[Zywack]

Well...

While it certainly was a cheap move on Oceania's part, I can't really see it as unfair. The rules on the first post states that diplomacy is non-binding in this game: While it's in my nature to do things by the book, we always have to keep in mind that others might not do so. 2vs1 or 3vs1 is the name of game from what I read about this game: 1vs1 is a rarity, and they usually don't stay that way for too long.

For example (maybe I'm too paranoid), but I kept expecting T'ien Ch'i to attack me after the Bandar Log war started: Even though we had good relations and that I knew it wouldn't be anything personal, I was the obvious target in my mind. Already involved in what would definitively be a costly war, and without a big economy, and it made sense geographically speaking. So even though I would have obviously been utterly doomed, I did have some plans in place to fight them off as best as I could and make them pay.

Since T'ien Ch'i decided to attack you instead, Oceania really had only two choices: Either they attacked T'ien Ch'i or they attacked you, sitting around doing nothing simply meant that whoever won the T'ien Ch'i/Ulm war would be the undispusted winner of the game. If I was in their shoes, what I would have done is to attack whichever of the two side was the stronger one: Winning the war alongside the weaker side meant that they could be of relatively equal strength to the other nation, whereas if they sided with the stronger nation they'd be doomed since that nation just got even stronger. As far as I can currently see, Ulm is stronger than T'ien Ch'i right now (That may be innacurate however since my spy network isn't as good as hoped). If that's correct, I believe that Oceania's decision was the right one strategically speaking and I would have done the same in their place with the only difference being making a proper declaration of war and less sneaky dealings.

I mean, I've had excellent relation throughout the game with both T'ien Ch'i and Ulm. My long term plan was simple: If I win the Bandar Log war, I attack whichever side is currently winning the Oceania-T'ien Ch'i-Ulm war (while following NAP terms of course). I both consider you to be good neighboors and I would hate to fight either of you, but that's the only way I could have even a remote chance of winning the game. Heck, I even consider Bandar Log to have been a good ally and a pleasant neighboor (and a great opponent), but I had to declare war on them to both survive short-term against the temples (Upon seeing what happened my fears were definitively warranted) and it also made sense long-term for the territories and the corner if I wanted to stand a chance. I still feel a bit bad about attacking them since they had been my most helpful neighboor, but it is a strategy game where the goal is about being the only winner in the end. (I don't feel bad about beating Machaka though since they've been a jerk since the start)

So what I'm saying is... If you were indeed the strongest nation on the map, Oceania's decision to attack you is the only one that makes sense to them if they want to win the game. The way they did it is certainly cheap and not very honorable, but they were within the rules to do so. If T'ien Ch'i and Oceania decide to do a joint victory together and that they've already done so multiple times in other games, then I can see it being a concern. If that's not the case, then I can only see this as Oceania's only viable strategic option to win the game (The method might have been really sneaky, but the war declaration in itself makes sense).