I haven't, but if you are careful it is more than possible.

Not sure how that is even possible. If you keep all your promises that would mean you can't win because who ever you were working with from the begining would only agree to 17-17 split. Therefore you would have to stab him at some point to WIN.

I've not won, but drawn, on said occasions. Its not hard, more people should try it.

It is said that you need to make two stabs to win. I've once won keeping all promises only because two allies poorly attempted to stab me and both attempts backfired. As they initiated the conflict, I kept my word.

I can't remember a game where I didn't break at least one promise, though it is important to remember that circumstances can change and what was promised may no longer be practical after a year or two.

I can see that one might win while being pedantically honest: saying things like 'I didn't agree to that alliance, I simply said commented that it sounded good' and 'I agreed to support your moves in the South, but I didn't say where or when', though this isn't really keeping promises so much as never making them in the first place.

it is possiable if u want to.

im about... i need like 3 more and ive only allied with one person, and dont plan on breaking it

BoG - You dont have to agree to a 17-17 split when you ally with someone. You can just agree to help them. The one I've won thus far I won without breaking any promises. I started as England, allied with Germany, and took France. Germany was then stabbed by its other ally, Russia, and gave me permission to enter his country to prevent Russia from gaining much at all from his stab. After that I pseudo allied with Turkey for a little, but he stabbed me, so I didnt end that (nor actually, did I attack him after I agreed to that alliance.)

I have and I really don't think it's as uncommon as this topic suggests.

BoG75, why would you offer a 17-17 split? Alliances work effectively enough when the allies are in indirect competition with each other. After destroying their original target(s), racing each other to 18 is the most logical thing to do whilst still keeping their word.

There are players here who play for points more than wins. If you work with them it may be that they'll happily agree to an endgame where you win but they come in a close 2nd place.

Absolutely. I've never stabbed anyone.

I guess its possible, but I wouldn't want to try it.

You'd need a No Press game for that to happen.

It depends on your definition of stab. Its not that uncommon a scenario for someone to win without attacking an ally on the way to winning.

I have won at face-to-face where the players I was up against simply made too many errors and let me in easily. After a point, the game often becomes purely tactical - almost mechanical.

There is also the rather common trick of agreeing to something slightly different than that which your opponent/s assume...

For example, you agree to a NAP between the army in Venice and the army in Trieste. First move, you switch the army from Rome to Venice, and then attack Trieste with that one...

Not that I ever do such things.

scoundrel!!

I prefer cad...

Lying is part of the game, and some people have to get used to that.

I simply ran over the newbies...it was more of gunboat.

coz I joined the site with face-to-face experience while most are new to the game

Yes, but we ran over you in those early face-to-face games... ;)

One of my wins was pretty damn close... The concept was that my ally and I were to be 100% for roughly 8 years (until we both were firmly in control of the game), followed by a 2 year NAP, that was followed by us fighting each other for the victory. Worked well, until one guy went into CD and my ally stabbed me... If he hadn't stabbed me, he would have finished with about 15 supply centers, I think, but with the stab he dropped down to maybe 12...

I meant 100% honest