I have given aid in the form of gems and items to underdogs. I even gave gems to an enemy that I tried to conquer. In that case, we slugged it out honorably and when the neighboring vultures of war sensed my weakness and lay siege to my walls and my fall was imminent, I sent my gems to my original enemy to help make up for the losses he incurred as a result of the attack I had originally instigated. I have never given aid to a player I thought was in the lead. I guess I like to see balance.
I think now a key factor in games I join or create in the future, are that all players commit to do their best to keep their nations alive. This stops short of saying you do everything you can to win, since it can quickly become clear you have no chance to win and to spend tons of time micromanaging a nation on its way down the toilet may be too much to ask for a recreational game.
But I think from an RPG perspective, if you imagine yourself the leader of a nation, you would do all you could to at least survive if the alternative was oblivion. That doesn't take much time - at the least, don't stale, recruit troops, and man your walls. As I implied above, I gave up trying to win in this game - stopped forging clams/stones when it became apparent I had no chance. But I fully intended to keep my VPs secure at all costs, even if it meant calling off a war to pull back my troops for defense. I monitored research, summoned troops, etc. I did not want Van or Jot to take a VP from me and neither of them even tried.
Maybe it is tough to interpret, but if players abided by the credo to Fight to Survive, it should eliminate those players abandoning games (another big flaw in Dom MP) or these unusual types of contested situations that leave a bitter taste in an otherwise great game.
In the end its just a game, but we all invest a lot of time in making our moves, so I can empathize with both parties. You guys are both key figures in the community - it would be nice to smooth this out and move on.
