Allies getting bad :(

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Allies getting bad :(

      Not here to complain but only here to tell you how low people would go to advance in this game. I m italy and i had iran as my ally and it turned out that he revealed my plans to invade france and serbia after i become powerful enough and that resulted in those nations going full throttle on me. Though i stopped serbia, france didnt stop so i invaded and occupied big chunks of his country. I m not scared about backstabbing, just sad about the state of people these days. I mean, cheating and stabbing someone in the back IN A GAME? Meh. I hope that coalition thing is put fast.
    • Futureman99 wrote:

      Homie got played.
      no, douchebags have no honor. How much of a failure in life do you have to be to sell your honor for free game? These are the kind of people that are the reason lawyers exist.
      ----------------------

      Jacopo: Why not just kill them? I'll do it! I'll run up to Paris - bam, bam, bam, bam. I'm back before week's end. We spend the treasure. How is this a bad plan?

      Remember that no one ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb idiot die for his country.
    • senancox wrote:

      Not here to complain but only here to tell you how low people would go to advance in this game. I m italy and i had iran as my ally and it turned out that he revealed my plans to invade france and serbia after i become powerful enough and that resulted in those nations going full throttle on me. Though i stopped serbia, france didnt stop so i invaded and occupied big chunks of his country. I m not scared about backstabbing, just sad about the state of people these days. I mean, cheating and stabbing someone in the back IN A GAME? Meh. I hope that coalition thing is put fast.
      I believe this is just part of the game when you play solo pubs.
      It is also on par with reality. As nations and armies have been known to switch sides and betray.

      I hope that they do not over compensate here.
      If a player wants a real team game then they should join a team game or an Alliance. Not join pubs and expect them to behave like an Alliance.
    • Cyclone46 wrote:

      senancox wrote:

      Not here to complain but only here to tell you how low people would go to advance in this game. I m italy and i had iran as my ally and it turned out that he revealed my plans to invade france and serbia after i become powerful enough and that resulted in those nations going full throttle on me. Though i stopped serbia, france didnt stop so i invaded and occupied big chunks of his country. I m not scared about backstabbing, just sad about the state of people these days. I mean, cheating and stabbing someone in the back IN A GAME? Meh. I hope that coalition thing is put fast.
      I believe this is just part of the game when you play solo pubs.It is also on par with reality. As nations and armies have been known to switch sides and betray.

      I hope that they do not over compensate here.
      If a player wants a real team game then they should join a team game or an Alliance. Not join pubs and expect them to behave like an Alliance.
      I was going to say yes it sucks but is yes on par with reality. Countries backstab. In reality countries trade tech to other countries. Often feeding into someone else's conflict by supplying their foe with arms etc. My first game someone selected Military Pact without sending me a message. I could see all their stuff. I watched him for weeks in how he was organizing and how he was assaulting. I could see his weaknesses. We were on different sides of the world but I kept thinking who would do this when I can see everything and this person does not even know me. I could had an unofficial non aggression pact with someone else on that side of the world and fed them so much information.
      Ain't Nothing But A Thing!
    • Cyclone46 wrote:

      senancox wrote:

      Not here to complain but only here to tell you how low people would go to advance in this game. I m italy and i had iran as my ally and it turned out that he revealed my plans to invade france and serbia after i become powerful enough and that resulted in those nations going full throttle on me. Though i stopped serbia, france didnt stop so i invaded and occupied big chunks of his country. I m not scared about backstabbing, just sad about the state of people these days. I mean, cheating and stabbing someone in the back IN A GAME? Meh. I hope that coalition thing is put fast.
      I believe this is just part of the game when you play solo pubs.It is also on par with reality. As nations and armies have been known to switch sides and betray.

      I hope that they do not over compensate here.
      If a player wants a real team game then they should join a team game or an Alliance. Not join pubs and expect them to behave like an Alliance.
      Ok I can think of Italy after they lost they switched sides, and Russia in WWI, but they didn't switch sides so much as drop out. Can you name a country that broke an alliance and fought with their former enemies?

      And my problem with team games is you get teammates that drop out, so it is you vs 5 countries, because they didn't get the dropouts. I feel if you are so petty as to break your word (which is effectively what the military pact is) just to win a game, then you are an incomplete person. You are a dung eating slug, that would sell your honor for a trivial game, so clearly if the stakes were something that mattered, you would be the dregs of humanity. If there ever could be a zombie apocalypse, I would truly hope someone chainsaws you in half. Even if you aren't a zombie.
      ----------------------

      Jacopo: Why not just kill them? I'll do it! I'll run up to Paris - bam, bam, bam, bam. I'm back before week's end. We spend the treasure. How is this a bad plan?

      Remember that no one ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb idiot die for his country.
    • War-spite wrote:

      Can you name a country that broke an alliance and fought with their former enemies?
      Maybe this is not a perfect example, but the USSR signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, then invaded Poland, and then, two years later, was fighting for the allies (ok, they didn't start it). The nazis did hate communists, but they had worked together (sort of), for a while.

      And now contributing to this discussion: I understand both points of view. We all hate it when our 'ally' backstabs us, but also when our 'ally' gives information about our forces to an enemy, which is also a form of backstabbing. I think a viable solution is that allies cannot have a military pact with one of our enemies (for example, if we're taking over, say, Brazil, and our ally, Mexico, has a pact with Brazil, and supplies Brazil with information about my military). So when two of our allies are at war with each other, the game gives a pop-up that says: Ally 1 is fighting Ally 2. Which one will you break relations with? This scenario would be the only time you can break a pact. Otherwise, the pact would stay until a player goes inactive or the game ends. This would ensure no backstabbing occurs, both directly and indirectly.
    • I still say that instead of trying to turn pub games into Alliance Matches... just join an Alliance and get into some real competition :)

      The whole idea of alliances inside of pub games is kind of silly when you consider that in a pub there can only be 1 winner.
      At some point every pub coalition has a backstabber. And that backstabber is simply the guy who figures this out first.
    • Cyclone46 wrote:

      I still say that instead of trying to turn pub games into Alliance Matches... just join an Alliance and get into some real competition :)

      The whole idea of alliances inside of pub games is kind of silly when you consider that in a pub there can only be 1 winner.
      At some point every pub coalition has a backstabber. And that backstabber is simply the guy who figures this out first.
      Except no. The winner is the first guy to the set amount of points. You can win, and I have and never backstab. Clearly you think the only way to win is to attack unsuspecting allies.

      I have no desire to join an alliance. That holds ZERO interest for me. I don't want a group deciding when i have to play, I play when i feel like it, and there are days I don't sign in at all. I also have certain countries I enjoy playing and some i have no interest in at all. So being in an alliance where the team decides that I am playing a country like Iran or Turkey that hold no interest for me is stupid.

      There is no reason you can't team up with people in public games. Why do you think the military pact option exists? My brief experiences with alliances have been very negative. A bunch of crazed loons that flame you because you didn't login that day, or you didn't attack strongly enough for junior dictator. I am a casual player. But thanks for the heads up to never trust you in a game.
      ----------------------

      Jacopo: Why not just kill them? I'll do it! I'll run up to Paris - bam, bam, bam, bam. I'm back before week's end. We spend the treasure. How is this a bad plan?

      Remember that no one ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb idiot die for his country.
    • B-17 wrote:

      And now contributing to this discussion: I understand both points of view. We all hate it when our 'ally' backstabs us, but also when our 'ally' gives information about our forces to an enemy, which is also a form of backstabbing. I think a viable solution is that allies cannot have a military pact with one of our enemies (for example, if we're taking over, say, Brazil, and our ally, Mexico, has a pact with Brazil, and supplies Brazil with information about my military). So when two of our allies are at war with each other, the game gives a pop-up that says: Ally 1 is fighting Ally 2. Which one will you break relations with? This scenario would be the only time you can break a pact. Otherwise, the pact would stay until a player goes inactive or the game ends. This would ensure no backstabbing occurs, both directly and indirectly.
      I really like this idea...
      As always just my 2 cents

      Use Helicopters, Special forces or Stealth. Use your head to play - not the missile button. - Germanico

      These terrorists aren't trying to kill us because we offended them. They attack us because they want to impose their view of the world on as many people as they can, and America is standing in their way. - Marco Rubio
    • War-spite wrote:

      Futureman99 wrote:

      Homie got played.
      no, douchebags have no honor. How much of a failure in life do you have to be to sell your honor for free game? These are the kind of people that are the reason lawyers exist.
      I'll be honest I think you are investing too much thought into the current relations/pact feature of the game. I understand Germanico is making something more robust with the Coalitions but as it stand a Military Pact means as much as wet tissue paper to someone in need after dropping a #2. Now, before I continue I should say that for the most part I honor my in game alliances. I make sure to discuss with any potential allie what our alliance will consist of and the terms that it will extend for.

      Questions such as, "Is this a long-term alliance or a non-aggression pact?", "Will we come to each others aid?", "Will you discuss your invasions with me before hand?", "Will we share intelligence?", yada yada yada. Those are all things that are said to one another in order to come to an understanding of what you and your potential ally are agreeing to. And all of that can be done with or without a Military Pact. The only role a Military Pact truly performs in terms of the game engine is to provide share complete Line of Site with the other person as well as your current move, attack, mobilization, and construction orders. It doesn't even uniquely provide the ability to move units across territory without fighting occurring since Right of Way does that as well.

      In summary what I am trying to say is that the Military Pact serves a limited purpose. I guarantees nothing at all other than how the words "Military Pact" may be interpreted by different people. This is why the purpose and longevity of such an agreement should be discussedin detail by both parties before agreeing to one.

      I did have an instance today in which I betrayed a Day Two military pact. I was playing Austria and one was proposed by East Germany without any prior communication. Since I had rotated the bulk of my forces towards that border due to his invasion of West Germany I felt that I was in a position of strength and felt safe revealing the intelligence on my army position to him in order to gain intelligence on his. It proved to be a good call. He had completely worn out his army taking over West Germany in a Day One invasion. After some negotiating with Poland we agreed to form our own Military Pact and jointly invade. In this instance as East Germany I would not have proposed a Pact to a country that could reveal critical weakness and if I had made such a mistake quickly betrayed the information to a country that could benefit in order to minimize risk. I am not saying this is how the game ought to be played but instead that is the system we have in place currently. Military Pacts should be carefully considered and not thrown into the wind in the hopes that they stick. One last side not, all my listed experiences and opinions were built from playing public games and do not necessarily apply to team/alliance games.
    • I agree. Last game out of the blue a player declared a military pact. Not one word to me. They were on another continent as well and technically I was more than likely safe from them. It just did not seem right that I could see all their units and where he was fighting. I used it as a lesson plan of how others fight. He should had built up and then invaded. I think he built his navy too soon. I took over at least 4 countries and he was still struggling to finish off Colombia. Meanwhile to his south Argentina took over the bottom half of the continent and after taking Peru moved to take Brazil. The Brazilian player was still trying to take Colombia. He took his pact away eventually. I thought about sending him messages saying put an airbase in Bogota and put your strike wing there. Use Bogota as your springboard for your airmobile and put them in larger stacks.

      This game I am Argentina. I rushed to take the whole of South America with two other nations player run. Well 25 days. Lol. South Africa is challenged me. He has taken over two countries and struggled to take the second. This is just observations from seeing what he has taken since the previous day and reading news reports. I am thinking why is he not moving up the west coast of Africa. I see three fuel cities right there. He is in 2nd but I am 600 pts ahead of him. USA player I have no idea what he is doing. I was looking at all his cities and can see he has been building them up but he still only has 2 fuel cities which do not appear to be full capacity. I have 8 fuel cities now. He has yet to take another country's city. He is fighting Canada atm but messaged me for a military pact after the Russian player attacked him I am guessing in Alaska as I never looked at the specifics other than seeing the CON News of the Russian deceitful act. Looks like both have lost forces and Russia has taken no land. His message is asking do I want to be allies. Hmmm, do I want to be? What exactly does that entail? Does he want me to come bail him out and go to war with Russia? I am not too thrilled of him seeing where all my forces are at or not at. Water is my biggest defense atm why sacrifice that for someone who has yet to take one country. He could sell the information to Russia to sue for peace.
      Ain't Nothing But A Thing!
    • I agree that military pacts should be entered carefully, if some give all your details away to some clown, that back stabs, betrays, or just is a dead weight ally that you end up having to defend out of honor, then you shouldn't have agreed to it. I believe in having conversations now, but also giving people a chance to be honest.

      That said, I am playing in a south american war right now, and Peru, set me as military pact ally, so i could see everything he had. I didn't ask for it and there was no communication. I figured he is pretty new to the game. I didn't return the favour and left it just at peace, but then i was kicking Ukraine around as Columbia ( yeah strange war), Ukie had invaded central america, and he and i got into fighting. He said Peru was allied with him and he would give up all the information on Peru's military in exchange for me letting him live and keep central america. I said "suuuuuure" no problem, he gave me all of Peru's info, which i already knew, but that did keep him honest he wasn't just lying. I then told Peru what ukie did, and how i thought that was slimy, Peru thanked me, became a real ally, and we kicked Ukraine out of the west. Lesson here for two people: don't randomly give people access to your info, and if you plan on selling out an ally, even an accidental one, don't do it to someone that hates turncoats.

      An MP may not be worth anything to the player that would stab his mother to get a victory point, but I feel in the game it reflects a large commitment by a country, and that commitment should have damaging repercussions if you break an alliance. Look at the shiite storm from trump pointing out that germany wasn't paying it's share of nato.
      ----------------------

      Jacopo: Why not just kill them? I'll do it! I'll run up to Paris - bam, bam, bam, bam. I'm back before week's end. We spend the treasure. How is this a bad plan?

      Remember that no one ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb idiot die for his country.
    • That is a long way to go for Ukraine. At least Russia borders Alaska. You would think the Ukraine would have more worries at home unless he figured he could get a safe haven for resources from Central America which is not really worth the long distance. Just odd.

      I wonder if the USA player knows he has this:
      Diego Garcia.png

      The French AI apparently knows he has this:
      New Caledonia.png
      Ain't Nothing But A Thing!
    • Another point I wish to point out about the fallacy and danger of blindly offering a Military Pact to somebody. If someone receives a offer of a Military Pact and they do not choose to accept or refuse it then the offer remains in their inbox indefinitely (unless you delete it???). This person can allow the offer to linger indefinitely and only choose to accept it at a time of their choosing, generally just before an invasion is to start, in order to gain intelligence upon your country before the soon after declaration of war. It may be possible to rescind the offer as the sender if you choose to delete the message but I am not entirely clear if that removes it from the inbox of the recipient as well (if someone knows the answer to this question please please tell me I desperately want to know lol).

      Any opinions or responses to this point are most welcome.
    • B-17 wrote:

      And now contributing to this discussion: I understand both points of view. We all hate it when our 'ally' backstabs us, but also when our 'ally' gives information about our forces to an enemy, which is also a form of backstabbing. I think a viable solution is that allies cannot have a military pact with one of our enemies (for example, if we're taking over, say, Brazil, and our ally, Mexico, has a pact with Brazil, and supplies Brazil with information about my military). So when two of our allies are at war with each other, the game gives a pop-up that says: Ally 1 is fighting Ally 2. Which one will you break relations with? This scenario would be the only time you can break a pact. Otherwise, the pact would stay until a player goes inactive or the game ends. This would ensure no backstabbing occurs, both directly and indirectly.
      I have played games with this pop up choice solution and it works. It forces you to choose a side. There are other diplomatic and changing circumstances that do not involve back stabbing that would cause me to break a military pact, so I would support being able to change a MP to a ROW with a 24 timer before being able to go neutral or war.