Breaking an alliance vs. Losing a game

I want to ask a question out of curiosity. If in a game, you assemble an alliance with a player, but because of the alliance, they lose the game, for example, because the game ends in the turn 50. What would they do? ¿Break any alliance in order to win the game, or keep the alliance at the expense of losing the game?

In my opinion, I'd rather lose the game. It seems to me more important to keep the word in the game, to win at any reason.

But what do you think about that?

Regards.

Ecrit par Medieval Knight, 18.04.2016 at 00:48

I want to ask a question out of curiosity. If in a game, you assemble an alliance with a player, but because of the alliance, they lose the game, for example, because the game ends in the turn 50. What would they do? ¿Break any alliance in order to win the game, or keep the alliance at the expense of losing the game?

In my opinion, I'd rather lose the game. It seems to me more important to keep the word in the game, to win at any reason.

But what do you think about that?

Regards.

The question itself is wrong and confusing.
It should be 'Do you accept winning a game at the expense of an alliance' or 'Do you accept losing a game for the sake of an alliance'.

Miracle... Seems like Pavle's English isn't worst

Ecrit par Darth., 18.04.2016 at 02:37

The question itself is wrong and confusing.
It should be 'Do you accept winning a game at the expense of an alliance' or 'Do you accept losing a game for the sake of an alliance'.

Not are those questions that I wanted to do. The question I wanted to do was the proposed.

Ecrit par Medieval Knight, 18.04.2016 at 04:02

Ecrit par Darth., 18.04.2016 at 02:37

The question itself is wrong and confusing.
It should be 'Do you accept winning a game at the expense of an alliance' or 'Do you accept losing a game for the sake of an alliance'.

Not are those questions that I wanted to do. The question I wanted to do was the proposed.

This should be a opinion of yourself. There no rule to be a dick and backstab and win with sp.

Ecrit par Croat, 18.04.2016 at 03:32

Miracle... Seems like Pavle's English isn't worst

Lmao croat *the worst*

Ecrit par Medieval Knight, 18.04.2016 at 00:48

but because of the alliance, they lose the game, for example, because the game ends in the turn 50.

The game ends at Turn 50 and the winner is decided by the player with most SP. You could have an ally with 0 SP and you'd still win, alone, at turn 50 if you are the player with more SP (alliance doesn't matters at this point).

A good example for your situation would'be, if you and him are playing against the rest of the players, and the rest of the players says they will ally-end after killing your ally. Would you let him die and allyend? or defend him and fight until the end?

Ecrit par Croat, 18.04.2016 at 03:32

Miracle... Seems like Pavle's English isn't worst

As you probably saw he isn't a native speaker. My English was just as bad when I first meet Afterwind

Im very selective in who i alliance with, as such if i alliance with someone im going in for the long hual, we either win together or lose together thats all it is for me. im not going to backstab someone who put trust in me. however i know several people who have broken the alliance for the sake of 10-20 more sp