Conquer Club

Hey guise, i recently proposed a truce in a texan war game (dont make fun) and when the player did not respond for a whole day i decided to go ahead and attack him because the circumstances had changed and it was in my best interest to attack at that point. One player ridiculed me about proposing a truce only to immediately attack the player i wanted to truce with and i began to wonder if what i did was really poor sportsmanship. What do you think?

I believe it depends on the situation.

All assuming that the player who didn't respond did play during that period:

If they keep acting like they did, you can assume that he wasn't interested in the treaty in the first place. On the other hand, if they obviously changed their behaviour to your advantage, it may be assumed that they are in fact interested in a truce.

It also depends on what way the situation changed. If you wanted to truce because a different player was getting too strong, and that player had been attacked down by a fourth player, the reason for the truce is gone.

Concerned about hurting someones feelings? R U kidding me Play to win , period

i just dont wanna be rated badly or feel like i was displaying poor sportsmanship

If they don't say anything, it's not poor sportsmanship to attack. That's what the chat is for, communicating

I agree with dcowboys. That's why there is such thing as chat!

danfrank wrote:Concerned about hurting someones feelings? R U kidding me Play to win , period

worst advice ever. period

wercool wrote:

danfrank wrote:Concerned about hurting someones feelings? R U kidding me Play to win , period

worst advice ever. period

It's actually good advice.

Unless the truce is clearly agreed to by both parties there is no truce. In other words: Proposing a truce does not mean the truce is in effect if the other party does not respond to the proposition.

And don't worry about bad ratings. If they're too dumb to use the game chat they're likely too dumb to use the ratings system.