Conquer Club

In this game (standard, 4 players), one player announces (as he should) that he and a second player have a "truce" - i am trying to get more info like what kind of truce, duration of truce, etc and so far it is not forthcoming.....it seems to me all of a sudden I am playing a doubles game when it is a standard game...looking for others' input....am I being anal-retentive or am I correct,a s of the info provided to date? Thanks!

I think that it's kind of unfair for them to come into a standard game with a predetermined truce. They really should just play doubles if they are going to havea truce like that. But they did announce it in the chat so it's not cheating but it's also not very honorable play. I'll have to keep an eye out not to play games with them unless it's a doubles game.

You moan when they dont announce
you moan when they do

I was just taking the time to actually look at the game log that really might be considered cheating because they did not announce they had a truce until like round 3 of the game. They really should have announced that they had a truce at the beginning of the game. Looks like they are just covering there butts incase someone accused them of cheating.

Spr - is that directed at someone or a general observation?

Yeah i think you have a right to be suspicious about it seeing as I believe they had a truce to start with and didnt declare till turn 3. Although I don't think you have much to worry about, even with their truce methinks your gonna flatten em.

KoolBak wrote:Spr - is that directed at someone or a general observation?

General observation

Hey king- if had that brick I'd be unstoppable!

Father Jack loves his drink and his brick and your out of luck if you want a drink or want to the brick for a walk

Well I have plenty to drink but I am indeed brickless......I must work on this dilema!!!!!!!

...
...
...
Cobra, you suck at making sense.

It seems Sprcobra has again brought a thread completly off topic. Let's get back to discussing what the OP opened the thread for.
And Sprcobra can you please keep your posts on topic?

So the thread maker brings it OT then i get told to keep it on topic
WHY DONT YOU TELL KOOLBLAK TO KEEP IT ON TOPIC?!
btw if you watch father ted it would make sense

I agree Koolbak. when my cousin and I play a game together "anglophilervk" it doesn't mean we automatically have truces. I don't think that is right and I agree, then they should play a doubles game.

it is sortof cheap, but hey, thats part of the game

Spr - you are right; my fault, but then again, what's the big deal? Thanks for all the input on the game, it is appreciated.

if you know the person in real life then a truce or alliance is more likely. However remember that someone is going toget screwed in the truce. Remember Risk can only have 1 winner in a standard game.

I'm fairly sure this does qualify as cheating. If these two came into the game with a truce odds are they know each other, or at least talked about the game before hand in PM's or whatever. Even if they announced the truce on turn one, it would still have been created outside of the chat. As I understand it the spirit of the rule intends for all diplomacy to be done inside the games in plain view of the other players. It's hardly fair to be able to go into a singles game with someone you are personally friends with, because if you make a deal with that person to insure you are the two last people left you pretty much know that truce is set in stone. The person won't betray you. If you have to use diplomacy inside the game you can't trust anyone.

player: Tucker, truce on the iceland/greenland border?
TuckerCase: Of course.
(TuckerCase invades greenland the next turn.)

And I disagree with Romber that it's somehow less wrong because someone will get screwed eventually. Someone will, yes, but the odds of them surviving until the final two are drastically and unfairly increased.