Posts: 483
Threads: 18
Joined: Feb 2013
Reputation:
0
If you are allied with a position that launches an attack on me I am no longer binding myself to any agreements that we have made.
Plain and simple.
You can call me dishonorable or whatever you like but if you think you contained me with semantics assume that the ally of my enemy is my enemy.
Cheers 
Posts: 1,266
Threads: 25
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation:
0
(05-17-2013, 07:29 AM)Kalrex Wrote: If you are allied with a position that launches an attack on me I am no longer binding myself to any agreements that we have made.
Plain and simple.
You can call me dishonorable or whatever you like but if you think you contained me with semantics assume that the ally of my enemy is my enemy.
Cheers
I shall call you 'whatever'.
-The Deliverer
Posts: 2,752
Threads: 70
Joined: Feb 2013
Reputation:
0
How about if I call you 'Marvin'?
Posts: 127
Threads: 4
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation:
0
Good thing nobody ever wants to be my ally!
Silent One
Posts: 2,752
Threads: 70
Joined: Feb 2013
Reputation:
0
(05-17-2013, 02:35 PM)paway Wrote: Good thing nobody ever wants to be my ally! That's because you're so silent! 
Posts: 2,252
Threads: 227
Joined: Feb 2012
Reputation:
0
(05-17-2013, 07:29 AM)Kalrex Wrote: If you are allied with a position that launches an attack on me I am no longer binding myself to any agreements that we have made.
Plain and simple.
You can call me dishonorable or whatever you like but if you think you contained me with semantics assume that the ally of my enemy is my enemy.
Cheers
How am I supposed to control the actions of someone I am allied with? When we agreed to a NAP my ally was off doing something else entirely. That he chose to attack you is more a reflection on your diplomatic skills, or lack of them, than on me. Sometimes alliances are about trade and status points, not about war.
Did you have any communication at all with any of the three kingdoms attacking you? Or did you intentionally NOT contact them because you considered them future victims of your own agression and didn't want to constrain yourself?
In Game 102 I have every intention of honoring our treaty and would never assist anyone to attack you. If you break our treaty by attacking me, I will consider you a dishonorable person and I'll have no more (friendly) diplomatic relations with you in future games.
Lord Diamond
Please do not take any of my comments as a personal insult or as a criticism of the game 'Alamaze', which I very much enjoy. Rather, I hope that my personal insight and unique perspective may, in some way, help make 'Alamaze' more fun, a more successful financial venture, or simply more sustainable as a long-term project. Anyone who reads this post should feel completely free to ignore, disregard, scorn, implement, improve, dispute, or otherwise comment upon its content.
Posts: 220
Threads: 8
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation:
0
(05-17-2013, 04:12 PM)Lord Diamond Wrote: (05-17-2013, 07:29 AM)Kalrex Wrote: If you are allied with a position that launches an attack on me I am no longer binding myself to any agreements that we have made.
Plain and simple.
You can call me dishonorable or whatever you like but if you think you contained me with semantics assume that the ally of my enemy is my enemy.
Cheers
How am I supposed to control the actions of someone I am allied with? When we agreed to a NAP my ally was off doing something else entirely. That he chose to attack you is more a reflection on your diplomatic skills, or lack of them, than on me. Sometimes alliances are about trade and status points, not about war.
Did you have any communication at all with any of the three kingdoms attacking you? Or did you intentionally NOT contact them because you considered them future victims of your own agression and didn't want to constrain yourself?
In Game 102 I have every intention of honoring our treaty and would never assist anyone to attack you. If you break our treaty by attacking me, I will consider you a dishonorable person and I'll have no more (friendly) diplomatic relations with you in future games.
And I can confirm that the SO told me up front that he wouldn't attack you, and has not aided me against you in any way, He has been true to his word. *I*, however, had no treaty to worry about breaking.
Posts: 1,266
Threads: 25
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation:
0
(05-17-2013, 04:18 PM)Cargus10 Wrote: (05-17-2013, 04:12 PM)Lord Diamond Wrote: (05-17-2013, 07:29 AM)Kalrex Wrote: If you are allied with a position that launches an attack on me I am no longer binding myself to any agreements that we have made.
Plain and simple.
You can call me dishonorable or whatever you like but if you think you contained me with semantics assume that the ally of my enemy is my enemy.
Cheers
How am I supposed to control the actions of someone I am allied with? When we agreed to a NAP my ally was off doing something else entirely. That he chose to attack you is more a reflection on your diplomatic skills, or lack of them, than on me. Sometimes alliances are about trade and status points, not about war.
Did you have any communication at all with any of the three kingdoms attacking you? Or did you intentionally NOT contact them because you considered them future victims of your own agression and didn't want to constrain yourself?
In Game 102 I have every intention of honoring our treaty and would never assist anyone to attack you. If you break our treaty by attacking me, I will consider you a dishonorable person and I'll have no more (friendly) diplomatic relations with you in future games.
And I can confirm that the SO told me up front that he wouldn't attack you, and has not aided me against you in any way, He has been true to his word. *I*, however, had no treaty to worry about breaking.
You can should just hug it out.
-The Deliverer
Posts: 452
Threads: 16
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation:
0
Posts: 2,752
Threads: 70
Joined: Feb 2013
Reputation:
0
(05-17-2013, 05:48 PM)bluefile2 Wrote: And send chocolate. And since it's for the Dark Elf, better make sure it's dark chocolate. Send the milk chocolate to me.
|
