breaking a truce

[mc05025]

Truces are to be broken. Make a truce with everyone if you can and at the wright time kill them all!!!
And of course you should brake the truce if you want to eliminate him. Truces are between alive people!
But I think that in the most cases you have no benefits by braking a truce because then your opponent want to punish you.

[fruitcake♥]

Truce dynamics are an interesting part of the game. Each person has a different temperament and personality which _should_ have an impact on truces and backstabbing.Since it is almost impossible to gauge notions like these online unless you know someone beforehand it's probably better to break truces if you or the person you are in treaty with are shaping up to be the biggest threat/s. This is probably more true for the "Everyone's even, so let's both make a pact to go to the final two" type truces as opposed to the "Let's team up on the game leader" type truces (which ideally should be non-verbal and end automatically when the threat has died down anyway).

[AquilaOne]

Truces should be used as a means of keeping the strongest player in check and virtually nothing further. Also, if you haven't set out a term for the truce or a fair-warning clause, I will attack you without hesitation and without warning. Your blunder, not mine.

[Icarus05]

I've had a player mention the 3 turn rule in the past- but it wasn't referred to as a rule, just 3 turns warning, and it wouldn't matter anyway, I was boxed in between him and stronger players. Still nearly won though, but the truce wasted a few turns completely for me and probably could have saved me the game.

I'm new to CC and haven't taken part in any diplomacy yet (just some against me), but IRL on Risk with friends I mainly make truces with my closest friend among them, as he usually has a laid back approach to the game and won't think much of it. When I really need a truce but I'm not in a position for them to give a crap what I want (no continent, no troops), I usually try to rally players against the strongest player at the time, then I can emerge through the smoke cloud when I've got cards and get back in fighting shape. Pretty sure they were catching on by the last game we played though.

Anyways, besides the example at the top of this post I've only had 1 turn warnings, most often either I end up too weak for the truce to be mutually beneficial or too strong and the entire board flips and gets tunnel vision on me. In both cases my warning is usually when they plow through my border on their turn. I don't mind either- it's the nature of the game, truces first of all are by definition not binding in the game, it's just a matter of if you can get away with breaking it (maybe not so much here with the ratings for reputation), and they're based on the conditions of the game at the beginning of the truce, a border treaty to assault another enemy, a secret plan (again, IRL) to take down a stronger player together, and so on, no matter what the truce is, once the premise has been fulfilled it's usually not mutually beneficial and the stronger player will break it.

[tkr4lf]

I'm not quite understanding why you owe players any sort of warning before breaking a truce. Did Hitler warn Stalin before he attacked him? NO! He just attacked him! If it's that way in the real world, then why shouldn't it be that way here as well?

[ustus]

I'm not quite understanding why you owe players any sort of warning before breaking a truce. Did Hitler warn Stalin before he attacked him? NO! He just attacked him! If it's that way in the real world, then why shouldn't it be that way here as well?

Interesting role model you've picked there...

My point is this, and was way back when I made my post:

It's a game. There are rules to the game that you have to follow, and there are things that you agree upon in the chat. If you say you're going to do something, do you really want to be the person who is considered to be untrustworthy enough not to do it? because if that's what you want, go for it *writes names of supporters of truce breaking down in notebook*. Now I just need to remember who you all are so I don't make truces with you, but with people who will keep them.

Making an indefinite truce is a mistake unless you're planning on breaking it. You need to know when they'll attack you next. Making a truce with terms allows you to know when it ends and allows you to decide whether you can agree to uphold that truce or not. Don't like the terms? don't agree. You never HAVE to truce. But agreeing to a truce just to get an opponent off guard? is this game so important to you that you would lie just to win? Why are you playing online then? play with friends and just discard the rules whenever you feel like so that you can win all you want. That's what my 6 year old cousin did the first time I played a board game with him. The rules were whatever he wanted. He's grown since then, and tries to win by the rules. I think truces are the same way. Don't like 'em? don't agree to them. That's why they're presented as questions and requests, not demands. If you try to demand a truce the other person can just laugh at you and take all your territory. Proposing a truce takes some forethought.

And I don't think speed games are a good example. The rounds are limited in time in that mode, so you don't want to take all of your turn up asking the next person not to attack you. With casual turns, you have a few hours before the next person goes, so it's more worth your time to post a request for a truce in chat.

[tkr4lf]

I'm not quite understanding why you owe players any sort of warning before breaking a truce. Did Hitler warn Stalin before he attacked him? NO! He just attacked him! If it's that way in the real world, then why shouldn't it be that way here as well?

Interesting role model you've picked there...

My point is this, and was way back when I made my post:

It's a game. There are rules to the game that you have to follow, and there are things that you agree upon in the chat. If you say you're going to do something, do you really want to be the person who is considered to be untrustworthy enough not to do it? because if that's what you want, go for it *writes names of supporters of truce breaking down in notebook*. Now I just need to remember who you all are so I don't make truces with you, but with people who will keep them.

Making an indefinite truce is a mistake unless you're planning on breaking it. You need to know when they'll attack you next. Making a truce with terms allows you to know when it ends and allows you to decide whether you can agree to uphold that truce or not. Don't like the terms? don't agree. You never HAVE to truce. But agreeing to a truce just to get an opponent off guard? is this game so important to you that you would lie just to win? Why are you playing online then? play with friends and just discard the rules whenever you feel like so that you can win all you want. That's what my 6 year old cousin did the first time I played a board game with him. The rules were whatever he wanted. He's grown since then, and tries to win by the rules. I think truces are the same way. Don't like 'em? don't agree to them. That's why they're presented as questions and requests, not demands. If you try to demand a truce the other person can just laugh at you and take all your territory. Proposing a truce takes some forethought.

And I don't think speed games are a good example. The rounds are limited in time in that mode, so you don't want to take all of your turn up asking the next person not to attack you. With casual turns, you have a few hours before the next person goes, so it's more worth your time to post a request for a truce in chat.

Haha, role model is the wrong word for that. Just using it as an example. But, while I said it, I don't necessarily follow that. I have a game going on right now where I made a truce with another player, and we said till round 12. I kept the truce. Round 12 came and we extended the truce to round 15. I will keep the truce. In real life, I would not think twice about breaking a truce if it benefitted me. However, as others have said, here I must worry about my reputation, so I won't be breaking truces left and right. And I do think it's the right thing to do to give your opponent at least a turns warning, as this is a game. Now, i will not be extending the truce come round 15, because the other player is becoming too powerful. The truces do make for an interesting dynamic in the games, to be sure.

[GloverParkDude]

every truce i have ever made, has at some point been broken and without warning.

[KoE_Sirius]

I'm not quite understanding why you owe players any sort of warning before breaking a truce. Did Hitler warn Stalin before he attacked him? NO! He just attacked him! If it's that way in the real world, then why shouldn't it be that way here as well?

Interesting role model you've picked there...

My point is this, and was way back when I made my post:

It's a game. There are rules to the game that you have to follow, and there are things that you agree upon in the chat. If you say you're going to do something, do you really want to be the person who is considered to be untrustworthy enough not to do it? because if that's what you want, go for it *writes names of supporters of truce breaking down in notebook*. Now I just need to remember who you all are so I don't make truces with you, but with people who will keep them.

Making an indefinite truce is a mistake unless you're planning on breaking it. You need to know when they'll attack you next. Making a truce with terms allows you to know when it ends and allows you to decide whether you can agree to uphold that truce or not. Don't like the terms? don't agree. You never HAVE to truce. But agreeing to a truce just to get an opponent off guard? is this game so important to you that you would lie just to win? Why are you playing online then? play with friends and just discard the rules whenever you feel like so that you can win all you want. That's what my 6 year old cousin did the first time I played a board game with him. The rules were whatever he wanted. He's grown since then, and tries to win by the rules. I think truces are the same way. Don't like 'em? don't agree to them. That's why they're presented as questions and requests, not demands. If you try to demand a truce the other person can just laugh at you and take all your territory. Proposing a truce takes some forethought.

And I don't think speed games are a good example. The rounds are limited in time in that mode, so you don't want to take all of your turn up asking the next person not to attack you. With casual turns, you have a few hours before the next person goes, so it's more worth your time to post a request for a truce in chat.

Haha, role model is the wrong word for that. Just using it as an example. But, while I said it, I don't necessarily follow that. I have a game going on right now where I made a truce with another player, and we said till round 12. I kept the truce. Round 12 came and we extended the truce to round 15. I will keep the truce. In real life, I would not think twice about breaking a truce if it benefitted me. However, as others have said, here I must worry about my reputation, so I won't be breaking truces left and right. And I do think it's the right thing to do to give your opponent at least a turns warning, as this is a game. Now, i will not be extending the truce come round 15, because the other player is becoming too powerful. The truces do make for an interesting dynamic in the games, to be sure.

Why even bother with this truce nonsense.Just attack your neighbour and die.Or maybe take a look around the game in any given round and attack who is the strongest player.

[tkr4lf]

I'm not quite understanding why you owe players any sort of warning before breaking a truce. Did Hitler warn Stalin before he attacked him? NO! He just attacked him! If it's that way in the real world, then why shouldn't it be that way here as well?

Interesting role model you've picked there...

My point is this, and was way back when I made my post:

It's a game. There are rules to the game that you have to follow, and there are things that you agree upon in the chat. If you say you're going to do something, do you really want to be the person who is considered to be untrustworthy enough not to do it? because if that's what you want, go for it *writes names of supporters of truce breaking down in notebook*. Now I just need to remember who you all are so I don't make truces with you, but with people who will keep them.

Making an indefinite truce is a mistake unless you're planning on breaking it. You need to know when they'll attack you next. Making a truce with terms allows you to know when it ends and allows you to decide whether you can agree to uphold that truce or not. Don't like the terms? don't agree. You never HAVE to truce. But agreeing to a truce just to get an opponent off guard? is this game so important to you that you would lie just to win? Why are you playing online then? play with friends and just discard the rules whenever you feel like so that you can win all you want. That's what my 6 year old cousin did the first time I played a board game with him. The rules were whatever he wanted. He's grown since then, and tries to win by the rules. I think truces are the same way. Don't like 'em? don't agree to them. That's why they're presented as questions and requests, not demands. If you try to demand a truce the other person can just laugh at you and take all your territory. Proposing a truce takes some forethought.

And I don't think speed games are a good example. The rounds are limited in time in that mode, so you don't want to take all of your turn up asking the next person not to attack you. With casual turns, you have a few hours before the next person goes, so it's more worth your time to post a request for a truce in chat.

Haha, role model is the wrong word for that. Just using it as an example. But, while I said it, I don't necessarily follow that. I have a game going on right now where I made a truce with another player, and we said till round 12. I kept the truce. Round 12 came and we extended the truce to round 15. I will keep the truce. In real life, I would not think twice about breaking a truce if it benefitted me. However, as others have said, here I must worry about my reputation, so I won't be breaking truces left and right. And I do think it's the right thing to do to give your opponent at least a turns warning, as this is a game. Now, i will not be extending the truce come round 15, because the other player is becoming too powerful. The truces do make for an interesting dynamic in the games, to be sure.

Why even bother with this truce nonsense.Just attack your neighbour and die.Or maybe take a look around the game in any given round and attack who is the strongest player.

Well, because it won me the game lol. The player in question and I were fighting over the two southern territories while the other two players were consolidating power and being on the verge of victory. Therefore, I suggested that we stop attacking each other and focus on the other two. We were able to swing the balance of power to our side. Now, I was smart and kept a stack on our border for when the truce expired, the other player did not do this. I managed to eliminate one of the players, and when our truce expired, I nearly eleminated my former truce-mate. In short, I won this game only because of the truce. Some games can be won using diplomacy, some cannot. So, to say that truces are worthless, and to never make them, is not a smart thing, but to rely on truces completely, and not use strategy and brute force, is not a smart thing either. I think it's a nice mix of the two that make a truly great strategist.

[KoE_Sirius]

I'm not quite understanding why you owe players any sort of warning before breaking a truce. Did Hitler warn Stalin before he attacked him? NO! He just attacked him! If it's that way in the real world, then why shouldn't it be that way here as well?

Interesting role model you've picked there...

My point is this, and was way back when I made my post:

It's a game. There are rules to the game that you have to follow, and there are things that you agree upon in the chat. If you say you're going to do something, do you really want to be the person who is considered to be untrustworthy enough not to do it? because if that's what you want, go for it *writes names of supporters of truce breaking down in notebook*. Now I just need to remember who you all are so I don't make truces with you, but with people who will keep them.

Making an indefinite truce is a mistake unless you're planning on breaking it. You need to know when they'll attack you next. Making a truce with terms allows you to know when it ends and allows you to decide whether you can agree to uphold that truce or not. Don't like the terms? don't agree. You never HAVE to truce. But agreeing to a truce just to get an opponent off guard? is this game so important to you that you would lie just to win? Why are you playing online then? play with friends and just discard the rules whenever you feel like so that you can win all you want. That's what my 6 year old cousin did the first time I played a board game with him. The rules were whatever he wanted. He's grown since then, and tries to win by the rules. I think truces are the same way. Don't like 'em? don't agree to them. That's why they're presented as questions and requests, not demands. If you try to demand a truce the other person can just laugh at you and take all your territory. Proposing a truce takes some forethought.

And I don't think speed games are a good example. The rounds are limited in time in that mode, so you don't want to take all of your turn up asking the next person not to attack you. With casual turns, you have a few hours before the next person goes, so it's more worth your time to post a request for a truce in chat.

Haha, role model is the wrong word for that. Just using it as an example. But, while I said it, I don't necessarily follow that. I have a game going on right now where I made a truce with another player, and we said till round 12. I kept the truce. Round 12 came and we extended the truce to round 15. I will keep the truce. In real life, I would not think twice about breaking a truce if it benefitted me. However, as others have said, here I must worry about my reputation, so I won't be breaking truces left and right. And I do think it's the right thing to do to give your opponent at least a turns warning, as this is a game. Now, i will not be extending the truce come round 15, because the other player is becoming too powerful. The truces do make for an interesting dynamic in the games, to be sure.

Why even bother with this truce nonsense.Just attack your neighbour and die.Or maybe take a look around the game in any given round and attack who is the strongest player.

Well, because it won me the game lol. The player in question and I were fighting over the two southern territories while the other two players were consolidating power and being on the verge of victory. Therefore, I suggested that we stop attacking each other and focus on the other two. We were able to swing the balance of power to our side. Now, I was smart and kept a stack on our border for when the truce expired, the other player did not do this. I managed to eliminate one of the players, and when our truce expired, I nearly eleminated my former truce-mate. In short, I won this game only because of the truce. Some games can be won using diplomacy, some cannot. So, to say that truces are worthless, and to never make them, is not a smart thing, but to rely on truces completely, and not use strategy and brute force, is not a smart thing either. I think it's a nice mix of the two that make a truly great strategist.

Hindsight doesn't really help.I have won 99% of my games without uttering "Truce".Yeah I agree if you was attacking each other you should say something along the lines of "stop" tho lol

[tkr4lf]

Interesting role model you've picked there...

My point is this, and was way back when I made my post:

It's a game. There are rules to the game that you have to follow, and there are things that you agree upon in the chat. If you say you're going to do something, do you really want to be the person who is considered to be untrustworthy enough not to do it? because if that's what you want, go for it *writes names of supporters of truce breaking down in notebook*. Now I just need to remember who you all are so I don't make truces with you, but with people who will keep them.

Making an indefinite truce is a mistake unless you're planning on breaking it. You need to know when they'll attack you next. Making a truce with terms allows you to know when it ends and allows you to decide whether you can agree to uphold that truce or not. Don't like the terms? don't agree. You never HAVE to truce. But agreeing to a truce just to get an opponent off guard? is this game so important to you that you would lie just to win? Why are you playing online then? play with friends and just discard the rules whenever you feel like so that you can win all you want. That's what my 6 year old cousin did the first time I played a board game with him. The rules were whatever he wanted. He's grown since then, and tries to win by the rules. I think truces are the same way. Don't like 'em? don't agree to them. That's why they're presented as questions and requests, not demands. If you try to demand a truce the other person can just laugh at you and take all your territory. Proposing a truce takes some forethought.

And I don't think speed games are a good example. The rounds are limited in time in that mode, so you don't want to take all of your turn up asking the next person not to attack you. With casual turns, you have a few hours before the next person goes, so it's more worth your time to post a request for a truce in chat.

Haha, role model is the wrong word for that. Just using it as an example. But, while I said it, I don't necessarily follow that. I have a game going on right now where I made a truce with another player, and we said till round 12. I kept the truce. Round 12 came and we extended the truce to round 15. I will keep the truce. In real life, I would not think twice about breaking a truce if it benefitted me. However, as others have said, here I must worry about my reputation, so I won't be breaking truces left and right. And I do think it's the right thing to do to give your opponent at least a turns warning, as this is a game. Now, i will not be extending the truce come round 15, because the other player is becoming too powerful. The truces do make for an interesting dynamic in the games, to be sure.

Why even bother with this truce nonsense.Just attack your neighbour and die.Or maybe take a look around the game in any given round and attack who is the strongest player.

Well, because it won me the game lol. The player in question and I were fighting over the two southern territories while the other two players were consolidating power and being on the verge of victory. Therefore, I suggested that we stop attacking each other and focus on the other two. We were able to swing the balance of power to our side. Now, I was smart and kept a stack on our border for when the truce expired, the other player did not do this. I managed to eliminate one of the players, and when our truce expired, I nearly eleminated my former truce-mate. In short, I won this game only because of the truce. Some games can be won using diplomacy, some cannot. So, to say that truces are worthless, and to never make them, is not a smart thing, but to rely on truces completely, and not use strategy and brute force, is not a smart thing either. I think it's a nice mix of the two that make a truly great strategist.

Hindsight doesn't really help.I have won 99% of my games without uttering "Truce".Yeah I agree if you was attacking each other you should say something along the lines of "stop" tho lol

Yeah, it just made sense to form an alliance at that point. And some games, it is the only way to win. I admit I do not have quite the experience that most other players on this site have, but diplomacy is an important part of this game, in my opinion.

And you are right, hindsight is 20/20. But, I am certainly glad that it worked out for me.

I just don't understand all the people saying truces are dumb, you shouldn't need a truce to win. I agree, that in some cases, you wouldn't need a truce to win. However, in others, it is all that will stop you from being taken out. I think it is kind of a case by case thing. In some intances, it is advantageous. In others, not quite so much.

[The_Samurai]

This game is about both strategy and diplomacy. There is therefore nothing wrong with setting up a truce with another player and there is certainly nothing weak in this. I have lost games which I was meant to win because of other players setting up a truce and subsequently destabilizing my position. It sucks but this is part of the game. Period. I myself will never get into a truce unless we agree on the number of turns of notice we give each other to end the truce. I then keep note of the players I can trust and those I can't.
Have fun !

[thebest712]

This game is about both strategy and diplomacy. There is therefore nothing wrong with setting up a truce with another player and there is certainly nothing weak in this. I have lost games which I was meant to win because of other players setting up a truce and subsequently destabilizing my position. It sucks but this is part of the game. Period. I myself will never get into a truce unless we agree on the number of turns of notice we give each other to end the truce. I then keep note of the players I can trust and those I can't.
Have fun !

hmmm don't think you lost others then 1vs1 player games on this account

I think that you surely can break a truce if: - you win due to it
-another player would win if you don't break it

[Onefistjel]

break it at will. A truce is good only as long as it benefits both players.

I agree with this. I personally think that cooperation with other players is often a necessary part of winning a game. If you're playing with other people who have an instinctive understanding of board dynamic, then you sometimes don't even need to say anything. Unfortunately, there are LOTS of people you might run into who have no clue. I can't tell you how many times I've been attacked by a player, simply because I happen to be nearby, even though we are about even in troops and there are stronger powers looming just around the corner. A lot of people need to hear you say that you're not going to attack them, and sometimes that's enough to keep them from attacking you back. But some will want some kind of official deal. Personally, I believe those official deals create too many problems. It's one thing to say, hey let's not attack each other for the next two rounds, but it's altogether something else to have a long-term agreement. In my opinion, when the time comes for the truce to end, then it's time. It's not bad sportsmanship to give no warning. It's part of the game. We're all trying to win. If I'm in a game, and another player and I have a truce, but I see that if I don't do something soon, he's going to become unstoppable, you think I'm going to wait two turns? That's ludicrous. I've seen people get upset when people do that to them, and I think that's just having a bad attitude. I personally don't make my truces sound official. It's more like: "hey, why don't we not attack each other here for a while." And that "while" stands for as long as it is beneficial to both of us. If I sense that the other player is going to start thinking it's not beneficial anymore, I'm going to prepare for it, possibly make a preemptive strike. If I think the other player won't see that it's not beneficial for him, then I'll keep the status quo. That's the real trick: anticipating what kind of player you're dealing with. It's easy to be wrong, and sometimes it's hard to know if you made the right choice or not.

The important thing is to be able to see the group dynamic. If the balance of powers shift in a certain way, you might need to break your truce. Usually, a good truce is when you and your neighbor are of relatively equal strength, but sometimes, it means you're taking on proportionate enemies. I was playing one a while ago, where I was the stronger of the two of us, and each of us was fighting against only one other player. The player I fought was stronger than the player he fought, and so we ended up even. I actually ended up attacking the other player, because he defeated his opponent before I could mine, and I wouldn't have been able to continue my attack and still hold off my neighbor afterward. When I attacked, it threw the rest of the game into an unpleasant quandary, and I still wonder if I would have been better off not attacking, but it seemed like it needed to be done, so I went for it. Anyway, that's just to say that it should be looked at as an "at-will" agreement. For as long as both of you want to be at peace, be at peace. It's part of the game, and anyone else who gets pissed off at you for doing it is ridiculous. Then, if you don't want to be at peace anymore, for whatever reason, then attack. That doesn't mean you need to be a jerk about things, but someone who has a problem with ending a peace agreement without warning should go home and play pinochle.

[Onefistjel]

I wanted to say a few more things about truces:

I think there's a disconnect between what people are saying in their heads, what they write on the chat, and what other players read in their heads.

I really think people take things too personally, and I think they take certain statements to mean things that aren't actually meant. When I play Risk at home with my friends, we do a lot of talking back and forth. Every once in a while two players will make a truce and decide not to fight each other in a certain place, and the other players try to talk them out of it. Among my friends I'm known for trying to convince others to do or not do certain actions in the game. I'm also known for winning, and sometimes my friends will object to something I say on the basis that they think my advice helps me win. The truth is, and I've tried to tell them this, the real time to watch out for me is when I'm not saying anything at all. I am very honest when I play. I will tell someone that we should not attack each other because there is a strong player that is going to win if we do. I'll say that we should cooperate against a common enemy. I'll try to convince them that attacking me is a bad idea - for them, and when I do... I am telling the truth (as I see it of course). Usually, then they do something I would never have done with my troops (some time after listening to my advice), and of course they blame my advice. Really, it is usually when I'm not saying anything that they need to watch out for me.

With friends it is easier to talk because they can hear my tone of voice and we can be chums. Online, there is a disconnect, and I think a lot of players need to get things straight. The chat does not deliver tone of voice, so stop reading into it. Take it at face value. Don't call someone a complainer if they object to an attack. Me: I object when I truly think it is not in the opponent's best interest. Period.

Lastly, I do not make truces with official rules and all that one-turn notice, two-turn notice nonsense. We should all do what we think is best for us to do. Hold a truce for as long as it benefits you. It's not lying or backstabbing to break the truce. We should all understand that they are TEMPORARY. Don't make promises about not attacking a person if you are not willing to keep them, but don't take someone's agreement not to attack as point of contention for the whole game. If I have an agreement with someone, but the balance of power shifts and I am probably about to win, I expect them to attack me. The best games are where you don't have to say anything, and you and your neighbor just know that there is no point in getting in a useless fight. I know I'm rambling, but my main point is this: Do what makes sense at the time. If it makes sense to keep peace, then do so. Don't count on promises or crap like that, and just take things at face value. Try to win, and then just calm down. There's no need to be rude.

[Onefistjel]

I'm not a fan of truces, but wouldn't rate poorly against it (I'm in the minority there I believe)...it is a part of the game, just a part that most players don't care for.

I say if you want to delve into truces and such why not just play doubles or triples where the truces are clear from the start and are held throughout the game with all members of the team (truce) being rewarded at the end of the game.

Well, how else are you going to eliminate a player who's grown too powerful? By attacking another player? I know that wouldn't work for me; (unless I can take their cards.)

Players who don't like truces probably have no diplomatic skills, though it is hard to put together a truce I'll admit. I find it difficult to negotiate aggrements with players on this site, because it seems the only ones they trust are their own troops. I have seen games where the players put asside their greed and came together to defeat an aggressive player; it's pretty rare, but when it happens it's a beautiful thing.

you gang up on a player by everyone else realizing that's the smart play
I completely agree with flexmaster here, there is absolutely no reason for truces, if everyone plays smart you don't need them
watch some 4 or 5 person speed game with all officers at some point, I guarantee there will not be any truces, yet the first 3 or 4 times someone pulls ahead he will be ganged up on (esc spoils is not necessarily included in this, someone could make a run and win in one turn, but my point still stands)

This is true. If you play with smart players you don't need them, but some players need some kind of convincing. A lot of players also want to stand by and let others do the dirty work, while they build. While I don't believe in "official" truces, I do think you should use the chat and cooperate.