2nd Truce Protocol Question

by **stealth99** on Sat Oct 12, 2013 12:59 pm

If two players have a truce; i've read that it is generally accepted that it is ok to break the truce to save the game; (i.e. a player holds map objectives). I have three specific scenarios that I'd like opinions on.

1. What is the protocol for taking an opportunity to win the game in a single turn? For example, on the city mogul map, in trench format, if I can take the objectives and if i can clear off everyone's immediate access to the Manor, the game would be clinched. I'd have to wait until my next turn to formally get the victory but it would be mathematically over.

2. On the labyrinth map I have a truce with a player who currently holds Prometheus. Is it ok for him to wipe me in a single turn if he thinks he can?

3. Re escalating set games; If i have a truce and I believe i can kill the player i am truced with and take his cards, is it ok to do so?

by **BigBallinStalin** on Sat Oct 12, 2013 2:57 pm

RE: (1) and (2), it depends. No one should expect another to maintain an agreement if doing so would lead to that person's loss. The point is to win, not stand idly by some contract while the other wins.

RE: (3), that would be a really shitty thing to do.

by **Shannon Apple** on Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:31 pm

In scenerio 3, I have found myself having to break such a truce to win the game. The player that I had a 3 round truce with was taken down to like only 5 troops. It was either me or the next player that would take his cards and go for sweep. In that case, the player knew he was screwed either way, so I didn't do a bad thing. If it's a sweep and win or the player is a major target after a failed takeout by another player, it's all good, but if you just wanna remove someone for their cards, then that's not okay. At least break off the truce first.

my 2 cents

by **loutil** on Sat Oct 12, 2013 6:42 pm

If you have a truce...you have a truce. You cannot justify breaking it just because it is convenient for you. Otherwise you are not trustworthy. In the scenario that Apple was in I would say that he was justified because the truce partners circumstances had significantly changed.
I would disagree with breaking the truce in all 3 examples you listed. I would hunt you down like a rabid dog if you ever did that to me

.

by **spiesr** on Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:05 pm

Yes, it is okay to do all those things. Expect the other player to be varying degrees of unhappy with you for it.

by **Jippd** on Sat Oct 12, 2013 8:04 pm

Breaking a truce is up to your level of "honor/integrity" whatever you want to call it.

You have to decide what is more important. Winning or your word.

by **rhp 1** on Sat Oct 12, 2013 10:14 pm

Jippd wrote:Breaking a truce is up to your level of "honor/integrity" whatever you want to call it.

You have to decide what is more important. Winning or your word.

this

by **stealth99** on Sun Oct 13, 2013 10:27 am

Guys i appreciate every one of your responses. I intentionally didn't share my own opinions because i wanted unbiased feedback.....but here it is.

If you make a truce you are trying to gain an advantage by having protection or safety from the other player. Depending on the geography concerned, it could be a huge advantage. With this advantage comes drawbacks. You could find yourself in a situation where it is now advantageous to attack the player you are truced with. I gave three examples in this thread.

I believe that you should take the bad with the good. You created this situation so NO, you should not be able to break your truce to win the game or to save the game from being lost. It should be up to the two players forming an agreement to be aware of and prepare for the limitations the truce ALSO brings.

I'd like to see it an actual site rule, making it impossible to attack a player you are truced with (through the use of software) and then not only can the truced players count on the agreement, but non-truced players could also plan around the truce.

I have always maintained that i would without any doubt be willing to lose a game before i'd break a truce to save it. Yes the object is to win the game, but i should be taking that into consideration when i agree to the truce. After that, my bed is made!

by **rhp 1** on Sun Oct 13, 2013 6:55 pm

stealth99 wrote:Guys i appreciate every one of your responses. I intentionally didn't share my own opinions because i wanted unbiased feedback.....but here it is.

If you make a truce you are trying to gain an advantage by having protection or safety from the other player. Depending on the geography concerned, it could be a huge advantage. With this advantage comes drawbacks. You could find yourself in a situation where it is now advantageous to attack the player you are truced with. I gave three examples in this thread.

I believe that you should take the bad with the good. You created this situation so NO, you should not be able to break your truce to win the game or to save the game from being lost. It should be up to the two players forming an agreement to be aware of and prepare for the limitations the truce ALSO brings.

I'd like to see it an actual site rule, making it impossible to attack a player you are truced with (through the use of software) and then not only can the truced players count on the agreement, but non-truced players could also plan around the truce.

I have always maintained that i would without any doubt be willing to lose a game before i'd break a truce to save it. Yes the object is to win the game, but i should be taking that into consideration when i agree to the truce. After that, my bed is made!

disagree with the "rule" suggestion... ridiculous idea... war is war.. honor is honor... mutually exclusive concepts...

by **Shannon Apple** on Sun Oct 13, 2013 7:30 pm

Hell no. I disagree with truces as a general rule and if I find that a player continually does it in singles games, they'll get foed. The only time it is okay to truce is when you are backed into a corner and attacking each other is now a stupid option. Time to make an agreement, but that agreement should have a definite end. For example "3 rounds" or "until player X is down to 20 regions" depending on the size of the map. It is unfair for 2 players to stay teamed until the end of the game so that one of them wins. Go play dubs if you want a teammate.

I'll echo rhp: RIDICULOUS IDEA!

by **BoganGod** on Mon Oct 14, 2013 8:13 am

Shannon Apple wrote:Hell no. I disagree with truces as a general rule and if I find that a player continually does it in singles games, they'll get foed. The only time it is okay to truce is when you are backed into a corner and attacking each other is now a stupid option. Time to make an agreement, but that agreement should have a definite end. For example "3 rounds" or "until player X is down to 20 regions" depending on the size of the map. It is unfair for 2 players to stay teamed until the end of the game so that one of them wins. Go play dubs if you want a teammate.

I'll echo rhp: RIDICULOUS IDEA!

I'm shocked, but strange as it would seem. I'm agreeing with Mr Apples. A bit more on truces, diplomacy and excess use of chat box. I avoid 3player games like the plague as you often find some mouthy twat who tries to play the other two players off against each other, making threats, promises, casting aspersions on sanity etc. Find me a player that plays the majority of their games in 3player games, and I will show you an arsehole.

by **MGSteve** on Sat Jan 25, 2014 11:51 pm

Truces and any forms of diplomacy are fine with me. They are even more a part of the game than psyops although the two go hand in hand. I'm in the game with stealth that gave rise to these forum entries, part of the other team his is currently truced with. Everyone who, in some words or other, said that keeping your agreements is more important than winning is welcome to play with me anytime. If you think it's okay to break truces, break your word, please foe me now and you'll have my thanks. I'll not only lose before I break a truce, I've often given up my advantage and even lost just to make sure someone who's acting like an ass doesn't win or just for the satisfaction of helping out someone who I feel deserves it against someone who doesn't.

The big question for me in the current game was, since the other team is gone, isn't the truce over simply by the fact that the only people left to attack are stealth's team and mine, the 2 involved in the truce. I was surprised to find that others felt that we needed to wait the one round after my mate gave notice to end the truce even though there was no one else to attack. In my experience, it's always been accepted that once it came down to the 2 truced individuals or teams, all truces were over since it was just the 2 left; no one else to attack. And this point, just like when to attack after giving notice, comes down to the formulation of the truce. It's very important to iron out all the details of the truce, no matter how simple the truce is, in order to make sure both sides know what is and what isn't acceptable. If you don't specifically say that every player including the one giving the notice must play one or more rounds after notice is given, don't expect it to be done.

Great questions, stealth. And great answers, everyone... okay, everyone who sided with integrity/honor/your word over winning no matter what.