fulfill your promise to the other. I don't think you can say that you were an ally to BigPie16 because you did not work with him to advance his chance of winning as well as your own, but stacked up your armies on both fronts so that you could strike both when the time was right, which you did. BigPie16 was technically your final ally of the game, but when you attacked him, he was not as he was also still combating the 3rd player, so that also contradicts what you define an ally to be. Your argument that he had 86 visible units compared to your 12 is very weak, as you had 109 split between Siberia, China, and India that you could've easily divvied up along your border to surpass his number of "visible units." I agree with BigPie16 in saying you have your definitions mixed up, as you set him and the other player up to help you into a position of dominance and BigPie16 could only put up a brief resistance to you in the end, while doing nothing that you define an ally as. There's more to Warlight strategies than simply making friends with everyone and letting them fight each other while you stockpile your armies and strike when the time is right. Which, by the way, is not a strategy conducive to the overall fun of the players.

But then again, I'm just a third party observer.