Vespae VI - Tick 84, Cycle 3

Half cycle update and I've given CRISPR notice that we're not going to be long term allies. 

Necria on alliances
A brief commentary just now on the nature of alliances in light of this decision. My views on alliances are

a) Players are responsible for their own diplomacy and the game is fundamentally about building coalitions that benefit your aim to win the game, with players that are fun to play with. I don't fundamentally have any issue with large alliances, though I don't believe they truly exist (an alliance of 5-6 people is really likely to be two alliances that have agreed to work together, or a core alliance working with some independants who may or may not know they're on the fringes.)
b) Good allies work together to benefit each other and should be fairly selfless and acting as a coordinated team whilst allied.
c) Alliances are like relationships, they should hopefully strengthen over time but it's also possible for the relationship to break down and end. Players need to invest effort into their alliances to maintain them (via trades, ongoing communication and coordination)
d) Early game 'alliances' are more the potential for alliances. To follow the relationship analogy, saying you're going to be allies in the first cycle is really like agreeing to go on a date. You then see how you communicate, how the trades go, how well you can plan and work together. It's not really an alliance until you've built up that mutual trust and support. It may lead to a long term alliance or it may not.
e) I think I'm a good, loyal ally, but I'm also not someone who has a 'no betrayal' policy. I'd be very unlikely to turn on a mid-late game ally without a very good reason (I don't think I ever have) but it's a possibility for me and on the table.

So to be clear in my mind, I don't really have an obligation to notify CRISPR, I don't consider us really to be allies in this game. Back on Tick 0 I had every intent of possibly going in this direction but over the turns that followed it became clearer to me that an alliance with Innoble (& Vik Ia, though I consider Innoble my primary ally in this game) was more beneficial strategically because a) CRISPR didn't communicate a lot b) the geography works a bit better for an Innoble alliance c) CRISPR missed some turns and I don't want to tie my fates to someone who is going to suddenly go AWOL in Cycle 10 when we're in a 2v2 for the death with another alliance.

Strategic/Diplomatic - these two are tied together this time

• Notifying CRISPR that I'm allied with someone else, severing the alliance ties even though framed in as non-hostile a way as possible, is a strategic mistake. I think I can get away with it in my position and it's good to be above board but it should put him on alert. I am all in now on attacking CRISPR with Innoble whilst trying to maintain peaceful relations on my other borders.
• Trying to encourage another round of trades with MiniMe, I don't really mind what tech I get back all I'm trying to do here is maintain good relations and trust to keep this border peaceful. I've suggested I'm going to attack North (cypher/vik) to keep intentions unclear but give him the clear message that hey, I don't want a fight with you (yet.)
• Will reach back out to Cypher and LimitingFactor get a better feel for their intentions as haven't spoke to either for a cycle or so. Also give them a hint that I don't intend to threaten them.

Tactical -

• Both wormholes are now well fortified and with specialists would take a significant attacking force to overcome. I'm going to stop moving ships to them for now and prepare my forces instead for a southern attack on CRISPR

Northward

Eastward

• In the next update (12 ticks) I'll share a more detailed war plan for the attack on CRISPR that will happen around 24-48 ticks from now. In short though, I intend the attack to come from the south.