Truces

[kwolff]

I was involved in a six player game. When there were four players left two people made a truce for a certain number of rounds. Then a player not involved in the truce got eliminated. If the truce stood the game wouldve been over. Should the truce stay or go?



I always remeber alot of players had an unwritten rule kind of that when a game got down to three players all truces are off.


I know that when three are left if one is dominant, the other two will usually try to attack him but does a truce actually need to be announced when that situation arrives? I think not.

[juventino]

well. I agree with you. No truces with 3 players. But sometimes a player need a kick in the butt to see if he/she doesnt changes his/her tactic it will end...

[Cirus]

I'm afraid i totally disagree with both of you. As long as it's not a three player game then i think truces are ok! If it's a six player game and others get killed resulting in three left, two of those being in truce, then thats just bad luck and probably good play for the two in truce. why should just because there are three you abondon your truce if its serving your purpose to win. The question is why would you want to be in a truce when there's only three left cus at somepoint your gonna have to kick your allies but. But truces when three are left, i agree are poor stratedgy and i would never use this tactic.

And i've never been aware of this unwritten rule? this is war and as long as its within the rules then exploit every opportunity!!

[kwolff]

Basically the game was deciede because the one person that could do anything to the bigger one had a truce and decided against getting involved which led to him losing also. I have no problem with truces but like I said alot of players feel that when it hits three they are off. That helps avoid any confusion I guess.

[eye84free]

i vote no...unless the the truce started befor there were 3 people left...then the original should stand...but if the game is at 3 players then a truce is made i think that is pointless...

[cosmin]

again this topic about truces and alliances in a 3 player situation.

1. the truce/alliance is made mostly to take out the most powerfull player
2. the truce/alliance can work both ways, you could offer a truce/alliance to somebody already in that pact
3. if you are the strongest player you can 50% of the time win the game
4. look out for "backdoors" in their alliance/truce exploit their position, make them turn one on each other


THE MORAL OF THE TALE IS: sometimes its best to not be the stongest player by far

The End!

[RobinJ]

I say yes if one player is by far the strongest so that he/she will be weakened until the game evens up, but not any longer than that! However, two decent players with some common sense will know when it is time to attack the leader. However, no truces should exist just to take out a player and make it a 2 player game. That is just dirty

[Mylittlepuddykat]

Only to even scores out, not to take a player out.

[nagerous]

im more of the belief that players in the lead should never be in truces, if in a 3 player game one player is dominating then sometimes a truce between 2nd and 3rd is required otherwise the game is declared and there have been many situations where I have gone from being 2nd, allying with the guy in last to bring down the top guy and winning the game

[redtide]

Anybody should feel free to make any truce with anyone they want, any time, period. Why would it matter how many people are in the game? Every person in the game is playing to win - if you think a truce will help you do it, and you can get the other person to go along, of course you should. You have to kill everyone in the end anyway, so it's a tricky situation to make a truce work. It's just another part of the game, involving different skills.

[steelplayin]

I use to think it unfair to make truces with three players left, but then I relized alot of things that happen prior to the truce made with 3 players left was not fair either. This game is based on war. Conquer the world in any way you can(instigating between players, making truces and then stabbing in the back,(im not a fan of this, but I understand it is a "risk" you take when making a truce and then they go on my ignore list-not because I dont believe they have a right to do that, but because,like in war,you dont need to give that person a chance to do it again to you), persuading other players to see it your way and many other war tactics are all part of the game{home page states all of this}. if you dont like some of those tactics, create your own private games and state your own rules.....by the way, if you can persuade someone to use his armies against the 3rd person left in the game to gain an advantage(even though it sucks to be on the recieving end of it) more power to you. Power of persuasion is one of my favorite tactics and works even better the higher the rank

[steelplayin]

and if someone starts trying to persuade someone to attack you, you do your best to persuade him not to in any way you can-if they dont listen and he comes against you-suicide into the one that started the truce in the first place-you might end up on his or her ignore list-but he/she wont think about trucing against you again with three people left.

[tahitiwahini]

I agree (to varying degrees) with what the previous 6 posters said (from Cosmin to steelplayin). That doesn't happen to me very often, I just had to point it out.

[pancakemix]

It should probably go. It's unfair to have a truce in 3 player.

Also glad to see a fellow pittsburgher

[eye84free]

to solve the problem...say in a 3 player game make it known that there are no alliances or truce its an all for ur self game...in larger games make it known that when 3 players are let then ur on ur own ....if its not made known then ok i can see its fair game...i dont like it..i think its bs to be exact but there no rules against it...so i guess fair game in a sense...but its still cheap and i belive not a fair fight...

[RobinJ]

But, as I already said, any decent player should have the brains to know when to attack the leader without being prompted

[Guilty_Biscuit]

True - when it gets down to three players there should be no need for formal alliances.

[IronE.GLE]

Only to even scores out, not to take a player out.

Unless the third party is being a complete prick during the game. In that case, feel free to team up and eliminate the player.

[IronE.GLE]

But, as I already said, any decent player should have the brains to know when to attack the leader without being prompted

The problem is that some people just wait for you to do it so that they can become the strongest players. Other times people are just so dense that you HAVE to get them thinking straight.

[arem0719]

No truces in 3 people games, they should just be logic if 1 person dominatyes the board....

[b.k. barunt]

Truces that are unspoken show the better players. You learn to read the board and anticipate reactions. When i see the spoken truces, it is usually with the newer players. There are exceptions of course, but tacit is for the most part better, and requires more skill. A spoken truce in a three man game is chickenshit. This is not war, this is a game, and you can play it with style and skill, or you can employ any cheesy method available to win.

[tahitiwahini]

Truces are appropriate in the appropriate circumstances; whenever a dominant player is running away with the game (has more than 50% of the armies for example) it is appropriate for the weaker players to formally or tacitly ally to restore balance to the game. As long as there are three or more players in the game truces can be appropriate depending on the circumstances. This has been argued many times and I've yet to see a convincing argument of why truces are fine when there are more than three players in the game and not fine when there are only three.

[b.k. barunt]

The key word in your post is tacit. Also, you team up on the lead player to maintain the balance, not to put one man out of the game. Reason? i would think that it would be self explanatory, but here goes: 2 against one is chickenshit. But hey, maybe i'm over simplifying things.

[steelplayin]

its not chicken shit to peruade an idiot to use his armies more than you would use yours to take someone out so that you would have the best chance to win the game(this is an opinion of course,not fact B.K.) and I understand the unfairness of it when it happens to you but the home page states all of this just like in the old school board game of risk, that alliance can be made regardless of the number of players left. Its sucks when it happens to you but the object is to win even if it is not pretty or honorable-I do agree however that I would not make the truce just to get rid of another player unless it gave me a sizable advantage over the last guy remaining. Hey, the guy who is getting truced against has a mouth too,there is much he can say that would give the ones making the truce a second thought. Who has more sway with his words? I enjoy that part of the game

[b.k. barunt]

but the object is to win even if it is not pretty or honorable

If someone else had said this, i would have dismissed him as a cheesewanker and put him on my ignore list, but i know you to be an honorable player - so wtf? If i get in a fight on the street, i'll kick you in the nuts, gouge your eyes, and if you let me in close i'll bite off a piece of you (or 2). But in a game such as this, some of us - you included - believe in playing honorably. For me it makes the competition more enjoyable. If you're more concerned with attaining some penny ante rank than you are with the spirit of the game, then i guess anything goes, but you believe in abiding by the rules - so it's not anything goes is it? I would rather be a perpetual private than play a chickenshit game - how about you?