cyray7
Diplomat
Posts:121
 |
| 09 Jun 2007 5:56 PM |
|
| hi had a question about diplomacies. Do you guys think one should have a LOT of diplomacies, are none? Or does it just depend on the situation? Is it better to have a lot so you can focus your troops on a specific area, or does that allow the other players to become too strong? just wondering your opinions on that. |
|
|
|
|
beastly penis
Strategist
Posts:21
|
| 09 Jun 2007 6:20 PM |
|
| take europe for instance: you should try to make a treatie with africa because eventually you will have to fight of asia and america, and africa is already gonnna have to put guys there because south america is menacing him so he might feel lucky and atack you, but if ur allied he atackas all in north africa and you guys win! |
|
|
|
|
cyray7
Diplomat
Posts:121
|
| 09 Jun 2007 6:26 PM |
|
| So do you suggest only allying when necessary? or should i have tried to also ally with North America or Asia, so i could focus on just one place? |
|
|
|
|
Ehsan Honary
Site Admin
King
Posts:268
|
| 10 Jun 2007 2:00 AM |
|
| Alliances are there only to help you. Those with alliances are usually better of against those who dont have any. On the other hand, if you have too many alliances, it can limit your gameplay and your options become limited. Hence you need to balance the number of alliances against your strategy. One critical alliance is much better than securing all of your borders. Its all about getting others to fight each other and you getting the benefits as a result. |
|
Ehsan Honary
|
|
|
Europa
Diplomat
Posts:170
|
| 01 Jul 2007 7:22 PM |
|
| When you have a choice as to what alliance to make, ceteris paribus, make the alliance with the player who can help you the most. It doesn't help you when you have an alliance with a weak player who may die soon anyway unless doing so is critical to the success of your objectives. |
|
Grant Blackburn |
|
|
Europa
Diplomat
Posts:170
|
| 20 Nov 2007 11:13 AM |
|
I just played a game this past weekend where I played with seven players (we added some rules to make it more fair for the 6th and 7th players). I had two treaties in the game, and one of them helped me (I was in Europe and made a treaty over the Greenland-Iceland border) and the other one was a secret alliance with a guy who was in Africa and Asia but tried for Australia and lost. It came down to deciding if I should take out his last territory and losing the cerdibility I have set with my friends that I don't break alliances (which has helped me in many a game, players like to make deals with me because they know I will keep them) or take the last man and get his one card that would have helped me in the game.
In fact, both treaties were bad for differnet reasons: The Europe treaty was great for me, but bad for my opponent because it forced him to deal with two opponents in North America who were already stronger than him. He made the deal because he was a neophyte but I liked what I got out of it.
The deal with the other guy in Africa down to his last man (I made the deal earlier in the game when he was more of a force) hampered me because i had to decide between credibility for long term gain and a card and elimination for short term gain.
The long and the short of it: you really need to look at each sitaution on its own. Remember that alliances and other diplomatic moves will have a significant impact on the board. My treaty with te guy in North America protecting me in Europe changed the dynamic in North and South America and caused those forces to try to eliminate the guy who I allied with. This made things easier for me, but more difficult for my enemies. The deal in Africa I made early in the game set the stage for me to really concentrate in one direction (what every european player wants) but since it didn't work out, it actually hampered me. I stayed in the game for a while and was eliminated in the middle of the pack instead of being last, but the two guys in this game that won were the ones that stayed away from diplomacy. Perhaps they didn't need it as they stayed out of everyone's way and holed up in the Americas until everyone fought each other off. Necessity is the mother of invention. |
|
Grant Blackburn |
|
|