...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.

I appreciate this well thought through post. I'm not as upset that Octavious did what he did, i'm more upset that he thought he won that game by basically sitting back while his two allies went toe to toe. Believe me, I have use that stockpile strategy as a lost resort. I have to once don't that to an ally. When i make an alliance i tend to keep it... otherwise game on! He plays in webdiplomacy and there way of winning is to backstab once you have the other persons trust. Octavious is one of many that is how i would define "a dirty player." But being proud of the win is just pathetic...

The never ending saga.

Wilfred it's slowing down and I think Octavious has given up

Its not about winning. you both lost this

Good Lord, is this still going on?

I feel I should clarify something to Maugrim. BigPie was never my ally. He could have been. I gave a genuine offer early in the game which he declined. After that point my strategy was to simply eliminate him and the 2nd offer of an alliance was a simple deception in order to achieve this. My only true ally in the game by my definition was Darica, who ironicly stabbed me at one point (which at the time was a good move and for which I congratualte him).

@ Wilf

Sorry, but I don't get your meaning. We had an enjoyable game followed up by this enjoyable debate. In what sense did we lose? It would have been nice if I could convert BigPie to my way of thinking, which I firmly believe leads to a more competitive, more complex, and more importantly a more entertaining game. BigPie calls me a dirty player, which as I break no rules, complete orders on time, and always play to the end seems a tad unfair... but this his right. As it is also his right to get upset over whatever he wishes. Ideally this would not be the case, but it is very much not my problem.

I may add a poem of my own to your thread later... It may not quite match the quality of Baldrick, but it will be original :)

I would rather suggest neutrality between the players. I mean, in a FFA game when two enemies make an alliance they can't commit orders like allies can (transfer, airlift,...) and (if there's fog) they can't see what's happening on each others borders so that you can have a view of some sort in which you can roughly estimate the situation of what's going on in the game so basically they're nothing but "allied enemies". And as for diplomacy cards, it's a good idea to use them if there are multiple enemies so that you can have "peace" for a while, but if used too often...well, that won't lead you anywhere, like I learned from my personal experience about diplomacy in FFA games.

"Good lord, is this still going on?"

Good lord... hes back

My policy on alliances in FFA:

Always set a limit on alliance. 5 turns, 10, 30. OR set a condition like once you have 'x' area. Whatever it is, you need terms or else someone will eventually break it. The terms can just be a 1 turn warning, but that needs to be in place.

I always stick to them because you will develop a reputation of being a backstabber. I have been backstabbed in FFA games and I will NEVER make deals with that person again in any other game, period.

@ Chris

This is an interesting concept. What I'm struggling to understand is how such alliances benefit a game. It seems to me that a game in which people stick like glue to their alliances is in danger of being reduced to a competition to see who can form the best alliance first followed by a tedious waiting game whilst the inferior alliance is eliminated. I can see the enjoyment of games in which the alliances end up evenly balanced, but surely this is what games in the style of 3v3 are for?

A game in which alliances are far more frail and can be broken an remade relatively easily has the potential, when played well, to be a highly enjoyable and dynamic affair. It doesn't matter if you start off on the losing team as there may well be the chance to join the other team later on. Power will ebb and flow from one player to the next and no one will be certain of victory until the single handedly dominate the board. Communication and negotiation will be vital skills a player will need throught the game, instead of the occasional few words or nothing at all that's all too common at the moment.

I will admit that my game of choice is Diplomacy rather than Risk, on a site called webdiplomacy, where negotiation and stabbing are the cornerstones of the game. This game is fun, but I can't help but feel that by overdoing the etiquette you're missing out on it's full potential.

Well, your scenario doesn't exist if you set the terms right. Set it for 5 turns and then just up it if both parties agree. Or if you want just do 1 turn notice.

If you want to just have an open ended truce with every intention to back stab later, that is fine. But don't expect someone to fall for it again. it isn't cheating, just doesn't make any friends. I've honored treaties in games and they have led to treaties in other games with the same people.

You might win the game with your style, but will lose the war.