Quote:
Roanon said:
But you have left a huge grey area. There still is a difference between using an alliance to move fleets in the systems of the soon-to-be enemy, braking an alliance without notice, or declaring every action XXX turns earlier, for example. This attacking without notice is getting even greyer when there have been tensions before, and you see large fleets assembled, and even expect an assault by your ally.
|
Moving fleets up sounds fine to me. If you know an alliance is about to end, then I've no problem with getting ready. If there have been tensions between you and an ally, or you see large fleets assembling and your ally can't offer a plausible explanation, then you certainly have every right to defend yourself, including a preemtive strike. An ally who you've had problems with who is taking belligerent actions isn't an ally and doesn't deserve to be treated as one. I have just such a problem in a game I'm playing. A player I have a treaty with is piling up ships in a system that I own exclusively. No explanation why. I'm not threatening them, although I too have a fleet there that they might pervceive as a threat. Or perhaps they're concerned about other players drifting in and colonizing their territory. But it makes me nervous and if I can't get a proper explanation, then I guess I'll have to take action. I see that as totally justified. Now, I could use their ships being in my space as sufficient provocation and just attack. But I don't think that's the proper way to handle things.
Quote:
Roanon said:
Another problem is the term "ally". In most games, you usually are "allied" via a TR treaty with everyone you are not at war with, just because of the mutual benefits of such a treaty. I do not consider such a mere formality a real alliance, for example.
|
In that a TR treaty gives your treaty partner access to your space, I have to consider it a real treaty. I wish that everything below MA did't work that way or that the game employed a "borders" concept which treaty partners below MA would recognize.
Quote:
Roanon said:
I also think it takes a bit the tension, and thereby the fun, out of the game if you can rely 100% on everyone else in the game. Political maneuvering is nice  . But downright lying, and what else you described as "betrayal" is something different. Still, there is not only black or white, I think we agreee which is which, but what about the grey areas, which are the biggest? I do not think there are general, "right" rules of behaviour for any situation in the game. And no one has the right to impose his personal, subjective view of these grey areas on every other player. This is a matter of personal style.
|
I don't think being an honest player has to decrease the fun. In one game you and I might be allies, while in another we might be deadly enemies. One of us might string the other along on the issue of signing a treaty, as Geo described in one of his Posts. We might only agree to a treaty for a limited amount of time. And there could be more games specifcally billed as being role-playing games where I've already said that anything is fair game. In such a game I might even stab you in the back but you'd know it was because I was playing my part and not because I have a win at all costs approach to playing. Finally, yes it is a matter of personal style. I'm not telling anyone how to play, not setting any rules about what can and cannot be done, not even passing judgment on someone who chooses to play the backstabbing style of game. All I'm saying is that I don't agree with that style and that any player who employs it shouldn't be surprised if I refuse to have anything to do with them in a future game. It's their choice to play that way, it is mine to never trust them again.