Attacking while making a truce

[billval3]

This is in reference to game #461741. Here's the discussion:

firth4eva: blue u wanna truce?
billval3: and green really has nothing to lose by waiting
billval3: green, i will take that truce
firth4eva: if you cash first i will take it
billval3: okay, what's the truce and till what round?
firth4eva: tuce until blue is eliminated
billval3: that's not really gonna work because we might have to attack each other in tryiong to eliminate blue
billval3: you attack me while we're discussing a truce?
birol: huh ?
billval3: WTF?!?
billval3: all i did was raise a perfectly valid point about your offer...we could have come to an agreement
firth4eva: well you took too long
billval3: no way, man, that's b.s.
firth4eva: what. its all a strategy isnt it
billval3: you said you were interested and then attacked me while we were discussing it

What do you think? Is it okay to attack someone while they are discussing terms with you?

To top it all off, this same player suggested a rt game at the beginning and now is refusing to come in.

[vtmarik]

I think that's bad form and it's completely dishonorable.

All you can really do is leave him negative feedback and move on.

[oVo]

If you don't have a truce... you don't have a truce.

If you had made the decision... YES I'LL TAKE THE TRUCE!
no attack should have occurred. But you didn't.

Discussing a truce is no safe haven until you have agreed to terms
or whatever and both said OK.

If you ask someone if they want a truce in chat... and they havn't agreed
you are open and vulnerable to attack at their discretion.

Discussing a truce is not a cease fire non-aggression pause, and if they attack
during negotiations it is a less than subtle way of saying no deal dude.

[Rocketry]

its not like he actually broke any rules. dont concern yourself with it. - like vtmarik said you can just leave -ve feedback.

________________________________________________________________
CCs Most Wanted serial Multi

[billval3]

If you had made the decision... YES I'LL TAKE THE TRUCE!
no attack should have occurred. But you didn't.

That's basically what happened. I said I'd take the truce and asked him to name the terms. When I pointed out that his terms wouldn't work, practically speaking, he just attacked me.

Discussing a truce is no safe haven until you have agreed to terms
or whatever and both said OK.

I would agree if he wasn't engaged in discussion with me at all, but he was. I thought we were trying to come to an agreement and then all of a sudden he was attacking me.

I understand where you're coming from. I just thought it was a little underhanded to attack while in negotiations.

[jiminski]

It's a fairly pointless and dishonourable truce in the first place.
Personally i would rather lose than enter into a truce which did not end until the other player was dead.

[billval3]

It's a fairly pointless and dishonourable truce in the first place.
Personally i would rather lose than enter into a truce which did not end until the other player was dead.

Why is that a dishonorable truce? I don't think it was a practical suggestion of terms, but I wouldn't have called it dishonorable. It just wouldn't work because we'd probably have to attack each other in order to take the other player out.

[jiminski]

you don't see it as dishonourable to gang up and kill another player ?

seems a little pointless to me.
The other player was superior to you both so decided to join foces to wipe him out. hmmm not a tactic i like to be honest.

[billval3]

you don't see it as dishonourable to gang up and kill another player ?

It's a war game not a quilting bee! I think a given player should do whatever is in his best interest to win. The exception to this rule is actions that show you are untrustworthy when making deals. If you can't keep a deal then you should be given negative feedback. This helps warn people to avoid playing with you.

[vtmarik]

you don't see it as dishonourable to gang up and kill another player ?

It doesn't diminish the dishonor of attacking someone while they're negotiating with you.

[billval3]

And by the way, there's no such thing as ganging up to kill another player in the sense that only one player can get those cards...you can't share them!

[jiminski]

It doesn't diminish the dishonor of attacking someone while they're negotiating with you.

That's true in a way but the whole original premise is dishonourable in my book.

[billval3]

That's true in a way but the whole original premise is dishonourable in my book.

Again...why?

I'm not trying to be a pain in the ass...I really want you to explain what's wrong with it.

[jiminski]

And by the way, there's no such thing as ganging up to kill another player in the sense that only one player can get those cards...you can't share them!

I am not sure about your logic there.

[jiminski]

Are you honestly asking my opinion or have you decided already?


Additional; sorry i did not see the second part of your post.

For me, if a player has outplayed me he deserves to win.

For instance, I am in a 6 man game at the moment, 3 people are left.
We are all evenly balanced and if one player begins to gain superiority the other 2 have generally held back from attacking each other so to not lose.

An unspoken truce of sorts i suppose but really just common-sense. Now if the other 2 were to announce in chat that they would not attack each other and kill me, i would probably place them both on my ignore list.

Deadlock will eventually end due to a miscalculation or a bold move, tipping the balance so that one player can defeat both.

This for me is an honourable and good way to win or lose the game. I would gladly play against or with both players in the future this being the case.

If all inferior players ganged up on superior ones how would the best player ever win?

[billval3]

The other player was superior to you both so decided to join foces to wipe him out. hmmm not a tactic i like to be honest.

Actually, that's not what happened. I think the guy making the truce with me was just suggesting that we keep the truce until the other player was out, which would of course HAVE to end the truce!

Are you honestly asking my opinion or have you decided already?

Yes and yes. I already know what I think. I'm asking you to defend what you think. You haven't really given a reason.

[jiminski]

please see my previous edited post.. i missed the second half of your earlier comment:

I'm not trying to be a pain in the ass...I really want you to explain what's wrong with it.

[billval3]

For me, if a player has outplayed me he deserves to win.

You're assuming that "outplaying" someone does not include allying with other players.

If all inferior players ganged up on superior ones how would the best player ever win?

I don't think it could ever be that simple. If you are good, you know how to sometimes work with others when necessary. Besides, it's not always in a player's best interests to gang up on a stronger player.

I am currently in a 3 player game where I took a clear, early lead. Another captain pointed out that he and my other opponent should join forces to knock me down to size a bit. This is what he said to me:

"You got too strong too quickly. . . Made yourself a target."

That's a pretty good point. I think that if you want to consistently win in this game (particularly in freestyle) you have to have really good timing. You can easily be too aggressive and end up with everyone attacking you. Or, you can be too conservative and never get anywhere.

Anyway, that's my opinion about the matter.

[jiminski]

I am currently in a 3 player game where I took a clear, early lead. Another captain pointed out that he and my other opponent should join forces to knock me down to size a bit. This is what he said to me:

"You got too strong too quickly. . . Made yourself a target."

That's a pretty good point. I think that if you want to consistently win in this game (particularly in freestyle) you have to have really good timing. You can easily be too aggressive and end up with everyone attacking you. Or, you can be too conservative and never get anywhere.

Anyway, that's my opinion about the matter

Of course you can make a target of yourself and be cut down to size; i mentioned common-sense play earlier.
This is completely different to a situation where you conspire with another player to completely wipe out another.

This is just a matter of opinion and nothing to do with set rules, it is simply the way i see the game.

[Chad22342]

All I have to say here is "Hey, that's life"

[billval3]

This is completely different to a situation where you conspire with another player to completely wipe out another.

I think we agree that it's lame to "conspire," as you put it, against another player for no good reason. I think it's a legitimate and honorable tactic, however, to work together against an opponent who threatens to win the game.

The most frequent situation in which I like to make truces is when an opponent and I are building up forces on two opposing countries and those armies could be put to better use elsewhere. In that situation, it makes sense to me to agree on a disarmament of some sort until a given round. Of course, both parties should think very carefully about who exactly is going to benefit from the whole thing.

Oh, and I also like to make those deals when the other player has already quit their turn. That way I can disarm right away and they have to wait till they're next turn. Okay, that's a little less honorable, but I don't always do it on purpose!

[jiminski]

Yes it's a war game and within the rules anything can be used as a tool in the game. (you may also like to try the ‘run the clock down’ tactic and play at the last moment to make your opponent miss their turn.. hehe i particularly hate that one!)
.

However, just because it is not against the rules does not make it good sporting behaviour. All these things go towards painting a picture of your playing persona.
Truces are acceptable to some people to lesser or greater degrees but I just do not feel that an absolute truce; lasting until an opponent is dead (in effect ganging-up) is the right way to play.

[billval3]

Yes it's a war game and within the rules anything can be used as a tool in the game. (you may also like to try the ‘run the clock down’ tactic and play at the last moment to make your opponent miss their turn.. hehe i particularly hate that one!)
.

However, just because it is not against the rules does not make it good sporting behaviour. All these things go towards painting a picture of your playing persona.
Truces are acceptable to some people to lesser or greater degrees but I just do not feel that an absolute truce; lasting until an opponent is dead (in effect ganging-up) is the right way to play.

Again, I would never agree to that truce because it would not even be practical. If the other player managed to block me off from attacking our mutual enemy he would have an easy kill because i would not be permitted to attack him.

On the other hand, I think there ARE instances when this acceptable. For example, if a given player is a total pain it makes sense to gang up on him/her. Another example might be an obvious deadbeat.

[jiminski]

But that's the truce you were about to broker.. hehe the other player was just even less honourable than you or the deal would have been done.


Correct me if i am wrong; you were about to agree to a truce lasting until the other player was dead?

[billval3]

But that's the truce you were about to broker.. hehe the other player was just even less honourable than you or the deal would have been done.


Correct me if i am wrong; you were about to agree to a truce lasting until the other player was dead?

No, those terms were suggested by the other player and i said: "that's not really gonna work because we might have to attack each other in tryiong to eliminate blue"

He had previously suggested a truce with the third player. When that guy didn't respond, I said, "green, i will take that truce" That was before any terms had been stated.

RED TEXT = UPDATED