Truce conundrum

by **cloudnine** on Sun Sep 22, 2013 8:01 am

Three players left in the game. Players A and B have a truce. Player B wipes out player C. What would you expect player B to do now? Continue on and attack player A despite the truce because there's only you two left, or stop, inform player A that the truce is over and wait for him to attack you? I chose the former, was this right or wrong?

by **rhp 1** on Sun Sep 22, 2013 11:11 am

cloudnine wrote:Three players left in the game. Players A and B have a truce. Player B wipes out player C. What would you expect player B to do now? Continue on and attack player A despite the truce because there's only you two left, or stop, inform player A that the truce is over and wait for him to attack you? I chose the former, was this right or wrong?

continue to attack, duh... point is to win the game right? can't have a truce with two opposing players...

by **cloudnine** on Sun Sep 22, 2013 11:35 am

Thank you rhp 1. However I got a severe telling off from Player A for doing just that, which is why I asked the question!

by **rhp 1** on Sun Sep 22, 2013 11:44 am

cloudnine wrote:Thank you rhp 1. However I got a severe telling off from Player A for doing just that, which is why I asked the question!

he's silly.....

really? truces in a 3 player are silly to me... table talk happens, but a formal truce? a bit noobish if you asked me..... so Player A might want to rethink his "truce making" strategy and just play the game... just my 2 cents...

by **Shannon Apple** on Sun Sep 22, 2013 12:22 pm

The only time I see a truce as being okay to do is when one player has taken over the board and the other players decide not to attack each other for 2 rounds in order to even him out. I don't think it's okay to team up and take someone else out of the game. It's poor sportsmanship imo.

by **cloudnine** on Sun Sep 22, 2013 1:35 pm

The truce had been formed when there were several players still in the game, it wasn't made when there were only 3 still in. Thank you for your replies, interesting viewpoints.

by **waltero** on Sun Sep 22, 2013 2:44 pm

Naturally, No truce exist at the point of a two player (in) game.

Just as if Player A had eliminated player C and then ended his turn. You think Player B is going to do nothing on his following turn but to simply inform A that the truce is over.

In your case:Player A should of set himself up to eliminate player C thereby getting the jump on you.
My guess is, player A thought he was being smart by allowing you to utilize all of your resources (rather than him using his) to eliminate C from the game. Thereby giving him a chance to build up his forces to Combat you (player B).

No matter if this was the case in your game or not. It is a good Strategy...but it can Backfire.
Either way, a player who finds himself in a situation like this should consider all options.
If you are player A and see the end in sight (end of player C, thereby pr-emting any truce) you might want to bring it (or not) to your Opponent's (ally) attention. Any reasonable gamer would understand...

by **OliverFA** on Sun Sep 22, 2013 2:56 pm

Can you link us to the game?

by **cloudnine** on Sun Sep 22, 2013 3:25 pm

I don't know how to link to the game, but the game number is13108692.

by **rhp 1** on Sun Sep 22, 2013 3:52 pm

comes down to this

ah f*ck em

by **BigBallinStalin** on Sun Sep 22, 2013 8:35 pm

To avoid such scenarios, add a caveat to the truce. E.g. if player X of this truce becomes too much of a threat to my existence, then I'll immediately attack (thus breaking the 1-turn attack notifications, etc.).

by **loutil** on Sun Sep 22, 2013 9:33 pm

Not quite so simple...
You made the truce 15 days earlier when there were still 6 players in the game. The fact that you never discussed an ending or terms for an ending is strange. I would argue that one of you should have brought it up before it got to the end. As you did not, it is my opinion that you violated your truce. It is also clear that it probably did not matter as you were deploying 21 to his 8 at the time it became heads up. In the future, if you make a truce, be clear on the terms as to when it ends and who gets first strike rights...

by **deathcomesrippin** on Mon Sep 23, 2013 6:31 am

At the end of the day, all a truce means is that you promise to abide by it. If you don't the only punishment you get is a low rating from your opponent and probably being added to their foe list. There is no rule in CC that says you have to abide by any truces/agreements/threats you make. Follow your morals, if you feel okay breaking it then break it.

by **rhp 1** on Mon Sep 23, 2013 5:28 pm

deathcomesrippin wrote:At the end of the day, all a truce means is that you promise to abide by it. If you don't the only punishment you get is a low rating from your opponent and probably being added to their foe list. There is no rule in CC that says you have to abide by any truces/agreements/threats you make. Follow your morals, if you feel okay breaking it then break it.

+3490879345720

by **waltero** on Mon Sep 23, 2013 5:57 pm

It is pretty clear. Truce ends once it becomes 1v1. There can be only one!

by **nàme** on Mon Sep 23, 2013 10:20 pm

Lol. What a prick.

If there is no one to attack or you win the game in the turn by attacking them, I see that there is no wrong to breaking a truce. If someone had me outnumbered 5:1 and continued the game instead of finishing me I'd be pretty annoyed. Waste of time to discuss ending a truce when there are two people.

by **rhp 1** on Tue Sep 24, 2013 2:18 pm

What's our working definition of "spurious" 'round these parts?

by **iAmCaffeine** on Tue Sep 24, 2013 2:37 pm

false and not what it appears to be, or (of reasons and judgments) based on something that has not been correctly understood and therefore false:
Some of the arguments in favour of shutting the factory are questionable and others downright spurious.