Threaty manners in FFA

[Vicotnic]

Hello,
Awhile back I was in a FFA game and found a hero of a treaty mate exposed in the open and it seemed it would most likely be in my best interest to snipe it (we had no common enemy and would likely trade blows in a couple of turns).

This situation made me think about manners towards treaty partners. I can see the position that you're not allied and other then what the game mechanics demands you got no obligations to each other. However I also know a lot of people prefer not to take hostile actions against threaty partners.

After some deliberation I think I fall into the second category, I did not kill the hero. I settled on the position that I won't attack treaty mates unless they act in manners that can be interperated as hostile (scouting my territory I consider hostile and I kill scout units that lurk around my cities). How do the rest of you handle interaction with treaty partners in FFA?

[Versace]

Good topic.

I think the basis should be what is in the game mechanics -attacking in open is ok. Anything aside from that, such as deeper alliances, can be agreed with messages.

Assume the other guy will look after his own interests. If you have a common enemy then there really is no point attacking even in favourable circumstances. Killing scouts should always be fine.

I think it is fair and open to not make any assumptions that a N.A.P would cover anything more than what is written down. That would just lead to misunderstandings when people have different ideas. Any further co-operation can easily be agreed upon with messages.

Finally, I also think that agreements and alliances should be looked at the same way you would in real life of fighting warlords -sometimes they hold and sometimes they don't. And some players are more trustworthy than others. I think that is part of the game.

[Vicotnic]

One problem I have with attacking treaty partners is that it is really unclear for new players that this is an option. I remember one of my first games I was attacked by a player I had a treaty with and really did not understand how that could be. Now it did not matter since Solo trashed us both hard anyway but I was really perplexed by the attack.

[Chazar]

That is very situational!

I am quite displeased if my troops are attacked during a NAP (albeit always preparing for that possibility is highly recommended). Similarly, I am very reluctant to attack troops under NAP, even if it is just a scout or crow, or even if they are deep within my homeland, I really need a good reason for attacking - I would rather move some of my troops into their territory as a response.

However, I guess that is just my style, nothing more. For me, attacking troops despite an NAP is a sure sign that that NAP won't be extended any more.

Regardless, I would certainly note the name of a player that carelessly attacks my troops during NAPs without good cause!

[smursh]

I think units in the open have to be fair game. I also see some players place units to block you when you have a treaty. Say 1 unit on a bridge or pier. If you take the I won't attack position it can allow others to take advantage. For myself I don't usually attack but will if situation dictates it - for example if my"ally" is sending scouts into my territory, heroes to explore ruins I would prefer to explore, or blocking me. I don't go out of my way, but don't refuse to attack either.

[Seraad]

I think attacking / not attacking during NAP is part of diplomacy. Not only in particular game - so one could think he/she can relay on you in future games.
In general I don't attack, but there are some exceptions of the rule:
1) player makes hostile moves:
a) attacks my units
b) blocks temples or paths (warning goes first)
c) his heroes goes for "my" ruins (warning goes first)
d) his scouts take ie. mines from 3rd player I'm fighting (and he is not)
e) blocks my expansion deliberately going for neutrals he knows I want to take (as I have no other neutrals to go for) while having other territory to expand.

2) 4-5 turns before NAP ends I start killing all scouts warning my "ally" beforehand.

The problem is that the "hostile" actions are not clear to define. Especially ruin searches. It is best to define which ruin is whose and what territory we want to have (when still neutral).
I have to say I'm ruin hunter on others territory quite often myself. I like the adrenaline

And finally... I don't trust any ally with my heroes

[KGB]

I don't usually go out of my way to kill my NAP partners scouts. The only time I do is if they are sitting on something valuable (ruin, port, bridge, bless site) and I don't want to waste a turn for them to move. I normally send a message apologizing for having to doing so. Likewise I don't mind if someone kills a scout or two of mine if it's in their way (I've even been known to line up scouts to help level up heroes for my ally).

I do not attack stacks or heroes unless it's the last turn or so of an NAP and it's clear they are moving to my borders because the NAP is ending and we are about to go to war.

I don't tolerate players who just decide to kill my stacks and heroes that are on the way to neutrals/ruins. If that happens I simply tell them that when our NAP ends that I will spend the rest of the game making sure they don't win. Usually ruining someones game delivers the message not to do it to me in the future (I've never had someone cross me twice).

If you want a particular ruin/neutral then send a message and lets agree on it. If you think I'm too close to your cities/lands with my armies then let me know and if they are there by accident or just passing through I'll move them. I have no problem letting players know that I won't be renewing an NAP if they ask.

KGB