In one of my current games there are three of us tied in a pretty even battle, whenever one takes the lead, the alliances swap and beat them down again.

Now I am trying to form real alliances, but one player is simply stating if I don't do what he wants, he will suicide attack me and throw the game into the other players favour.

Now this just strikes me as really really lame. Agree, disagree?

I once had a friend say if I didn't stop attacking him in game A, he would suicide against me in game B.  I think he was joking.

Lame...but could be a decent strategy too :P

I didn't mind.  We are playfully dicks to each other, and this was just another way to be obnoxious.  It's all in good fun.

True, this tactic is just surprisingly annoying!

Yeah, it's different if it's a good friend vs. someone you don't know well.

And this is an example of why I rarely pm people. I know many people treat the discussions/negotiations as part of the game, but I just find them annoying.

Never let someone else decide what you have to do. If he wants to suicide at you, can can do it anyways, even if you do what he tells you to do. But, also don't ignore him just because he threatens you. He might tell you something usefull.

Rather try to keep the game balanced and try to find an opener. Lowering army counts is the only way to victory. Just drop your armies each turn evenly at your opponents and eventually you'll see they will follow to throw back at eachother because they tend to balance the game as well.

Three player with no fog.. you might as well terminate now.

Yeah, increasingly Civil War maps I am surviving to the end game.. but its then just stale.. the game I opened this thread about started in April..

I'm bored, but also stubborn :/

lol are you talking about your game with me, or another game?

Lol, I wasn't actually, but that pink dude did just essentially make the same play! I think my "diplomacy" only seems to annoy! Woops!