Conquer Club

How do people generally interpret a border truce. After a misunderstanding I'm realising a bit more clarity is a good idea when setting up truces, but if there is no further specification, here's my opinion: if two players have one shared border (2 territories, between regions held for a bonus) then a border truce means they cannot attack between those territories. All other attacks are allowed. This includes one player busting the other's the bonus using another route. Any other thoughts?

Dougal

You interpretation is generally correct. But it helps to be precise when you make the border truce, to avoid missunderstanding.

if you have such border truce and you go break the bonus of your "ally" from somewhre else, be sure he'll break the so called border truce.
and yes, when you make a truce be as specific as you can in terms of agreements, and always give an end condition to your truce.

I agree with everything above.

Dougal McTavish wrote:How do people generally interpret a border truce.

that you are not a very good player...-Jésus noir

Haha, Owen is saying (in his nicest wording) that truces aren't a good idea, ever. I tend to agree with that. There are a handful of games where I've been involved in a truce and in all of them I broke them, because I felt it hurt the game-mechanic.

You won't hear me say it's always bad. A truce can get you the victory, for sure. I believe we've had some (later 'convicted', but still) genius strategists who came close to Conqueror, using diplomacy as their primary weapon; truces being their biggest trademark. I forgot their names, but they played the Third Crusade map (someone please fill it in).

The way I see it, is not whether it's ethical or moral or strategic or whatever. The way I see it is that a truce is just another manmade form of the thousands of forms we use to end this game in a victorious way. I'll never blame anyone for using it or breaking it, because it's their form of strategy. However, I do think truces make you lazy (about the few involved territories, when you should actually read the entire map all the time) and make you interpret the map and game-mechanic in a wrong way, because of the truce.

I haven't got the feeling I'm making my point here at all, but let's assume I did. Don't make truces, just play the game. It's difficult enough as it is! And if it isn't, you're not playing the right games

- JBlombier

I like truces. I make them ALL THE TIME, in the 8-player standard games anyway.
There are honorable people when it comes to truces. I've lost games purely because I was still bound to a truce and had to wait out as the other player got too strong too fast.
I take them very seriously and I expect other players to take them seriously as well.

You expect them to take it seriously, but what if they don't act like you expected?
I would never sit a game out and lose, because I made a truce. I guess the moral theory is that the winner deserves it, partly because he made that truce. To me, truces are merely words and nothing more. If I have to write some other words in chat (ie. break the truce) to turn the game in my favor, I will always do it. This game is about winning in the first place, honorability is an aspect of the game you made up yourself. Perhaps a nice aspect, but a non-priority-aspect at all times for me.

Waauw, I guess you should be happy we usually team up, because I'd backstab you in a standard game any time

- JBlombier

waauw wrote:I take them very seriously and I expect other players to take them seriously as well.

good luck with that... feel free to join any of my games at ANY time...-Jésus noir

waauw playing with his friends...

owenshooter wrote:

waauw wrote:I take them very seriously and I expect other players to take them seriously as well.

good luck with that... feel free to join any of my games at ANY time...-Jésus noir

You've mentioned on the forums a multitude of times that you would backstab people, I would never accept any truce with you obviously
I'm not stupid, I do check people's ratings before I make a truce.

JBlombier wrote:You expect them to take it seriously, but what if they don't act like you expected?

They will receive a 1/5 rating. Though backstabbing me isn't as simple as it seems, I usually set up some contingency plans(truce =/= blind faith). Like hiding secret stashes behind my lines in fog games, stacking borders high enough that any 1-turn drop would be insignificant enough or smashing so hard into one specific player that he'll only share a border with my truce-mate(especially good tactic on Conquer Rome). The latter is an especially nice trick as your partner will need you more than you need them and you can just wait for the right timing.

On top of that, I do get vindictive towards people who get on my bad side. Diplomacy isn't only a weapon of defense, it's also a good method to push a specific player into a corner. Players who backstab usually lose all credibility in chat, which can be advantageous.

waauw wrote:

owenshooter wrote:

waauw wrote:I take them very seriously and I expect other players to take them seriously as well.

good luck with that... feel free to join any of my games at ANY time...-Jésus noir

You've mentioned on the forums a multitude of times that you would backstab people, I would never accept any truce with you obviously
I'm not stupid, I do check people's ratings before I make a truce.

but, that wouldn't help you... there is nothing in my multitude of ratings that implies i do such...-Jésus noir

owenshooter wrote:

waauw wrote:

owenshooter wrote:

waauw wrote:I take them very seriously and I expect other players to take them seriously as well.

good luck with that... feel free to join any of my games at ANY time...-Jésus noir

You've mentioned on the forums a multitude of times that you would backstab people, I would never accept any truce with you obviously
I'm not stupid, I do check people's ratings before I make a truce.

but, that wouldn't help you... there is nothing in my multitude of ratings that implies i do such...-Jésus noir

With most people I check their ratings. You on the other hand, are a special case. Pretty much every forum regular knows what you think of truces.

waauw wrote:With most people I check their ratings. You on the other hand, are a special case. Pretty much every forum regular knows what you think of truces.

psst... and most people with any sense, also know i only play team or poly games...-Jésus noir

JBlombier wrote:
You won't hear me say it's always bad. A truce can get you the victory, for sure. I believe we've had some (later 'convicted', but still) genius strategists who came close to Conqueror, using diplomacy as their primary weapon; truces being their biggest trademark. I forgot their names, but they played the Third Crusade map (someone please fill it in).


- JBlombier

Kiron and xiangwang. I think they also used waterloo map earlier