SMG Studio

Not necessary. Keep your own notebook.

I do but there should be a noticeboard as ive encountered lots of dishonourable players who break alliances withoutinforming the ally so this would be a useless stat as often it would be the victim who breaks the alliance after being betrayed

Trojanwhite, what if you took over an allied territory just for controlling a whole continent/area?

what if your ally is only available attack?

When the purpose of the game is to be the only one left on the map, you must ultimately betray all alliances. And sometimes you must take an allies territory to move through and attack an enemy. The statistic would not be accurate.

I believe a more "useful" info would to know how many allies a player currently has...

This suggestion is good, but it would be hard to add. Lets say player 1 and player 2 are in an alliance. If player 1 attacks player 2, and player 2 breaks the alliance. Does player 2 get punished? If an alliance is broken when a player attacks an ally, another problem would occur. Let's say player 1 has a continent secured except for one territory with very few troops owned by player 2. Now if player 1 attacks that territory, he breaks the alliance, even if both players are fine with it. Now, if a system is implemented where the ally who owns the territory can "authorize" a attack, what if the player who owns the territory declines? In this case player 1, who has most of the continent is at a disadvantage and only player 2 would be at a advantage. Now, player 1 has 2 choices. Does he break the alliance or get the extra troops from the continent? In either choice, player 1 is at a disadvantage from having his turncoat percent become higher or from missing the extra troops. Situations like these is what makes the turncoat percent inaccurate or meaningless, even if a player is breaking an alliance because the alliance is only one sided.

Worst suggestion ever, this is the edge of the game. Not knowing if your allies are trustworthy or not. It's the same thing when you play with friends in the board game. Don't mess this up with rules or statistics!

We allknow eventually analliance will be broken because the aim is to win. The point is to tell your ally you are breaki g the alliance BEFORE YOU ATTACK. there are far toomany players with no honour. Ive even had one player who offered me an alliance which i accepted and then he immediately tried to wipe me out so he obviously had no intention of having an alliance at all!

What's the point of that? If I tell him before or he just see that I do the attack. Same thing. And do I tell and not attack that player, he can attack me afterwards. It's so stupid to even think this uncertainty isn't meant to be a dimension in the game. It's what makes it a war/strategic game. Don't trust anyone to much. I also often see alliances between lower ranked players against me as a master, and sure one of them wins over me, but I can always see who are the one that benefits. If the alliance between them was broken it could be an open game.

PLEASE DO NOT DO THIS! THE WHOLE POINT OF THE GAME IS BETRAYING PEOPLE, DONT MESS WITH A CLASSIC GAME.

It's impossible to keep a alliance whole game for one but also there's other ways you can betray by simply moving all your troops to their border in prep for attack and if they attack you the next turn, it would count as them being the betrayer. Would be cool but wouldn't really work

What is more annoying than breaking alliances is when there are only 3 of you left and 2 obviously have an alliance to gang up on you. I know there is nothing that can be done and it is "part of the game" but I've had this happen so many times lately. No matter how strong I am, it is very difficult to beat 2 other players that are only intent on attacking you.