In every game I play someone will send an unsolicited offer of Share Map; with no explanation.
Other times someone; with whom I haven't exchanged any messages will, out of the blue, send a message simply stating, "Want to be allies?" and be taken aback if I ask, "under what conditions?" The implication of their request seems to be, "until the end of the game"!
With such an unthoughtful willingness to establish a diplomatic relationship, without consideration of its potential impact, it's no wonder so many complain of "those backstabbing allies!"
Diplomacy, in CoW, can be and should be (in my opinion) so much more. Choosing allies should be done with the same careful consideration as one should have toward any other aspect of the game.
The primary role of any ally is to help one to ultimately win. And, "to ultimately win", means accomplishing a series of goals that will enable that win to occur. In this sense, one should be willing to "Retire" the game when forming alliances (and, perhaps, hope circumstances will allow a VP win...if that's what one truly desires).
Every potential ally should be required to prove themselves worthy of you (after all, as their ally, it's your role to help them win, too). And there's no better way to do this than to set incremental goals and evaluate their willingness and ability to uphold their end of the bargain.
Therefore, an alliance with them, at this point, should be defined by what these initial goals are to be and, when they've been achieved, the alliance could be honourably terminated if one so wishes. If the alliance is to continue, a re-evaluation of the current situation would be used to set the next set of goals and how each party will contribute to meet those goals...and so on.
And that gets to the point of what I have to say: every alliance should be defined, explicitly, and have certain terms and conditions which must be met, by both parties, for the alliance to continue. These terms and conditions could be simple and general or complex and specific...or evolve from one type to another.
Alliances based solely on the granting of Shared Maps or Right of Way (RoW) beg to result in frustration and disappointment...and accusations of "backstabbing".
Other times someone; with whom I haven't exchanged any messages will, out of the blue, send a message simply stating, "Want to be allies?" and be taken aback if I ask, "under what conditions?" The implication of their request seems to be, "until the end of the game"!
With such an unthoughtful willingness to establish a diplomatic relationship, without consideration of its potential impact, it's no wonder so many complain of "those backstabbing allies!"
Diplomacy, in CoW, can be and should be (in my opinion) so much more. Choosing allies should be done with the same careful consideration as one should have toward any other aspect of the game.
The primary role of any ally is to help one to ultimately win. And, "to ultimately win", means accomplishing a series of goals that will enable that win to occur. In this sense, one should be willing to "Retire" the game when forming alliances (and, perhaps, hope circumstances will allow a VP win...if that's what one truly desires).
Every potential ally should be required to prove themselves worthy of you (after all, as their ally, it's your role to help them win, too). And there's no better way to do this than to set incremental goals and evaluate their willingness and ability to uphold their end of the bargain.
Therefore, an alliance with them, at this point, should be defined by what these initial goals are to be and, when they've been achieved, the alliance could be honourably terminated if one so wishes. If the alliance is to continue, a re-evaluation of the current situation would be used to set the next set of goals and how each party will contribute to meet those goals...and so on.
And that gets to the point of what I have to say: every alliance should be defined, explicitly, and have certain terms and conditions which must be met, by both parties, for the alliance to continue. These terms and conditions could be simple and general or complex and specific...or evolve from one type to another.
Alliances based solely on the granting of Shared Maps or Right of Way (RoW) beg to result in frustration and disappointment...and accusations of "backstabbing".