I suppose membership is large enough to support the feature, but I for one would likely avoid such games. 

Among the things that come to mind that need consideration.. Where this is pretty obviously a game creator option, wouldn't the designer necessarily want to be able to enable/disable the option? Consider that some boards may not be conducive to the feature.  And if the designer does have control over these this, what is the default for existing boards?

I don't like alliances much at all.  I don't mind people encouraging others to be attacked but I don't like "truces."  I prefer to play the board I don't recall ever trucing in warfish.  It seems to be more prevalent here.  I find if someone approaches me that refusing can lead to an all-out attack so I'm careful.

The furthest I think I'll go is to say "x is really stealing the map, if you use a turn's worth of troops there so will I."

Except I probably phrase it as "You're an idiot for attacking me when so and so is a turn from winning." Or "You're a moron." Or "Thanks for wrecking the game you dolt." But that's only because I enjoy making friends and I know the best way to do that is with insults.

Edit - I think the difference is people who are trucing are asking someone to behave a certain way with their armies whereas I expect them to behave a certain way and call them an idiot when they don't :P  I just personally enjoy the s*-talking by messaging after people's moves or pointing out threats and would rather people play the board than the messaging service. 

Andernut wrote:

I don't like alliances much at all.  I don't mind people encouraging others to be attacked but I don't like "truces."  I prefer to play the board I don't recall ever trucing in warfish.  It seems to be more prevalent here.  I find if someone approaches me that refusing can lead to an all-out attack so I'm careful.

The furthest I think I'll go is to say "x is really stealing the map, if you use a turn's worth of troops there so will I."

Except I probably phrase it as "You're an idiot for attacking me when so and so is a turn from winning." Or "You're a moron." Or "Thanks for wrecking the game you dolt." But that's only because I enjoy making friends and I know the best way to do that is with insults.

Edit - I think the difference is people who are trucing are asking someone to behave a certain way with their armies whereas I expect them to behave a certain way and call them an idiot when they don't :P  I just personally enjoy the s*-talking by messaging after people's moves or pointing out threats and would rather people play the board than the messaging service. 

I can confirm all the above.  Andernut is one of the strongest players I know, so I don't mind when he calls me an idiot (in so many words), which mostly happens when I'm his teammate - go figure.  I usually end up learning something ..and it doesn't even stop him from being my teammate again.   Oh yeah, and I"ll bet many of you know how much he loves to complain. This is totally consistent with the aforementioned behaviors. It doesn't matter if it's the opponents, his mates, or the dice - He'll vent ..which of course makes beating him all the sweeter :P

I'll go you one better. I think he is THE best player here. And the vast majority of his complaints are valid, albeit sometimes crudely put. I tend to share in his complaints about dice and play, if not in skill.

Lol, have we hijacked this thread MB? I blame M57.

This would be an interesting off-topic thread/poll. Can't argue with your list MB, but I'd replace Toto with smoke (and that may be because I've played a lot of games with/against smoke and not 1 against toto; I think toto is much more selective in the games he joins whereas I think smoke takes on any map and any players and that makes a difference in my book). ;) BTW, all 5 are great simulgear players.

Thingol wrote: Lol, have we hijacked this thread MB? I blame M57.

Guilty as charged. My original intent was to give Andernut's argument a +1, but then I got to thinking that his was kind of +1ing my sentiments.

Getting Back on-topic.  The whole idea of digitally enforced alliances is just bizarre. Not to mention, next thing you know, players will want to be able to 'write in' codicils and amendments to enforce agreements along specific borders involving build-up totals, WMDs, with unit-count penalties and threat of economic sanctions.

The reason alliances work in this game is precisely because they can be broken, otherwise players would be crazy not to make them, and woe to 1/3 of the players in a three player game.

3-player games should be outlawed. They encouage the absolute worst behavior in people. It's basically a case of who will be the poor sap that gets screwed over. I refused to make a lasting alliance with ogg or MB in such a game and you can guess who got screwed. Of course, it's quite insulting to one's intelligence for a player to ask for your alliance while they put a 75/25 ratio of troops on YOUR borders as opposed to the 3rd player's. Damn, I hijacked it again.

I hate any game if it breaks down to a slow 3 way grind.

Aiken Drumn wrote:

I hate any game if it breaks down to a slow 3 way grind.

+1

itsnotatumor wrote:

Aiken Drumn wrote:

I hate any game if it breaks down to a slow 3 way grind.

+1

+1000.

More than once i've said stuff it an requested a termination.

Aiken Drumn wrote:

I am sure I annoy some with my constant offerings of alliances an deals, but it's what makes the game interesting for me. Just silently rolling the dice would bore me to tears.

True!

Andernut wrote:

I don't like alliances much at all.  I don't mind people encouraging others to be attacked but I don't like "truces."  I prefer to play the board I don't recall ever trucing in warfish.  It seems to be more prevalent here.  I find if someone approaches me that refusing can lead to an all-out attack so I'm careful.

The furthest I think I'll go is to say "x is really stealing the map, if you use a turn's worth of troops there so will I."

Except I probably phrase it as "You're an idiot for attacking me when so and so is a turn from winning." Or "You're a moron." Or "Thanks for wrecking the game you dolt." But that's only because I enjoy making friends and I know the best way to do that is with insults.

 

Edit - I think the difference is people who are trucing are asking someone to behave a certain way with their armies whereas I expect them to behave a certain way and call them an idiot when they don't :P  I just personally enjoy the s*-talking by messaging after people's moves or pointing out threats and would rather people play the board than the messaging service. 

+1 andernut  - Aiken, I hate the scheming, if you can't win straight up, play team games....

I can do both. I just enjoy adding the extra layers of complexity.