Diplomacy and Alliances

[what,me worry?]

alliances are for noobs. a good player will know when not to attack, it doesnt need to be argued over

For once, i agree with you

[jackal31]

This way, as in real war, person making an alliance has to take into consideration a possibility that their ally is a traitor (of course, feedbacks give you a general idea about your ally so this isn't such a big problem).

You know.....we didnt get a chance to read any feedback on France.....

[lozzini]

I personally think that if their is a player winning the game outright, the other players can ally together for a while to try and stop them winning, otherwise you may aswell give up. As long as these alliances arn't set up before the game secretly its fine

[Drainbamaged]

I generally put it this way:

Alliances are gay. Strategy games are best played with piece moves and dice rolls.

[AAFitz]

i should have added, with high ranking players, they are almost never present...almost always unspoken except in very extreme circumstances...when a non-attack assurance is the only way to hold the strongest player

[qeee1]

I agree that they're almost never present. Mostly because I'm out of practice.