Spot Truce Breakers before they make their move

[stealth99]

I have only run into 2-3 players who play the diplomacy game as much as i do and i understand why. Easily, 1 in 2 truces end in head-aches of some kind. Despite this, I enjoy that part of the game enough that i am one of the holdouts.

1. Truce breakers often express concern that you won't comply with the terms of the truce. It stands to reason, that a devious mind will be the first to be suspicious.

2. Truce breakers frequently propose "unfair" deals. Most players including truce breakers, attempt to make fair proposals so why is it that truce breakers often fall short in this endeavor? I believe they are handicapped by selfishness and narcissism and only see things from their own point of view. One truce breaker was recently trying to sell his position that he should get everything, saying, "they give me land bonus and hold back your land bonus." He was not joking, he was dead serious and believed this to be an argument that would convince me to accept his terms........ Link Game 13115840 Link Player chompskie

This one comes with a guarantee. 3. If you make or continue truces with players you have identified as narcissistic, you are guaranteed to get burned!!

If you review your own games where you've been burned, you will likely find that they all posses one or more of these indicators. If you want to view my last encounter, which includes examples of everything mentioned here, click on this link: Game 13115840

The only thing about truce breakers that confuses me is which kind i hate worse, the ones who are in your face and tell you they just broke the truce and they couldn't really give a flying 'frig'.......or the ones who attempt to rationalize it or blame you or some kind of argument where they attempt to salvage their honor in the process. Either way, there is a special place in my Foes list for every one of them.

[BigBallinStalin]

From my experience, most truces are broken either because (1) the situation has changed so drastically that it would be utterly stupid/self-defeating to continue the truce (both parties should be cognizant of this situation) or (2) the terms weren't clarified well enough, so a misunderstanding occurs between the two well-intended players. Therefore, most truce breakers are not truce breakers in a bad enough way. From my experience, about 1% are problematic.

Your framework is counter-productive because it'll increase the chances of type II error by too much. In other words, using your framework gears one into constantly looking for that 1% which in turn leads one to start seeing a plethora of devious cunts. Best not do that.

Some would consider (1) to be despicable, but they're mistaken since that kind of breaker is usually well-intended, so one shouldn't worry about them.

[Mr Changsha]

I'll give you a 'Mr C Tip' (for this is something I actually know about rather than the many topics I just pontificate wildy upon):

The trick is not to make deals in standard no cards\flat games but rather to create a system of 'understandings'. For example, the OP might well write something like "Hey blue lets have an alliance over our borders 3 rounds notice of ending the deal".

While I would generally write "Hey blue I can't see any reason why we would want to attack each other in this position..lets keep our troop counts low on this border." (notice in this position..positions change)

I avoid words like 'alliance' or 'deal' because they inevitably lead to one breaking it, or the terms favour one (who gets to throw first?) and you will get the same result - a lightly-armed border - by merely stating that it is in neither yours or your neighbours interests to stack up or fight on a border.

Generally in a large standard game I will identify the neighbours that are not in my long-term interests to attack and write peaceful comments their way such as "No interest in Aussie yellow" very early indeed. This will lead to them not arming on my borders which allows me to push more troops on to the border I DO want to attack.

The point of alliances is to achieve what I have described above (as many small borders as possible) and this can be achieved without formal alliances.

Finally, any game I am in which two players make an explicit long-term alliance will immediately lead to me rallying the remaining players to destroy them. Generally a comment such as "Red and green are going back to back here and will pick us off one by one unless we four group together" tends to be received well and acted upon.

[betiko]

OP, you might want to clarify the terms of one of your standard truces.

[owenshooter]

is it possible to buy a copy of this manual with my conquer stars?! i am very interested in reading this and any other thoughts you have concerning Conquer Club... the black jesus has spoken..-el Jesus negro

[iAmCaffeine]

is it possible to buy a copy of this manual with my conquer stars?! i am very interested in reading this and any other thoughts you have concerning Conquer Club... the black jesus has spoken..-el Jesus negro

[ntcbadabing]

I've been in plenty of games where truces take all the competition and fun out.
I've never been in a game with no truces that was not competitive and fun.
Truces make me angry.
Truces suck.