Ally Shenanigans

dianices

Hipparchus
quick question, what's everyone's opinion of an alliance seeking a pact while being hammered, and having a siege be withdrawn as part of the agreement while said siege is already underway? would you wait for the siege to play out or pact regardless? is it fair to the player who enacted the siege prior to the agreement? or is the pact more important? and why?
 

Oelyndeus

Phrourach
More Charlie propaganda and fear tactics. This is just some kid trying to feed his ego through pixels - lol. When will you learn, Charlie boy, that these antic only sow the seeds of resentment and disgust?
 

dianices

Hipparchus
objectivity seems to be a rare commodity these days.

okay i'll go then......

the way i look at it, any current actions should not be included as sticking points in a pact agreement. If a pact is being made to halt further conflict, i think its wise to make sure it is to cooperate between forces, and not the possibility of the alliance under attack, getting you to let your guard down.

it is a smart move, but the fault in that would lie in the alliance that allowed themselves to be flanked in spite of knowing the possibility was there. I say if there's a siege in progress, let it play out, with notice of forthcoming changes, but bear in mind whether a particular alliance is worth partnering with.
 
Last edited:

LaSophie

Hipparchus
I think the siege should continue, it happened before the pact was made and to me it's fair to give the spoils to those that organised the CS takeover.

When it comes to seeking pacts whilst being hammered, I don't know. I think it depends on other factors such as, does the alliance in question have any other pacts? Good example of this was when Extremely Flammable merged into Semper Fi and left H&G alone to fight.

And yes, Charlie, that's exactly what's going to happen. Thanks for the reminder. It's not like I don't hear or see this on the externals anywhere else lol
 
Last edited:

Rhizome9

Hipparchus
I agree with you with regards to allowing the seige to play out.

I see this as having parallels with refugee status when a player changes alliances when the player is already under attack. In that instance, the player is not allowed support from the new alliance for a period of 24 hours and must defend themselves.
Of course, if this becomes a sticking point in relation to your negotiations then you may choose to do otherwise, but if they are serious about the pact then the pact to them will be more important than one city.
 

dianices

Hipparchus
that has come up in the past in some of the crews i joined. some player would be getting internalized by a pact alliance after being kicked from it, they come back and decide to run rather than let nature take its course and just start over (and before anyone objects to that idea, that's why you don't leave an account vacant without vm)........instead, they jump to a partner(pact) alliance and start a fight between the two when one tries to protect them without being filled in on what's going on.
 
Last edited: