alliance. what does it mean?

**belliger** · 09-09-2010, 14:47

hi all.
a question:
what is the meaning of being allied? does it have consequences anyhow?
i mean: i often am in war against factions that are allied with other factions.
but those last factions don't come into war against me (an alliance should mean that).
i also can become allied of those factions, despite that i am in war with their allied faction.
moreover, to be aied seems not to prevent that the faction breaks without warning the alliance and attacks the former allied.
so, what is the alliance for?

**vartan** · 09-09-2010, 16:54

You're thinking of modern alliances that have included in their agreements clauses that state something to the effect of: If you are attacked my your neighbors, I will come to your aid.

In EB, or any TW game AFAIK, if your ally is attacked, you aren't at war with the opponent automatically. You simply can't make an alliance with them, unless you break your current alliance. Also, if one of your allies attacks another of your allies, then you are given a choice of which side you'd like to take (the other side won't become your enemy, just a neutral nation). Play the first turn of the Hai to find out what it's like. Works for Pontos and Pahlava as well IIRC. Or was it Bactria?

**Maeran** · 09-09-2010, 16:58

Diplomacy doesn't mean much in any Total War game I've ever played, since the AI just can't handle it.

It does mean that when you lose a battle far from home, but near your ally's lands, your troops have somewhere to retreat to, and not just disappear. And it does mean that occasionally you can get an ally to join you on the battlefield (where they will screw up your plans, but never mind).

Those who are particularly scheming about it can use allies as cannon fodder while stealing the city they were besieging from under their noses. But who would do such a thing?

Actually, I always did find it ridiculous that when a country is allied to two countries who go to war against one another, they will ALWAYS remain allied to the aggressor. Regardless of how precarious a position this puts them in.

**vartan** · 09-09-2010, 17:07

Originally Posted by Maeran

Actually, I always did find it ridiculous that when a country is allied to two countries who go to war against one another, they will ALWAYS remain allied to the aggressor. Regardless of how precarious a position this puts them in.

Sorry if this is slightly OT (not only your last paragraph, but my proceeding reply), but can you or any historian talk about whether this happened usually in antiquity? or even in any other period of time, up until today? I never noticed this in TW.

**ARCHIPPOS** · 09-09-2010, 17:09

Alliances don't mean much.Most times when you share borders with an allied faction you WILL get attacked.There are of course some exceptions :)
Gauls won't attack you if you start as Casse. Eipiros won't attack you if you play as KH and make peace with them.Pahlava won't attack you if you play Baktria (and vice versa) etc, etc... I mean at some point they're BOUND to attack you.But not during the first 20-30 years or so... also allied nations will not actively help you when fighting a common enemy.Sometimes they may tie up some enemy troops in a far away front , othertimes your ally and your enemy will simply ignore eachother...
TRADE RIGHTS (with bordering nations) on the other hand are really important because they can jack up your economy (combined with ports etc)...

**Olaf The Great** · 09-09-2010, 23:38

It means the factions you ally with will be crippled economically and lose most of their battles because the game really hates the player.

**Maeran** · 09-11-2010, 17:18

Originally Posted by vartan

Sorry if this is slightly OT (not only your last paragraph, but my proceeding reply), but can you or any historian talk about whether this happened usually in antiquity? or even in any other period of time, up until today? I never noticed this in TW.

I wouldn't call myself a historian, it'd make actual historians shake their heads in disbelief at anything I said. I've been trying think of a time when this has happened in history. I can't think of any wars in which one country had an actual alliance with both belligerants at the start. Normally it seems that the two sides are made up of blocks of alliances that are already set against each other before war breaks out.

**vartan** · 09-11-2010, 22:46

Originally Posted by Maeran

I wouldn't call myself a historian, it'd make actual historians shake their heads in disbelief at anything I said. I've been trying think of a time when this has happened in history. I can't think of any wars in which one country had an actual alliance with both belligerants at the start. Normally it seems that the two sides are made up of blocks of alliances that are already set against each other before war breaks out.

Thanks (:

**seienchin** · 09-12-2010, 00:06

Originally Posted by Maeran

I wouldn't call myself a historian, it'd make actual historians shake their heads in disbelief at anything I said. I've been trying think of a time when this has happened in history. I can't think of any wars in which one country had an actual alliance with both belligerants at the start. Normally it seems that the two sides are made up of blocks of alliances that are already set against each other before war breaks out.

Italy in WW1 for example, or as a example for changing alliance there is nearly any country in the napoleonic wars. ^^