I have seen many players who shamelessly break their word, breaking alliances, or just being outright jerks to get their way. I have also seen players who will stand up for an ally who is doomed, even if it means their undoing. I personally feel that either position is detrimental for strategy, especially in diplo games.

If you go back on your word before endgame, or before a player is beyond saving, you make enemies, and weaken yourself. I have been the player who could be saved, but was turned on by an ally in my time of need, and sometimes, the original aggressor will stop attacking you, so you can do some real damage to your ex-ally before dying, or even work with you, if you bring this up. However, if you're beyond saving, I don't believe it is right to expect an ally to go down with you.

Why should, or shouldn't, we Honour our word?


further questions:

• Should we be expected to hand over our land to our allies in our dying moments?
  
• Should we stop attacking to allow those who have been wronged to get back?
  
• If we give fair warning, is it acceptable to turn on an ally who is otherwise fine?
  
• When do you turn on your partner as you approach endgame? (in other words, at what point do you say, there's basically only two of us, I now have to kill you)
  
• Should you give them warning?
  

Edited 6/1/2015 22:50:01

^ care to elaborate?

if he elaborates he may send you dirty lolis pictures, is that really what you want?

Honour

keep your word until your ally is beyond rescue, but if you know you will not be victorius in the end, keep on honouring it til the end

I mean, you literally changed your username to "Lolicon love <3" and posted somewhat-censored loli hentai on both the Clan Forum and the General Forum... that does do things to your reputation.

And you're probably blacklisted by half of Warlight.

I actually think that there are those who want to honor that they want a motive to live, kind of to exhaust pf yourself.

[added further questions]

Personally, I try to be "honorable" as much as I can. Now, if honoring your alliance would mean that you would die too, it would just be cowardice to back down from a challenge of beating a bigger enemy, and perhaps trying to recruit people to your cause. This, of course, doesn't matter if your ally is going to die in a turn or two anyways.

If you think you can beat your enemy, giving you ally one land, then letting them take their old land back is good.
Not quite sure what this means, but yes.
I personally wouldn't; but I think this is a fine thing to do.
When there is only two of you.
Of course.

It's honor, the majority of people on warlight are American therefore it's honor

Actually, the folk majority on Warlight are not American, therefore it's honour.

America sucks and just because you bloody yanks change the spelling of a word for god knows what reason does not mean we have to go along with it!!

You are not honour bound to help or save someone that you are in an alliance with i rather like to think of alliances as a i won't attack you if you don't attack me thing.

Warlight has some people what will honor their word and some that won't.
...isn't that a more realistic war game...

But eventually, those that do not honor their word eventually get somewhat of a rep or blacklisted or whatever.

About two weeks ago, I knew a player who would break his word so I planned for it. Oops, he got crushed. Then he cried about it in the public chat. Predictable.

Well I'll word it better, the guy who made Warlight is American, the country with the largest amount of "warlighters" is America, and Britain is a vassal of America so we're going to use the damn American spelling. Any questions?
Edit: Scotty could we see the game in question?

Edited 6/1/2015 16:01:40

Should we be expected to hand over our land to our allies in our dying moments?
No. This just sticks a knife in the hard work of the players who defeated you. Unless you're leaving for non-loss purposes, leaving massive tracts of land, in which case you should divide it up fairly to all bordering players.

Should we allow those who have been wronged to get back?
Not unless the person breaking the rules does not repent.

If we give fair warning, is it acceptable to turn on an ally who is otherwise fine?
Yes. They have to be ready.

When do you turn on your partner as you approach endgame? (in other words, at what point do you say, there's basically only two of us, I now have to kill you)
When there's literally just the two of you left, or the only other player is an even closer ally.

Should you give them warning?
Definetly.

I should say that I'm talking exclusively about Diplo's here.

Before I answer these questions I would like to preface that I have NEVER betrayed an ally in any Diplo game I play. I don't play Diplos to win, I play them to have fun, RP, and then VTE. The only way to lose an ally is if the ally attacks me or another ally unjustly or does something else sufficiently douchebaggy.

Should we be expected to hand over our land to our allies in our dying moments?
Not necessarily, but I often do this to preserve the balance of power on a map.

Should we stop attacking to allow those who have been wronged to get back?
Depends, and I think the situation you described is very specific. Usually I will not attack someone without some level of justification in Diplos. In many cases, I have attacked a nation, and then found that they are being eliminated off the map, and then I stopped attacking them, and became friends, gave them some land, etc.

If we give fair warning, is it acceptable to turn on an ally who is otherwise fine?
NO. Not without some kind of justification.
WHY SHOULD PEOPLE ALLY WITH YOU EVER IN THE FUTURE? You could just stab them in the back like last time!
I dont want people to constantly watch their back with me.

This isn't about honor - it's about logic and compassion.

When do you turn on your partner as you approach endgame? (in other words, at what point do you say, there's basically only two of us, I now have to kill you)
I don't. We usually VTE.

But what if you are Germany, it's WW2 and your "ally" is the Soviet Union? And you just finished off France, Poland, Yugoslavia, and Greece?

Edited 6/2/2015 00:42:11

^ stfu, we're talking about warlight, not reality. :P

Edited 6/2/2015 02:40:19

Interesting opinions here.

I have never broken my word however I have made moves in error. I always try to rectify the situation and have even surrendered when it has been very detrimental to the other player.

Should we be expected to hand over our land to our allies in our dying moments?
This should not be an expectation yet it is a possibility. I typically make the decision on a case-by-case basis.

Should we stop attacking to allow those who have been wronged to get back?
If we wronged them, perhaps. If another ally wronged them, no. If a player (including myself) chooses the wrong ally, they must live with the consequences as much as the player who chose the right allies.

If we give fair warning, is it acceptable to turn on an ally who is otherwise fine?
This requires context as eventually you must as per the next question. Fair warning is a matter of respect and I consider it mandatory.

When do you turn on your partner as you approach endgame? (in other words, at what point do you say, there's basically only two of us, I now have to kill you)
Each game is different. I am at the 'endgame' of one now where we predetermined that war will ensue between us when 1.) all other enemies are eliminated or surrendered, 2.) two turns of peace are to follow the first rule, 3.) and we war until the end. I have also played matches where we decide to 'vote to end' since it was a great partnership and we didn't feel the need to beat each other up.

Should you give them warning? Always. The length of warning may vary based on context.