Got Pacts?

DeletedUser

Guest
Ok so I've been up & down these threads; not a lot of info on pacts. However, they've been mentioned randomly throughout the forums. I want to know what you think about them. What are some pros & cons of pacts? Yay/Nay, go for it/no for it, .........etc.
 

DeletedUser10111

Guest
While having a PACT or NAP with the right alliance can greatly improve you own alliance global posture there are some draw backs.
1. limits the number of targets your players can attack. bummer since most of the time its a neighbor wanting to PACT.
2. sharing things like forums or skype rooms opens you up to chance of a spy.
3. their dead weight players becomes your dead weight as with a full Pact you have to defend them.

But like alliances each Pact or Nap is unique and as varied as the players. My advice is do your homework and look into who your are planning to pact with. A few hours of research can save you from making a bad choice.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Guest
Awesome thanks for the intel! I'll hold off on a Pact until it becomes a necessary evil (if at all). I've been cramming info since I joined so I'm up for researching.

One last question:
Other than the wiki, forums, Grepolis stat pages, and Skype bot (my most recent discovery) are there anymore research resources?
 

DeletedUser5088

Guest
I think that some pacts can be helpful. When you are at war with the world, you often have all sides exposed, but with a pact, you have someone to protect one of your sides so you can focus elsewhere and take out alliances over there. They can also help you take on an alliance that is bigger than you and you may need help. As for defense, Yay more dbp.
It is important to make sure your pact is not too close to you however. That can lead to conflicts about cities. And only have 1 pact.
If you are in a pact with an alliance that doesn't help you at all, then get rid of that pact

Just my 2 cents.
 

DeletedUser4951

Guest
Grepointel provides an awesome close up battle map as well as good online times provided you're good at math. Grepolismaps provides a great world view if you plan to join late or something.

As far as pacts go, it really depends. In the En servers I had a few good pacts. I can actually count on both hands how many I've had in 4.5 years. Some of these guys were willing to help even when your use had run out. I remember on En Omicron, the leader of my ally alliance took me in after I had been gone for two weeks due to RL and my alliance had fallen apart. I had one city and was a slow grower. Though, I immediately showed my gratitude by taking multiple enemy cities that week. :)

In the US servers, I have yet to really find a competent pact. Many are definitely in the game for themselves here both on a player level and leadership level. I've caught pacts trying to bait us into fighting superior enemies while they did nothing and refused to plan. I've caught another plotting against a different alliance I led. Personally, unless I really know the leader, I won't pact US teams anymore and so far, the leaders on my pact list would be limited to just two. :)
 

DeletedUser2568

Guest
Pacts can be very useful and very detrimental. I am with Smilodon on this, I have had very few Pacts where I felt the other alliance pulled their weight or were competent.

What I would prefer is to keep my alliance number lower than the cap, cutting any deadweight, that way if a good alliance is around a merger would be more beneficial than a pact at times because as everyone knows a PACT will ALWAYS have to be broken at some point. (ie wonders)
 

DeletedUser4951

Guest
My issue with pacts is that most leaders will start to turn on you the minute they feel they have an advantage. Which is long before WW's. I've seen entire pacts go to hell just because one alliance had a faster rate of growth for a few days. I think this stems from ego issues among leaders.

Another thing is misrepresentation. Most people will sweet talk your ear off to get a pact and say anything to get it. Then they can't follow up or will immediately start ignoring you after words. Or worse, they do that and then appear only to raise issues and make demands. Most pacts are more effort than they're worth and most ally leaders are more rude than your bloody enemies.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Thanks! Trustworthiness and the shelf life of PACTs definitely raised my concerns. I like your idea trav6612; keeping alliance small in order to absorb players from dissolved alliances from PACTs. I could potentially keep a small alliance (so far I haven't been a fan of the MRA approach) while attempting to PACT with as few as 1-2 additional alliances. If successful PACTs could assist overall status and that would be my main goal. Being that this is a game about war it would be detrimental to assume that no other player or alliance has their own agenda. I guess once it becomes apparent that the end is near it would be best to dissolve the PACT (sooner rather than later)
 

DeletedUser4951

Guest
Thing about dissolving pacts is that once you start going down that road, it tends to get messy. Prepare for a propaganda and drama war on the externals and between alliances. That's on top of the actual war. One mistake I made on En Ithica was dissolving a pact due to the fact they broke a few terms. We started taking many of their towns and were close to rimming their founder, who was just desperately spamming fireships by then. But we didn't really announce or advertise to the world. So they did it for us via messages. It only took two weeks before the most the world was against us. Now, most leaders AREN'T that smart. But some really can twist the minds of others and change the fortunes in their favor.

One bit of advice I have, if you need a pact. Then make it with someone you have some chemistry with already. I'll really only pact people who I fought with before and displayed good skills. Or people I fought against and really pushed me hard. This means to be respectful to your enemies, well as much as possible. It does get hard as some tend to be pretty personal. But you never know when you'll want to end a front and go else where. Also, don't fall into the trap of thinking a phenomenal player is also a great alliance leader. I've seen many top players start alliances and have them flop.

All in all, avoid pacting unless you have to. If things are going well, then why stop? ;)
 

DeletedUser

Guest
The fact that I'm brand new to this game PACTs are very low on my priority list. However as I learn the game and the players I should hopefully learn to gauge a potential PACTs usefulness and time frame. So it seems like you're telling me to focus on building a strong alliance under quality leadership and support. Appreciate the insight The Smilodon Fatalis!
 

DeletedUser4951

Guest
If you're new, then you might want to train under a current leader and have them show you the ropes. I ignored this advice when I was a new leader and it took a few trial and error runs before I finally had a break out alliance a few months into my game play.

Some good names between the En and US servers would be Amirashah, Charl, Exit Strategy, Daizan, and Deathwishx13. Probably among the best available at the time.
 

DeletedUser10267

Guest
I'm with TSF on this. You should not lead an alliance in your first world. Play as a member of an alliance, so you can see how the leaders run the alliance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top