Conquer Club

Okay, so in this game, pink and I have made a truce with a two round warning and now I've gone and taken my turn and eliminated the remaining people so I'm assuming in the interest of fair-play, I'll give pink a chance to fortify his borders before I officially cancel the truce and start to attack him my next turn?

Thanks!

it actually could go either way. pink could decide not to attack you but could just as easily take out all your bonuses this turn

Zicdeh wrote:Okay, so in this game, pink and I have made a truce with a two round warning and now I've gone and taken my turn and eliminated the remaining people so I'm assuming in the interest of fair-play, I'll give pink a chance to fortify his borders before I officially cancel the truce and start to attack him my next turn?

Thanks!

if no one left truce is off you should just end him

So all bets are off then? Its acceptable to end the truce?

BTW the game ID is 6974997

i know i found it lol. dunno....up to you really.

I think it's obvious that you'll win the game, but I think just to be fair you should (which I think you already did) tell him that you're going to end it before actually attacking.

This is why I dislike truces in general, but it should be common sense that if you're the only 2 left, truce is off and you're going to kill each other. The goal is always to win the game and if you can cut into the other player this turn with being the only 2 left, you should probably do so.

Once it's down to 1-on-1, all truces are off.

drunkmonkey wrote:Once it's down to 1-on-1, all truces are off.

many players feel this way, but many players dont...

Also no truce is binding by the rules of CC though people will often give you cheep tactics tags if you break a truce.

If a player ever gave me bad ratings for attacking him when he was the only player left, he'd wind up on my foe list immediately. And I have a small foe list. Just saying.

Well its most certain which camp my opponent belongs to lol. He didn't take it too well but to give a lame insult like he did just made it farcical.

And now he's purposely not taking his turn in what I imagine is a show of 'protest'.

In general fairness, I probably would have deployed and forted as best I could, leaving him a message that he has this round to fort and prepare.

Of course he could always have attacked you in that round, but at least you had the chance to fort and prepare.

I don't think there's really a wrong answer, but you can't be too surprised that he felt shafted. I mean, I assume his border with you was fairly unprotected.

Someone please explain why you wouldn't attack someone 1 vs 1? This is no team victory in this situation. Only one of you can win. Why would you give your opponent the chance to setup properly? Yes, you had a truce, but again there can be only one winner so if you 2 are left, why wouldn't it be assumed you're going to kill each other?

I guess I just really don't understand that train of thought.

I mean if you want a turn to fortify, you should probably stipulate that in the truce when you make it in the first place...Then I can get behind that because you have an agreement. Otherwise, I always assume my opponent is not going to give me the benefit of the doubt and they are going to try to win the game at all times.

FlyingElf wrote:Someone please explain why you wouldn't attack someone 1 vs 1? This is no team victory in this situation. Only one of you can win. Why would you give your opponent the chance to setup properly? Yes, you had a truce, but again there can be only one winner so if you 2 are left, why wouldn't it be assumed you're going to kill each other?

I guess I just really don't understand that train of thought.

I mean if you want a turn to fortify, you should probably stipulate that in the truce when you make it in the first place...Then I can get behind that because you have an agreement. Otherwise, I always assume my opponent is not going to give me the benefit of the doubt and they are going to try to win the game at all times.

My thoughts on this, and they're just that... mine, if the truce was worked (especially if I were the one asking for the truce, but even if I accepted the terms from another player) then I would feel that in the fairness of the situation they should be allowed to prepare for the ensuing battle. The reason for this is simple, the truce was made in good faith that the two armies would coincide for the duration of the truce. If the truce does not come to fruitation then you, nor the other, have had ample time to deploy and fort reasonably against each other. I also think it would make good practice for future truces if it doesn't seem you're taking advantage of the situation. I think for me its a bit of an honor thing, you've honored the truce, and given your ally the chance to prepare themselves for facing one another.

Ultimately, I don't think it really matters, as they may turn around and blast you on that turn. In which case you may lose, but that's the way it goes sometimes.

to avoid this in the future, when making a truce always say "truce? 2 turns to break it or until we're the only 2 left/until red is dead".

saves you the problem, and it allows you to take out someone in a surprise move and then continue to walk trough your former allys land. he should've prepared for that

GSP JR wrote:

FlyingElf wrote:Someone please explain why you wouldn't attack someone 1 vs 1? This is no team victory in this situation. Only one of you can win. Why would you give your opponent the chance to setup properly? Yes, you had a truce, but again there can be only one winner so if you 2 are left, why wouldn't it be assumed you're going to kill each other?

I guess I just really don't understand that train of thought.

I mean if you want a turn to fortify, you should probably stipulate that in the truce when you make it in the first place...Then I can get behind that because you have an agreement. Otherwise, I always assume my opponent is not going to give me the benefit of the doubt and they are going to try to win the game at all times.

My thoughts on this, and they're just that... mine, if the truce was worked (especially if I were the one asking for the truce, but even if I accepted the terms from another player) then I would feel that in the fairness of the situation they should be allowed to prepare for the ensuing battle. The reason for this is simple, the truce was made in good faith that the two armies would coincide for the duration of the truce. If the truce does not come to fruitation then you, nor the other, have had ample time to deploy and fort reasonably against each other. I also think it would make good practice for future truces if it doesn't seem you're taking advantage of the situation. I think for me its a bit of an honor thing, you've honored the truce, and given your ally the chance to prepare themselves for facing one another.

Ultimately, I don't think it really matters, as they may turn around and blast you on that turn. In which case you may lose, but that's the way it goes sometimes.

Thank you for explaining. I'm still not sure that I myself can totally get behind this, but I see why others may.

FlyingElf wrote:

GSP JR wrote:

FlyingElf wrote:Someone please explain why you wouldn't attack someone 1 vs 1? This is no team victory in this situation. Only one of you can win. Why would you give your opponent the chance to setup properly? Yes, you had a truce, but again there can be only one winner so if you 2 are left, why wouldn't it be assumed you're going to kill each other?

I guess I just really don't understand that train of thought.

I mean if you want a turn to fortify, you should probably stipulate that in the truce when you make it in the first place...Then I can get behind that because you have an agreement. Otherwise, I always assume my opponent is not going to give me the benefit of the doubt and they are going to try to win the game at all times.

My thoughts on this, and they're just that... mine, if the truce was worked (especially if I were the one asking for the truce, but even if I accepted the terms from another player) then I would feel that in the fairness of the situation they should be allowed to prepare for the ensuing battle. The reason for this is simple, the truce was made in good faith that the two armies would coincide for the duration of the truce. If the truce does not come to fruitation then you, nor the other, have had ample time to deploy and fort reasonably against each other. I also think it would make good practice for future truces if it doesn't seem you're taking advantage of the situation. I think for me its a bit of an honor thing, you've honored the truce, and given your ally the chance to prepare themselves for facing one another.

Ultimately, I don't think it really matters, as they may turn around and blast you on that turn. In which case you may lose, but that's the way it goes sometimes.

Thank you for explaining. I'm still not sure that I myself can totally get behind this, but I see why others may.

I can see it both ways. That's just how I feel about it, because they likely would have defenses built if it were not for the truce. Then the situation would be different. Eh... I'd probably get attacked for going easy on them, but like I said, that's the way it goes.