Those Backstabbing Allies!

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

    • Those Backstabbing Allies!

      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".
    • I once got backstabbed by someone who is following the officers training in the army. :D

      Bofore I decide to make contact with a potential ally, I do some research first. Usually I wait untill the game is at least 4-5 days old. After that you have a nice idea of everyone rankings of victory points and largest army, thse who are high on both ladders are interesting. They can do warfare without having lots of losses. I also check their global military stats to see if they are any good.

      With some luck you have 1 or 2 candidates on a worldmap.
    • For these reasons is exactly why I typically don't accept alliances, especially in world maps. If you get involved in a large alliance, at some point, if you wish to actually win, you have no choice but to turn on your own allies, or hope that they'll willingly give up everything they've worked for peacefully. It's a very long shot. 1, maybe 2 people you can get away with. But beyond that, you're asking people to expect you to have to attack them eventually. Can't do it lol. I just figure out who I like, and avoid attacking them. I might even help them if they need it, and sometimes they help me. Friends are better to make than temporary allies. Friends will understand later in the game when most of the world is controlled by just a few people when you attack them.
    • Share map is from my point of view a de-facto standard for an alliance. It is the only way to coordinate effectively and help each other out (assuming proximity to each other) when one is offline and the other is online.

      Long-distance alliances don't often work well... but neighbors guarding each others' backs seems logical to have mapshare. I view alliances as a wedding.... til death do us part. ;)
    • That is a good notion.

      But alliances can be ended honorably - in some way other than announcing it by sending a couple hundred rockets at your former ally, which goes on.

      i think the game could use a cooling off period between alliance -> peace -> war of a day or so. Especially since most likely the former ally will almost certainly be attacked with those massed rockets after the traitor knows his ally's schedule and when he goes offline.

      :(

      Also, if the game offered a 'Launch on warning' (LOW) feature (that is, when an enemy rockets enters your airspace, all your rockets launch at him at pre-planned targets) those sneak rocket attacks would end pronto.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by I'm Sleepless In Seattle: brain is thinking ().

    • Oh those backstabing allies! I can't tell you how many times I've been attacked by my "allies". Usually they go silent and start building troops near your borders. One time I even intercepted communications between an ally and a country I was about to go to war with! Turns out he was gonna attack me(No surprise there). Luckily I had a large arsenal of rockets and was able to move my units into position in time. And thus, I launched a surprise attack before I would have been surprise attacked. :D
    • Ah yes, im one of those guys who send messages to all my neighbours "Want to be allies?" Then after getting share map with them all take them down 1 by 1 by using my other "allies" to help me. Muhahaha (I'm really evil you know, so if you meet me in a game be sacred)

      Forum Gang Divine Entity :00000156:

      Taking over the Forum 1 post at a time.
    • I will make it simple : never get allied to the 1st millitary power : the 1st player is always an agressive one who will use you to help him without supporting you in return
      the 2nd or 3rd are good allies, they are usually ready to help to get rid of the 1st
      never choose a young (teenager) player they are very impulsive and don't worth your trust
      don't start negotiating your future conquest, it may end your alliance before it begins
      trust no one
      Let's Agree To Disagree! Boris the Animal It's Just Boris! Men In Black III
    • mio123 wrote:

      I will make it simple : never get allied to the 1st millitary power : the 1st player is always an agressive one who will use you to help him without supporting you in return
      the 2nd or 3rd are good allies, they are usually ready to help to get rid of the 1st
      never choose a young (teenager) player they are very impulsive and don't worth your trust
      don't start negotiating your future conquest, it may end your alliance before it begins
      trust no one
      This all reeks of prejudice.
      :00000441: Forum Gang Commissar :00000441:

      Black Lives Matter!!!!! All Lives Matter!!!!! :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:



    • I Patton wrote:

      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".
      I totally agree, BTW, you spelled it out wrong. It should be Those backstabbing "allies" :D
      Carl Wilson

      “Dad, how do soldiers killing each other solve the world's problems?”
      ― Bill Watterson, Calvin and Hobbes: Sunday Pages 1985-1995: An Exhibition Catalogue

      "Rule 1, on page 1 of the book of war, is: 'Do not march on Moscow'… Rule 2 is: 'Do not go fighting with your land armies in China."
      Bernard Law Montgomery, British general
    • Same here, allies aren't trustworthy enough on CoW. They need a new style which I will be trying to use in an RPG I am making.
      Carl Wilson

      “Dad, how do soldiers killing each other solve the world's problems?”
      ― Bill Watterson, Calvin and Hobbes: Sunday Pages 1985-1995: An Exhibition Catalogue

      "Rule 1, on page 1 of the book of war, is: 'Do not march on Moscow'… Rule 2 is: 'Do not go fighting with your land armies in China."
      Bernard Law Montgomery, British general
    • Carl Wilson wrote:

      Same here, allies aren't trustworthy enough on CoW. They need a new style which I will be trying to use in an RPG I am making.
      Perhaps.


      "I came, I saw, I conquered" Written in a report to Rome 47 B.C., after conquering Pharnaces at Zela in Asia Minor in just five days; as quoted in Life of Caesar by Plutarch; reported to have been inscribed on one of the decorated wagons in the Pontic triumph, in Lives of the Twelve Caesars, Julius, by Suetonius.


      "Alea iacta est" Gaius Julius Caesar.
    • mio123 wrote:

      I will make it simple : never get allied to the 1st millitary power : the 1st player is always an agressive one who will use you to help him without supporting you in return
      the 2nd or 3rd are good allies, they are usually ready to help to get rid of the 1st
      never choose a young (teenager) player they are very impulsive and don't worth your trust
      don't start negotiating your future conquest, it may end your alliance before it begins
      trust no one
      I'm a teenager...
      Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival.
      -Winston Churchill

      Attack rapidly, ruthlessly, viciously, without rest, however tired and hungry you may be, the enemy will be more tired, more hungry. Keep punching.
      -George S. Patton
    • I'm often the guy who starts distrust in other peoples alliances. Thats what diplomacy is for, after all: Another way of gaining power in this game. But I stick with the people who I start an alliance at the beginning of an map. But I do not hesistate to make more "alliances" with outhers to help my alliance and me to win. I try to have 3 people alliances so I don't have to backstab my true allies
    • My philosophy is the less people you're allied to, the better. With a bare minimum of one, of course. However, this is not always possible, as sometimes you're surrounded and need to ally with 3,4, even 5 players. For those cases I suggest you have 1-2 true allies, and use them and the others to secure your positions. Then, use your 1-2 true allies to wipe out the rest.
      The past is a foreign country.